Post by thread:Protocol for PICS Start Plus

At 09:41 9/01/99 -0500, you wrote: >Is the protocol for the PICS Start Plus serial communication published anywhere? > >Howard No, it isn't. Jim >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >Howard McGinnis Electronic Visions, Inc >.....hmcginniKILLspam@spam@digital.net 1650 Barrett Drive >(407) 632-7530 Rockledge FL 32955 >FAX (407) 632-3396 http://ddi.digital.net/~hmcginni > -------------------------------------------------------- Jim Robertson Email: newfoundKILLspampipeline.com.au http://www.pipeline.com.au/users/newfound --------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Jim Robertson wrote: > At 09:41 9/01/99 -0500, you wrote: > >Is the protocol for the PICS Start Plus serial communication published > anywhere? > > > >Howard > > No, it isn't. But it will soon be cracked. I know at least one person who is working on it. I know another person has volunteered to write the Linux driver for it. My guess is that the protocol will be available in March and that the driver will be availabe around May. But - this is just my guess. If anyone else cares to work on this, then please contact me or post to the gnupic mailing list. Scott

Hi, if it will be available, please tell it. I am very interested for it. Imre On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Scott Dattalo wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Jim Robertson wrote: > > > At 09:41 9/01/99 -0500, you wrote: > > >Is the protocol for the PICS Start Plus serial communication published > > anywhere? > > > > > >Howard > > > > No, it isn't. > > But it will soon be cracked. I know at least one person who is working on > it. I know another person has volunteered to write the Linux driver for > it. My guess is that the protocol will be available in March and that the > driver will be availabe around May. But - this is just my guess. If anyone > else cares to work on this, then please contact me or post to the gnupic > mailing list. > > Scott > >

> > But it will soon be cracked. I know at least one person who is working on > > it. I know another person has volunteered to write the Linux driver for > > it. My guess is that the protocol will be available in March and that the > > driver will be availabe around May. But - this is just my guess. If anyone > > else cares to work on this, then please contact me or post to the gnupic > > mailing list. I've had a look at the comms, but haven't put in enough effort to crack it myself. If someone has, I'd be most grateful for the information. I am a bit sick of all the MLAB features when using the damn programmer, so some small app that can communicate without errors, and one that I can actually understand, would be my next move there... Now that I think about it, there is no reason why one shouldn't be able to also program a SX with a bit of tinkering for those poor souls who can't afford a SX key... I thing I can feel a lawsuit coming on... -- Friendly Regards /"\ \ / Tjaart van der Walt X ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN .....tjaartKILLspam.....wasp.co.za / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL |--------------------------------------------------| | WASP International | |R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development| |--------------------------------------------------| | Mobile : EraseMEtjaartspam_OUTTakeThisOuTsms.wasp.co.za (160 text chars) | | http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html | |Voice: +27-(0)11-622-8686 Fax: +27-(0)11-622-8973| | WGS-84 : 26¡10.52'S 28¡06.19'E | |--------------------------------------------------|

At 10:36 11/01/99 +0200, you wrote: > >Now that I think about it, there is no reason why one >shouldn't be able to also program a SX with a bit of >tinkering for those poor souls who can't afford a SX key... Now there's an idea. In fact I thought of it this morning as I handed over my credit card number in exchange for a couple of senix chips. Don't know if using this picstart plus is a good idea, sounds very cheeky to me. Don't think It can be done without tinkering as you suggested as that would be a breach of copyright. Jim {Quote hidden}>I thing I can feel a lawsuit coming on... >Friendly Regards /"\ > \ / >Tjaart van der Walt X ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN >tjaartspam_OUTwasp.co.za / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL >|--------------------------------------------------| >| WASP International | >|R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development| >|--------------------------------------------------| >| Mobile : @spam@tjaartKILLspamsms.wasp.co.za (160 text chars) | >| http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html | >|Voice: +27-(0)11-622-8686 Fax: +27-(0)11-622-8973| >| WGS-84 : 26¡10.52'S 28¡06.19'E | >|--------------------------------------------------| > -------------------------------------------------------- Jim Robertson Email: KILLspamnewfoundKILLspampipeline.com.au http://www.pipeline.com.au/users/newfound --------------------------------------------------------

