Orange Fasst - Yet again

[Erfolg]

I could not disagree more strongly with your view.

 

The cost of the equipment does and would not be a factor, it is irrelevant.

 

The question could be be what was the basis of satisfying the statutory requirements. The answer has to address that issue. Saying that something cost "x" zillion pounds, could only undermine your credibility, in that you clearly do not understand the statuary requirements and how you system satisfied those requirements.

 

I also would not rely to much on manufacturers support. Most, if not all manufacturers will distance themselves from their products, if they are used in a manner that is non compliant with statutory requirements.

 

A typical situation where you could find yourself on your own, is if a product sold for indoor/park models were to be used in a situation where it is reasonable to expect a full range Rx, another would be where diversity of equipment were deemed a requirement and the system was absent etc.

 

It is not the price of the equipment that would be questioned, but the performance of any equipment (that includes Tx, servos, power supply etc.) respective to requirements.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

But the point I'm trying to make is not that of actual performance but on how I can "reasonably satisfy myself" that my equipment is made to an acceptable standard and performs within acceptable standards.

 

Buying cheap equipment is an area which could come under minute scrutinisation and affect, in an extreme case, the future liberty and career of the operator.

 

The law (in the case of >7kg models) requires a pilot to take reasonable steps to ensure the suitability of equipment and if I were a judge or jury member being presented with the fact that someone had chosen to use a very cheap piece of safety critical equipment on the basis that it was OK because he "didn't know of one that had failed" it would be difficult to reconcile with the statuatory duty of care.

 

I am personally satisfied that the Futaba Corporation is an organisation of good repute and one which tests and inspects equipment to a high standard and confident that I could find an acceptable authority who would back this viewpoint. Whether I could do the same with any of the clone equipment is open to debate.

Edited By Martin Harris on 19/09/2011 15:37:11

[Erfolg]

Your defense is that as with all parts of your system, and that includes everything used to control the model including the model is, as BEB has highlighted in the past, it is CE compliant. BEB has waxed lyrical on this, so no benefit is derived from regurgitating the argument/discussion. You will need to show that you used the equipment as per its intended use. The Rx is no different to any other component making up the airframe and control system.

 

I suspect that you are more at risk with the airframe and demonstrating compliance, than with the Rx, or any other part of the RC system. For many, the other issue is demonstrating that the model was being operated from a location and in a way that satisfies the regulations.

 

The trouble is you are looking for reasons to prevent the use of something you do not approve of, rather than there being a real issue.

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

I don't want to get into the "is the price relevant to quality" debate although I would just comment that I think it was Warren Buffet who said "Price is what you pay....value is what you get". I think its up to each individual to work out what that "value" represents. Peace of mind is hard to price but very valuable......

 

Might also be worth noting that the Big Fish is listing a Corona FASST compatable Rx here

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

You talk of "the real issue" Erfolg. Well for me the real issue is one of likely intellectual property theft and buyers aiding and abeiting that act.

 

If responsible companies, that honour international agreements, are to develop new systems they must be allowed to recoup considerable design, development and testing costs. Those companies that engage in this progress are those that have brought us to where we are. If they are not able to defend their IPR why should they continue to do so?

 

I have some sympathy with Martin's position. I very much doubt that the manufacturers of these clones could ever be "run to earth" in the event of a problem. It is my view that they are breaking international law on the protection of intellectual property and what is more their government conspiries in letting them do so. But other governments are too afraid to say so.

 

Consider the situation of buying fake goods from a market trader. If investigated you might claim that you didn't know that they were fake. But a prosecutor would claim that given that they cost a fraction of what they normally would, you could reasonably have been expected to realise the fact. Now if that item was safety critical - and could have been the cause of someone being injuried - how much more vigourously would a prosecutor pursue such a line of reasoning? Its short step from there to questioning wether you have "taken every reasonable step to ensure that the flight can be carried out safely". In my view, at least, you haven't - becuase you are knowing using "hooky" gear!

