Orange Fasst - Yet again

[Seamus O'Leprosy]

I am in danger of getting out of my dept in this discussion but. I have not read anywhere about Futaba suing of getting an injuction to stop Frysky etc selling within the EU or US. Is this an indication that they feel they may not have a leg to stand on?

[Allan Bennett]

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

I think that Sky rely on the fact that you have to pay for their service to press charges against people that don't. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) there's any law against simply making a set-top box that is capable of receiving and decoding Sky signals -- just against using it without paying.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Hi Seamus,

 

no I don't think that is the reason Futaba et al don't pursue these issues. What we have to remember is that while names like Futaba, JR and Specktrum may loom large in our world, in reality they are quite small companies, compared with say SkyTV. Ask the general population who Futaba are and I doubt if 1% could tell you.

 

Pursuing a breech of your IP is a notoriously expensive business. They would need to take out simultaineous actions in all European countries and the USA. They simply do not have the resources to do that and there they differ from the likes of SkyTV who do. Consider that even the giants of the music and film industries struggle in this respect.

 

Even if they took out such actions and won - they would only be attacking the "point of sale" - not the point of origin. And there is no chance of doing the later because the manufacturers of these clones are hiding in the impentratable depths of China behind the skirts of the Chinese government who, by their inaction and imposition of barriers to foreign litigants, shield these enterprises.

 

Mike - you're right about the guitar market but I don't think it is a entirely fair comparison; the Gibsons and Fenders of this world have been able to exploit a slight difference in their situation - vis they could play the "quality and kudos card". What I mean by that is that yes there were copies, but Gibson and Fender were able to defend a position that said "well it may look like a Les Paul - but it neither plays nor sounds like one" and furthermore they created an image which said it really wasn't cool to have a cheap copy - only the "real thing" was cool. Neither of these arguments hold in this case. It is interesting to see that recently - with the increased use of computerised machine tools - the quality argument is weakening and to adress that we see Fender partnering with the likes of Squire - reality politics!

 

So, no I don't feel that the lack of response from Futaba and the others indicates anything other than their impotance to deal with the situation. To me it is obvious what the realistic strategy of Futaba, JR and Specktrum is to deal with this. They are going to rely on their ability to innovate. This is why we are seeing an ever accelerating stream of new systems with new features from them in an attempt to differentiate themselves from their imitators. Of course they know it is only a question of time before the copy merchants reproduce those innovations - but by then the illegimate companies hope they will have more new ones. Who wins this technology war? We will have to wait and see - but I'll tell you one thing, I don't think the winner is a member of this forum, or any other end user either!

 

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 20/09/2011 09:05:36

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Allan Bennett on 20/09/2011 08:31:40:

I think that Sky rely on the fact that you have to pay for their service to press charges against people that don't. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) there's any law against simply making a set-top box that is capable of receiving and decoding Sky signals -- just against using it without paying.

 

You're quite right right Allan, making a Skybox would not be illegal - however; if that box copied the decryption algorithms that Sky have developed and use (and those decryption algorithms are not "public domain") then you tried to sell it - that would be illegal.

 

BEB

[Mike L]

BEB

 

The reality in the guitar market surely applies to this subject, Tokai and PRS produce guitars that are better than Gibson/Fender, trust me on this, several legal suits ensued. As you rightly state Gibson bought Epiphone/Squire, Fender manufacture in Mexico and Corona now to defend their positions in the market. If you want to be cool buy a USA Fender, Gibson and pay the PREMIU OTT price. If you want a guitar that plays better you can pay a fraction of the price without having the cool element. Your choice!!!

 

Its the same in this situation. These clone receivers now exist, let Futaba sue if there is infringment, they are not so that speaks volumes. Let Futaba compete in the market which they can for sure and defend themselves. Didn't OS do this with the Blue head range years ago to compete with SC/ASP?

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

[Allan Bennett]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 20/09/2011 09:01:36:

 

You're quite right right Allan, making a Skybox would not be illegal - however; if that box copied the decryption algorithms that Sky have developed and use (and those decryption algorithms are not "public domain") then you tried to sell it - that would be illegal.

 

BEB

That's the whole point though, isn't it? I'm no electronics specialist, but isn't there more than one way to decode the signal and make it viewable? So, if your techies can find another way, then your "compatible" receivers are 100% legal. That's hopefully the case with the likes of Orange receivers.

[Erfolg]

BEB

 

It has to be a poor situation where vested interest such as manufacturers, research groups, et al all constantly lobby members of parliament and government officials, pushing their own self interest. It is regretful that there are few bodies who lobby on the consumers behalf. The continuous extension of IP should not be permitted and could in some areas be rolled back with advantage to the broader society/community and would aid innovation.

 

I understand the commercial pressures on universities to seek external non governmental funding for research. A similar situation exists with groups which are or were GOCO's, requiring external funding, often exerting influence with a view of generating more work, be it accreditation, research and advice on legislation. All these groups have a vested interest in pushing the boundaries of IP.