Jim Robertson wrote: > > At 10:36 11/01/99 +0200, you wrote: > > > > >Now that I think about it, there is no reason why one > >shouldn't be able to also program a SX with a bit of > >tinkering for those poor souls who can't afford a SX key... > > Now there's an idea. In fact I thought of it this morning as I > handed over my credit card number in exchange for > a couple of senix chips. Money well spent ;) > Don't know if using this picstart plus is a good idea, > sounds very cheeky to me. Don't think It can be done > without tinkering as you suggested as that would be > a breach of copyright. Do you think it would violate the copyright? It would be like scribbling in a magazine - you are changing the look of the magazine, but not selling it under the original name. Hmmm. Does anyone on the list know for sure? I'm quite sure it would be illegal to write some driver to hook the SX Key into MPLAB. Coming to think about it - I have never had the Scenix IDE drop down on me, but MPLAB falls over on a daily basis. Grrrrrrrr. -- Friendly Regards /"\ \ / Tjaart van der Walt X ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN RemoveMEtjaartTakeThisOuTwasp.co.za / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL |--------------------------------------------------| | WASP International | |R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development| |--------------------------------------------------| | Mobile : spamBeGonetjaartspamBeGonesms.wasp.co.za (160 text chars) | | http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html | |Voice: +27-(0)11-622-8686 Fax: +27-(0)11-622-8973| | WGS-84 : 26¡10.52'S 28¡06.19'E | |--------------------------------------------------|

At 15:58 01/11/99 +0200, Tjaart van der Walt wrote: >I'm quite sure it would be illegal to write some >driver to hook the SX Key into MPLAB. Coming to >think about it - I have never had the Scenix IDE >drop down on me, but MPLAB falls over on a daily >basis. Grrrrrrrr. really? why would it be a violation of copyright (or any other law) to write and sell an addition or enhancement to any program (or hardware device)? is it then a violation of copyright if a program uses undocumented features of a commercial operating system (i believe this is common in the windows world, and it seems to me to be a variation of the case in question)? ge

At 11:11 AM 1/11/99 -0800, you wrote: >At 15:58 01/11/99 +0200, Tjaart van der Walt wrote: >>I'm quite sure it would be illegal to write some >>driver to hook the SX Key into MPLAB. Coming to >>think about it - I have never had the Scenix IDE >>drop down on me, but MPLAB falls over on a daily >>basis. Grrrrrrrr. > >really? why would it be a violation of copyright (or any other law) to >write and sell an addition or enhancement to any program (or hardware >device)? is it then a violation of copyright if a program uses undocumented >features of a commercial operating system (i believe this is common in the >windows world, and it seems to me to be a variation of the case in question)? The patent system is based upon this principle. However, note that if you are not careful you could end up owing a royalty for inadvertently using patented / copyrighted portions. Check to see what's copyrighted and patented in the system you clone. If it's just the schematic, you are pretty much home free. If they keep it a trade secret, they lose, not you! Andy ================================================================== Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA ==================================================================

At 11:11 AM 1/11/99 -0800, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: >At 15:58 01/11/99 +0200, Tjaart van der Walt wrote: >>I'm quite sure it would be illegal to write some >>driver to hook the SX Key into MPLAB. I can't imagine why. As long as YOU don't distribute copies of MPLAB. If a person has a copy from uChip, then they are free to do anything with it that isn't specifically forbidden in the agreement between themselves and Microchip. We had a case where our competition used our downloading software to load their products. They reverse engineered our protocol, and they had their customers buy our loader. Our reaction was "Why didn't you ask, we would have told you the protocol!". We had no problem with it whatsoever.