 

Just my personal opinion you understand - and why I don't use cloned gear.

 

BEB

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

Do you use SC/ASP engines BEB ? I wonder what OS might think about that??

 

To describe Orange/Corona Rxs as "hooky" gear is stretching it a bit isn't it?? But as I say I don't really want to enter this debate........

[Erfolg]

BEB

 

I can see you are passionate on this.

 

Yet I feel that no manufacturer should be permitted to prevent after market sales.

 

The Orange Rx, failsafe is unique to Orange as is the binding sequence, This suggest that the code is not copied.

 

I would bet that all original RC manufacturers code is a composite of programming phrases used by others prior to them. A simple a s "while do", "if then" and much much more. In essence coding is composed of others prior arguments, very little, if anything new.

 

I despair that patternt and copyright can be obtained on the use of a clear waste bin on a vacuum cleaner, or an electronic device, because it is thin and has rounded corners, These are trivial, the very thing which is supposed to prevent obtaining IP. Even the idea that jeans sold in one market, cannot be sold in another as it it is breach of the IP of the Jeans manufacturer.

 

Manufacturers get plenty of protection, what about us consumers, from IP abuse by those with big wallets.

 

See I can also be passionate

[Mike L]

As the OP, I take exception the statement I am using "hooky gear" and I request an immediate retraction.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Steve Hargreaves on 19/09/2011 16:40:47:

Do you use SC/ASP engines BEB ? I wonder what OS might think about that??

 

To describe Orange/Corona Rxs as "hooky" gear is stretching it a bit isn't it?? But as I say I don't really want to enter this debate........

 

 

Actually Steve as a matter of fact I don't! I use OS and Saito exclusively.

 

Yes - of course I agree "hooky" is maybe stretching a point. But is this really so different from purchasing a copy DVD or download a copied music file? I know that they are copyright - but in principle I see no difference. And bear in mind, downloading copied music files, or software, is illegal! Some universities in the UK (not mine!) were recently prosecuted for having "hooky" copies of software on their systems! Is this really so very different?

 

BEB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Mike L on 19/09/2011 18:10:02:

As the OP, I take exception the statement I am using "hooky gear" and I request an immediate retraction.

 

 

MIke I apologise totally if I have offended you that was not my intention. It was intention to draw people's attention to what I see as the real issue here.

 

Unless the company which make these receivers have licencing agreement from Futaba (and if so I totally retract everything I have said and would be happy to do so) then in my view, and I would submit in any reasonable view, they have committed intellectual property theft. Now you are in receipt of the product of that act - so how would you describe it?

 

BEB

[Mike L]

BEB - Firstly, thanks for your statement. Secondly without having lawyers crawl all over whatever patents etc exist, we are merely the end users, who are now being given a choice. Thirdly, and most importantly, which is why I started this thread, are these products safe to use.

 

As has been said before if there is a property theft issue, Futaba are big enough to look after themselves and I don't see them jumping about. I bought my Orange Rx from Hobbyking who are a reputable outfit. We can then talk about healthy competition. You are confident about the "theft" , equally I am confident that Futaba charge OTT. As also stated the Orange Rx has far superior failsafe than Futaba.

 

If I go to the souk in Jeddah and buy the latest PS3 game for a quid I know exactly what I am getting. I dont think that this is the same case by any stretch of the imagination.

 

The fact of the matter is that if someone wants to challenge Futaba (you assume illegally, I do not agree) then bring it on, we all face competition in life.

 

If someone can prove to me that this is intellectual property theft or that the units are not fit for purpose I will be the first to bin them all.

 

 

 

[Allan Bennett]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 19/09/2011 18:57:12:

 

... Unless the company which make these receivers have licencing agreement from Futaba (and if so I totally retract everything I have said and would be happy to do so) then in my view, and I would submit in any reasonable view, they have committed intellectual property theft. Now you are in receipt of the product of that act - so how would you describe it?