 

I do not know enough about Sky to comment. I would suspect that the offense is the interception of copyrighted content for viewing, rather than the copying the method of encryption, as with the BBC.I do not know though

 

With respect to Futaba coding, the check sum concept goes back to at least the 1970's, where NC machines included a check sum on one of the tracks/channels. I also remember that at least one UHF RC digital system used a check sum. With respect to 2.4 transmissions, surely they are making use of prior technology as developed by Mobile and WiFi systems suppliers.

[Seamus O'Leprosy]

Corona are now doing a Fasst compatable 8ch for about £18 I think the floodgates are well and truely open, for better or worst.

[i12fly]

Are the clones CE marked? (And I mean CE tested not China Export)

I thought not. So if a serious accident, how do you explain in court that you have used a tested compatible system that satisfies statutory requirements? I think the jury would tend to listen to the prosecution arguement that you were operating a system outside the law, even if it was in actuality, really safe. Justice is based on good arguements, not reality.

Just as an aside, there seems enough material on this website to get a campaign going to stop us all from doing what we enjoy. Frightening.

[Erfolg]

Fly

 

I understand that there are several sources for CE approved Esky (Orange) Rx's.

 

I think we are in danger of regurgitating and going over a lot of previously covered ground. Without going into the detail it is not illegal to use a non CE marked pieces of equipment, it must be compliant with statutory requirements. You cannot sell (legally) a none CE approved item within the EU though.

 

I can accept that some do not like Orange Rx's, or any other brand. I cannot understand the obsessive wishing to stop there use of some people. It seems another version of my brand is better than yours.

 

What is the view of all the 2.4 models or is it toys, that an be bought at the local Shopping Centre or even budget systems at the LMS or by E_mail, should they be banned?

 

BEB's stance is based on IP, not performance, or regulatory compliance, as I understand it.

[Mike L]

Yes I agree with Erflog, I think we have "done" this topic for now and are in danger of going round in circles.

 

Enjoyed it even if BEB made me feel like Del Boy at one stage!!

 

Mods - time to move on?

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

@i12fly....I would say that yes the clones most certainly are CE marked. Both the Corona & the Orange FASST Rxs are available from UK suppliers. Unless CE marked these suppliers would be committing an offence if they were selling none CE marked equipment into the EU.

 

During the last debate out CE compliance etc I actually emailed Corona in China about their 35MHz Rxs & asked about CE compliance....they sent their CE certificate over to me within 24 hours. I can't think they wouldn't do the same for their 2.4 versions

 

Futaba are a reasonably large company at around 1 billion USD turnover. They are heavily involved in industrial control & robots etc...indeed their FASST technology is already used in industrial machine control...the code/algorithm was probably modified to allow the system to control toy aeroplanes. I'm sure that the Futaba S bus system & individual servo addressing also comes from the industrial machine control world too....all variations/developments/improvements on the orginal CAN bus system developed by Bosch in the 80's & the PROFI Bus systems from Germany....

 

I suppose its possible that the R/C side of Futaba is so small as to be not worth defending the IP.....maybe if GE Fanuc or Siemens or Allen Bradley tried to copy the FASST code into one of their industrial controllers Futaba might take a different view & defend their IP robustly...but for toy aeroplanes....hey! who cares....

[Ian Skeldon 1]

I have read these posts with a wry smile on my face.

 

I fly lots and one of the highly respected manufactures radio sets seems to be having more than it's fair share of mishaps and that's with it's own brand receivers in use. Therefore regardless of what the pundits on here tell me, the evidence (locally) is that these are the sets that should be regarded as suspect.

Why should I find the products that appear under soak test and use to perform well, less desirable than a similar item costing more? I don't personally wish to spend any more than I need to and I don't want to make a stand for the rights of large organisations making millions by only buying their products, they don't refund me when a problem is caused by use of their equipment, loyalty has to be earned.

 

In my humble opinion the insurance thing may be more of an issue. We all want/need insurance but we can't exactly shop around can we. I don't want the BMFA to totally run everything and tell me what I can or cannot buy (unless they have evidence to support such a ruling). All I ask of the BMFA is that the insurance protects me as fully as is possible and that any concerns regarding flight safety is fed out to all members without fear of the BMFA being sued for doing so.

 

Finally, I do use both OEM and clone receivers, no real difference noted. I also fly clone type helicopters, In doing so, I don't think that i am at more risk than fliers of the original helicopters and have only been able to afford to fly helicopters since the clones arrived. So I for one am thankful for manufactures who sauce their production in countries that can provide me with cheaper goods while boosting their economy.

 

 

[Erfolg]

It seems that I agree with the view of Ian.

 

With respect to the BMFA and their apparent stance on some aspects of modelling/equipment. I totally agree that the position should be to represent the interests of the BMFA membership. Where safety issues are thought to exist, their role should be to establish if the issue is real, rather than suggested, particularly where commercial interests could be an issue. Only then should the organisation take a stance and publish the basis for that view.

 

Where equipment is compliant with national regulations, and is fit for purpose, I would expect the BMFA arranged insurance to cover its use.