At 17:08 01/11/99 -0500, Andy Kunz wrote: >At 11:11 AM 1/11/99 -0800, you wrote: >>At 15:58 01/11/99 +0200, Tjaart van der Walt wrote: >>>I'm quite sure it would be illegal to write some >>>driver to hook the SX Key into MPLAB. Coming to >>>think about it - I have never had the Scenix IDE >>>drop down on me, but MPLAB falls over on a daily >>>basis. Grrrrrrrr. >> >>really? why would it be a violation of copyright (or any other law) to >>write and sell an addition or enhancement to any program (or hardware >>device)? is it then a violation of copyright if a program uses undocumented >>features of a commercial operating system (i believe this is common in the >>windows world, and it seems to me to be a variation of the case in question)? > >The patent system is based upon this principle. sorry, i don't understand upon which principle and how this relates to the question. >However, note that if you >are not careful you could end up owing a royalty for inadvertently using >patented / copyrighted portions. how can an unpublished protocol (i guess that's been the original issue here) be copyrighted or patented? >Check to see what's copyrighted and patented in the system you clone. as far as i understood, it was not about cloning, it was about adding, like adding a scenix driver to mplab or adding a dos- or unix-interface to drive the picstart+. in neither case there seems to be anything published about the respective interfaces, so i don't understand how the interface could be copyrighted. ge

Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > > >However, note that if you > >are not careful you could end up owing a royalty for inadvertently using > >patented / copyrighted portions. > > how can an unpublished protocol (i guess that's been the original issue > here) be copyrighted or patented? I think there could be a copyright on the protocol, so you can't go out and build programmers using it. You might have to pay some royalty. Case in point : I2C. Philips exempted the master algorithms, but not the slave algorithms. > >Check to see what's copyrighted and patented in the system you clone. > > as far as i understood, it was not about cloning, it was about adding, like > adding a scenix driver to mplab or adding a dos- or unix-interface to drive > the picstart+. in neither case there seems to be anything published about > the respective interfaces, so i don't understand how the interface could be > copyrighted. Is there someone with a lawyer friend (contradiction in terms?) who can find out how the US law feels about this? Personally, the interest in this is academic for me (I have a SX Key), but I would like to see more people gain access to Scenix without the initial cost of the tools. It would also be nice to have less things clutter your bench, now wouldn't it? -- Friendly Regards /"\ \ / Tjaart van der Walt X ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN TakeThisOuTtjaartEraseMEspam_OUTwasp.co.za / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL |--------------------------------------------------| | WASP International | |R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development| |--------------------------------------------------| | Mobile : RemoveMEtjaartTakeThisOuTsms.wasp.co.za (160 text chars) | | http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html | |Voice: +27-(0)11-622-8686 Fax: +27-(0)11-622-8973| | WGS-84 : 26¡10.52'S 28¡06.19'E | |--------------------------------------------------|

>>>really? why would it be a violation of copyright (or any other law) to >>>write and sell an addition or enhancement to any program (or hardware >>>device)? is it then a violation of copyright if a program uses undocumented >>>features of a commercial operating system (i believe this is common in the >>>windows world, and it seems to me to be a variation of the case in question)? >> >>The patent system is based upon this principle. > >sorry, i don't understand upon which principle and how this relates to the >question. A patent requires "new" technology in order to be valid. New means 10% original. How to define 10% is the sticky part. But if you develop a patentable update to something, you still can't sell it without the original guy's permission, unless you are selling an "upgrade kit." >>However, note that if you >>are not careful you could end up owing a royalty for inadvertently using >>patented / copyrighted portions. > >how can an unpublished protocol (i guess that's been the original issue >here) be copyrighted or patented? That's where "trade secret" comes into play. If you don't disclose something, it can be considered "trade secret." People are free to reverse engineer that, even if it _could_ be patented but wasn't. Companies must choose between trade secret protection or patent/copyright protection for their products. >the picstart+. in neither case there seems to be anything published about >the respective interfaces, so i don't understand how the interface could be >copyrighted. Not published doesn't mean something isn't copyrighted. A language spoken between two devices is considered patentable, but usually not copyrighted. The author of a work is automatically granted a copyright for his work (for the source code, or which the object is a "derivative work," not for how it speaks to a device). So the interface, or language, is not copyrighted but _could_ be patented. If not patented, the company can consider it trade secret. Then so long as you reverse engineer it (ie, not steal the company's internal documentation) you are free to sell your product without recourse from the originator. And all of this only matters if there is sufficient financial reason for the original company to feel threatened by your actions, or if you happen to have morals/ethics about it. Andy Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer. \-----------------/ \ /---\ / \ | | / Andy Kunz \ /---\ / Montana Design /---------+ +---------\ http://www.montanadesign.com | / |----|___|----| \ | \/___| * |___\/ Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!