 

BEB

 

I'm curious -- just because a receiver is capable of receiving, and acting upon, signals from a certain type or brand of transmitter, why does that mean they're guilty of IP theft? Nobody accuses Sanwa, Corona, or whoever, when their receivers are used to pick up and decode the signals from a Futaba transmitter on 35MHz. So why is 2.4GHz different?

 

I could understand the argument if they were making transmitters which used the patented (if it is patented) technology.

 

[GrahamC]

Hmm...

I have a AR6200 from Spektrum - and I have had what I think was a major glitch with it.... A couple of AR500 which have never shown any sign of any problems at all and three of four Orange receivers which also have never misbehaved at all.

I think its decidedly problematic to suggest that its tantamount to intellectual property theft to design a piece of equipment capable of decoding a proprietary signal.

I think perhaps the best analogy here is when AMD designed a pc processor. It was designed in a 'closed room' so that there could never be any suggestion that they had reverse engineered an Intel product. (Perhaps those who disapprove of Orange should check what processor they used to type their comments!

Perhaps that's what Orange did, and that would explain why there appears to be no news of pending legal action.

Competition in the market place tends to drive down prices and drive up quality, and I'm not so sure that its good for the hobby in the long run to have a situation where manufacturers can lure customers into their own proprietary systems and then decide what to charge for future receiver purchases.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

It is a thorny subject and one which I take an academic interest in, being a Jeti 2.4 user.

 

Whether I would take BEB's moral stand is something that I couldn't honestly claim if I were equipping a foamy or lightweight model but if we accept that the "alternative" manufacturers have developed their own coding then how much development and in-depth testing have they done?

 

I don't know and I doubt that any other user does. And that's why I would be wary of using one in a high value or high risk model.

 

Personally, I feel that a manufacturer releasing a new system might do well to licence the technology to other interested companies and concentrate on the "perceived" high end, (high profit maybe) end of the market whilst popularising their system. Although I've always been a "Futaba man" it's probable that a future replacement for my FF10 would be a Jeti transmitter as RF modules are now a thing of the past - no doubt to force users to stay with the host system.

 

My decision to go Jeti was based on reputation and, I'll freely admit, better perceived value and features.

[Erfolg]

If the suggestion is that picking up a signal and decoding it is IP theft, I am totally baffled. It would be taking IP to a whole new level.

[Spice Cat]

Posted by Steve Hargreaves on 19/09/2011 16:40:47:

Do you use SC/ASP engines BEB ? I wonder what OS might think about that??

 

 

I remember back in the seventies that my then boss said the difference between a Daimler and a Jaguar was the badge on the front.

The way I see it, unless you infringe on the copyright, you can produce like products as much as you like.

There are many "pirated" versions of consumer goods on the market just look at the indespensible and famous Workmate. This appears to be common practice in the manufacturing industry; i.e. let someone else do the development and we'll cream it off after. The only problem arises when no one in industry makes the first move.

Just a though though, I have just purchased a Diamond 1800 glider RTF kit as many do. These RTF kits often come with non mainstream Tx/Rx combination but no one seems to bother about that.

My two pennorth worth.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

My argument is only valid for 2.4. As I stated elsewhere 2.4, unlike PCM etc. is an algorithm - each system is therefore propriatory intellectual property. The signal is heavily encoded in packages with error detection techniques. These were all designed when FASST or DSM were developed. Each manufacturer designing their own system.

 

To decode their signals you must replicate this algorithm - its not just a case of "listening to a signal" encoded in a system which is "public domain" such as PCM. It is the duplication of this algorithm, and all the original concepts it is based on, designed by Futaba or Specktrum or whoever which I claim could constitute intellectual property theft.

 

Erfolg you say you cannot see how simply receiving a signal can breech the law - take a look at SkyTV. They have a very sucessful legal record of prosecuting people for exactly that. The courts didn't see that as "taking IP to new levels". Sky did recently lose one case, but that was because they were charging different prices for their own service in different EU countries. They have not lost any cases which involve the use of "pirate" boxes.