At 06:46 01/12/99 +0200, Tjaart van der Walt wrote: >Gerhard Fiedler wrote: >> >> >However, note that if you >> >are not careful you could end up owing a royalty for inadvertently using >> >patented / copyrighted portions. >> >> how can an unpublished protocol (i guess that's been the original issue >> here) be copyrighted or patented? > >I think there could be a copyright on the protocol, so you can't go >out and build programmers using it. You might have to pay some >royalty. Case in point : I2C. Philips exempted the master algorithms, >but not the slave algorithms. agreeing with you that at this point a lawyer or somebody with legal experience is needed for an answer, i just wanted to add that i thought of that example, but there is one crucial difference: the i2c protocol is published. i'm not sure whether you can copyright unpublished material at all. and that's why this question is interesting, because this has quite a broad scope. ge

At 09:00 01/12/99 -0500, Andy Kunz wrote: >That's where "trade secret" comes into play. If you don't disclose >something, it can be considered "trade secret." People are free to reverse >engineer that, even if it _could_ be patented but wasn't. as far as i understand it, copyright is automatic if it applies, but patent not. so the fact that something could be patented has no legal implications (other than that it could be patented). or am i wrong here? {Quote hidden}>>the picstart+. in neither case there seems to be anything published about >>the respective interfaces, so i don't understand how the interface could be >>copyrighted. > >Not published doesn't mean something isn't copyrighted. A language spoken >between two devices is considered patentable, but usually not copyrighted. > >The author of a work is automatically granted a copyright for his work (for >the source code, or which the object is a "derivative work," not for how it >speaks to a device). So the interface, or language, is not copyrighted but >_could_ be patented. If not patented, the company can consider it trade >secret. Then so long as you reverse engineer it (ie, not steal the >company's internal documentation) you are free to sell your product without >recourse from the originator. so back to the original question about problems with using the (obviously neither patented nor otherwise published) protocol between the picstart+ and the driver software: when i apply your reasoning, it seems that there is no reason to expect legal troubles writing a driver software which uses the protocol to speak to the programmer, and neither a problem with writing a driver for using the picstart+ to program whatever other chip it was not originally designed for: because the protocol may or not be patentable, but in any case isn't patented, and copyright would be on the original code (both driver software and firmware), but not on the protocol itself. ge

>so back to the original question about problems with using the (obviously >neither patented nor otherwise published) protocol between the picstart+ >and the driver software: when i apply your reasoning, it seems that there >is no reason to expect legal troubles writing a driver software which uses >the protocol to speak to the programmer, and neither a problem with writing >a driver for using the picstart+ to program whatever other chip it was not >originally designed for: because the protocol may or not be patentable, but >in any case isn't patented, and copyright would be on the original code >(both driver software and firmware), but not on the protocol itself. correct. Just don't disassemble code in order to figure out how it works. Observe the communications and work from tehre, just to be sure. This is called "Clean Room" development. Andy \-----------------/ \ /---\ / \ | | / Andy Kunz \ /---\ / Montana Design /---------+ +---------\ http://www.montanadesign.com | / |----|___|----| \ | \/___| * |___\/ Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!