 

BEB

 

Graham - just for information the laptop I am typing this on is a Sony Vaio - I have every confidence that Sony have respected the rights of any other manufacturer.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Spice Cat on 19/09/2011 20:29:59:

Posted by Steve Hargreaves on 19/09/2011 16:40:47:

Do you use SC/ASP engines BEB ? I wonder what OS might think about that??

 

 

I remember back in the seventies that my then boss said the difference between a Daimler and a Jaguar was the badge on the front.

 

 

Bit different - they were made by the same company!

 

Marketing - Jags for the sporty gent and Daimlers for the MD...

Edited By Martin Harris on 19/09/2011 20:47:52

[Spice Cat]

Ahh that explains it. He also said the Daimler was for the gent, the Jag for the get rich quick kid.

Edited By Spice Cat on 19/09/2011 20:52:36

[Seamus O'Leprosy]

Can I through in my 2cents worth. I have a Futaba 10c and four genuine receivers and about six orange receivers all in models if I chose to buy all genuine receivers I doubt I could afford some of my airframes.
I also have a 9x transmitter with ?10 receivers in my foamies.
Since moving to 2.4 fingers crossed I have never had a radio problem. All my crashes are caused by thumb, brain interface errors.
The issue of what gear was used being questioned after a crash is a concern, but the nightmare would be some ambulance chaser trying to sue you negligence as being not competent enough to fly the aircraft that crashed.
And on the IP situation I suspect Mr OS and Mr Futaba may have looked at other engines and radios when they started up. I don't think OS invented the two stroke.
Seamus

[John Privett]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 19/09/2011 20:36:59:

My argument is only valid for 2.4. As I stated elsewhere 2.4, unlike PCM etc. is an algorithm - ...

 

...a system which is "public domain" such as PCM.

 

 

BEB, I think you meant to say PPM, which is very much public domain, very simple and well understood.

 

PCM, on the other hand, is proprietary and I've never seen a description (at least not at anything lower than the very highest overview) explaining how Futaba, or JR, or anybody else's PCM is encoded.

 

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Yes you are quite right John - fingers faster than brain!

 

BEB

[Erfolg]

BEB

 

The use of a Tx to send an instruction, is more akin to a piece of software where the user has instructed the software to carry out an action as required by the user. The pursuit of payment for making use of the software to make use of the functionality (of data base functionality) was rejected by a US court. From memory, on the basis that the purchase of the software was intended to provide the very functionality that the purchaser had made a payment for and now the seller sought payment for using the product for the purpose it was sold.

 

Which is very much the same as purchasing a Tx, it was purchased to send a signal, that the purchaser expected to make use of.

 

If it were possible to enforce your interpretation (which is possible , with deep pockets and a fat wallet), I would expect that the first manufacturer of an open system would eventually eat into the businesses of closed systems. I would expect that eventually their business would become nonviable, or their model would need to change.

 

I can see you are in the camp that is constantly seeking to advance the scope of IP and is very much in the spirit of the EU. I accept that I am swimming against the tide, in resisting the industry and media vision of yet further broader scope of IP as championed by the EU. As last weeks extension of musical copy right from 50 to 70 years yet again demonstrates. It because of policies such as this I moved from being a supporter of the EU, to one that believes that it is in the interest of ordinary UK citizens to leave to EU.

 

Extension of IP will not provide the long term prosperity for the western world, in inhibiting innovation, there is a very real danger that the prosperity that we seek for our children and grandchildren will prove elusive. As we fossilise, under a set of protective measures that belong to another age, those with a more liberal environment will undoubtedly prosper.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

But its got nothing to do with the EU Erfolg!

 

The Japanese and the Americans for example are not members of the EU but their companies do respect their obligations under international treaties and agreements on patent and IP law.

 

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 19/09/2011 23:41:56

[Mike L]

BEB

 

Try telling that to the USA based guitar manufacturers under continual attack from japanese copies since the 1980's ( and copies made in USA as well!!??)

 

BTW its 3.24am and I need to get a life!!