I would have thought, no doubt naively, that if you purchased the proprietary system (eg PICSTART Plus) OR/AND if you had rights to the software (eg MPLAB) then you would be entitled to use them as you saw fit as long as you did not decompile, reverse engineer etc. Please tell me why I'm wrong. Russell McMahon Subject: Re: Protocol for PICS Start Plus >At 17:08 01/11/99 -0500, Andy Kunz wrote: >>At 11:11 AM 1/11/99 -0800, you wrote: >>>At 15:58 01/11/99 +0200, Tjaart van der Walt wrote: >>>>I'm quite sure it would be illegal to write some >>>>driver to hook the SX Key into MPLAB. Coming to >>>>think about it - I have never had the Scenix IDE >>>>drop down on me, but MPLAB falls over on a daily >>>>basis. Grrrrrrrr. >>> >>>really? why would it be a violation of copyright (or any other law) to >>>write and sell an addition or enhancement to any program (or hardware >>>device)? is it then a violation of copyright if a program uses undocumented >>>features of a commercial operating system (i believe this is common in the >>>windows world, and it seems to me to be a variation of the case in question)? >> >>The patent system is based upon this principle. > >sorry, i don't understand upon which principle and how this relates to the >question. > >>However, note that if you >>are not careful you could end up owing a royalty for inadvertently using >>patented / copyrighted portions. > >how can an unpublished protocol (i guess that's been the original issue >here) be copyrighted or patented? > >>Check to see what's copyrighted and patented in the system you clone. > >as far as i understood, it was not about cloning, it was about adding, like >adding a scenix driver to mplab or adding a dos- or unix-interface to drive >the picstart+. in neither case there seems to be anything published about >the respective interfaces, so i don't understand how the interface could be >copyrighted. > >ge >

Russell McMahon wrote: > > I would have thought, no doubt naively, that if you purchased the > proprietary system (eg PICSTART Plus) OR/AND if you had rights to the > software (eg MPLAB) then you would be entitled to use them as you saw > fit as long as you did not decompile, reverse engineer etc. > > Please tell me why I'm wrong. I don't think you are. I had a look in all the 'about' boxes in MPLAB, and I couldn't see anything about license issues, only copyright notices. However, buying (or getting for free in this case) does not give one 'rights' to software - only the right to use it. One thing is for certain - Mchip will shake, rattle and roll when someone releases a PICstart+ driver for SX chips. I don't have the cash to play legal games (remember how Mchip tried to out-sue Scenix?) with Mchip. I'll just sit in this corner over here, and watch things with a grin. I lied - another thing is for certain - someone will write such a driver (even if it is just for the fun of it). -- Friendly Regards /"\ \ / Tjaart van der Walt X ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN tjaartEraseME.....wasp.co.za / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL |--------------------------------------------------| | WASP International | |R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development| |--------------------------------------------------| | Mobile : EraseMEtjaartsms.wasp.co.za (160 text chars) | | http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html | |Voice: +27-(0)11-622-8686 Fax: +27-(0)11-622-8973| | WGS-84 : 26¡10.52'S 28¡06.19'E | |--------------------------------------------------|

> Van: Jim Robertson <RemoveMEnewfoundEraseMEEraseMEPIPELINE.COM.AU> > Aan: RemoveMEPICLISTspam_OUTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU Hello Jim, > Onderwerp: Re: Protocol for PICS Start Plus > Datum: maandag 11 januari 1999 14:26 > > At 10:36 11/01/99 +0200, you wrote: <Snip> > Don't know if using this picstart plus is a good idea, > sounds very cheeky to me. Don't think It can be done > without tinkering as you suggested as that would be > a breach of copyright. As long as you do it to stuff you own you can do allmost anything with it you like (here in the Netherlands) as long as you keep owning it (don't sell / give away). AFAIK it's not illegal to propose certain changes to existing software. Even if you reverse-engeneered the code you made the patch for ... Greetz, Rudy Wieser

Tjaart van der Walt wrote: > > Russell McMahon wrote: > > > > I would have thought, no doubt naively, that if you purchased the > > proprietary system (eg PICSTART Plus) OR/AND if you had rights to the > > software (eg MPLAB) then you would be entitled to use them as you saw > > fit as long as you did not decompile, reverse engineer etc. > > > > Please tell me why I'm wrong. > > I don't think you are. I had a look in all the 'about' > boxes in MPLAB, and I couldn't see anything about license > issues, only copyright notices. I contacted Microchip a while back about this issue. This is what I was told: 1) The Picstart+ protocol can not be released mainly because of 'legal reasons'. I don't know what those legal reasons are, but I presume that refer to some contract with the developer of Picstart+. A secondary reason is that Microchip doesn't want to just 'give away' its tools to the competition. 2) As long as I don't use Microchip's name without permission and make it clear that people that use my hacks are doing so at their own risk THEN there 'probably' is not much Microchip can legally do. ('probably' was the word they used.) > One thing is for certain - Mchip will shake, rattle and > roll when someone releases a PICstart+ driver for SX chips. > I don't have the cash to play legal games (remember how > Mchip tried to out-sue Scenix?) with Mchip. I'll just sit > in this corner over here, and watch things with a grin. I really don't think Microchip cares one way or another. This is really small potatoes compared to the grand scheme of things. In my opinion, Microchip stands to benefit when the Picstart protocol has been reverse engineered. Because this means that everyone will be able to use the Picstart+ programmer under their OS of choice. > I lied - another thing is for certain - someone will write > such a driver (even if it is just for the fun of it). Perhaps. But this would require tinkering with the Picstart programmer and not just the protocol. Scott

> Van: Russell McMahon <RemoveMEapptechTakeThisOuTspamCLEAR.NET.NZ> > Aan: EraseMEPICLISTspamspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU > Onderwerp: Re: Protocol for PICS Start Plus > Datum: dinsdag 12 januari 1999 4:12 > > I would have thought, no doubt naively, that if you purchased the > proprietary system (eg PICSTART Plus) OR/AND if you had rights to the > software (eg MPLAB) then you would be entitled to use them as you saw > fit as long as you did not decompile, reverse engineer etc. In these day's you don't _buy_ software. You are buying a licence to _use_ the software. The software itself is still owned by whomever created it. Using non-descibed features of a software package _could_ be seen as a infringement on the licence you purchased ... Greetz, Rudy Wieser

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:16:14 -0800, you wrote: {Quote hidden}>Tjaart van der Walt wrote: >> >> Russell McMahon wrote: >> > >> > I would have thought, no doubt naively, that if you purchased the >> > proprietary system (eg PICSTART Plus) OR/AND if you had rights to the >> > software (eg MPLAB) then you would be entitled to use them as you saw >> > fit as long as you did not decompile, reverse engineer etc. >> > >> > Please tell me why I'm wrong. >> >> I don't think you are. I had a look in all the 'about' >> boxes in MPLAB, and I couldn't see anything about license >> issues, only copyright notices. > >I contacted Microchip a while back about this issue. This is what I was >told: > >1) The Picstart+ protocol can not be released mainly because of 'legal >reasons'. I don't know what those legal reasons are, but I presume that >refer to some contract with the developer of Picstart+. A secondary >reason is that Microchip doesn't want to just 'give away' its tools to >the competition. > > >2) As long as I don't use Microchip's name without permission and make >it clear that people that use my hacks are doing so at their own risk >THEN there 'probably' is not much Microchip can legally do. ('probably' >was the word they used.) > > > >> One thing is for certain - Mchip will shake, rattle and >> roll when someone releases a PICstart+ driver for SX chips. >> I don't have the cash to play legal games (remember how >> Mchip tried to out-sue Scenix?) with Mchip. I'll just sit >> in this corner over here, and watch things with a grin. > >I really don't think Microchip cares one way or another. This is really >small potatoes compared to the grand scheme of things. In my opinion, >Microchip stands to benefit when the Picstart protocol has been reverse >engineered. Because this means that everyone will be able to use the >Picstart+ programmer under their OS of choice. > >> I lied - another thing is for certain - someone will write >> such a driver (even if it is just for the fun of it). > >Perhaps. But this would require tinkering with the Picstart programmer >and not just the protocol. Remember that the object code in Picstart is available for 'investigation' as they distributed as an update for users of early firmware - I think it's in several MPLAB distributions.