Subject:
|
Re: RIS version 1.5 coming this fall
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:26:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
863 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> You know, I think I'm starting to get nervous about this 1.5 business.
> Let's say they do happen to ship a 1.0->1.5 software compatability upgrade.
> The first question that comes to my mind is: Is the upgrade reversible or
> irreversible? Any why or why not? What's going on behind the scenes here?
It has to be reversible from the RCX brick's point of view, since there is
no hardware on the RCX to forcibly reprogram its ROM. Perhaps on the PC
side it is not reversible, but there is always the uninstall new, reinstall
old process, which I presume will work, since Lego would have to be
purposefully obnoxious for it not to.
As for compatibility, OCX compatibility is almost guaranteed. If the new
RCX software is truly an upgrade and not a replacement, then ROM
compatibility is also a given. If the software is an upgrade and something
changes, it can only be the byte code and/or the firmware, to add new
functionality.
If not an upgrade but a replacement (new everything) then anything goes.
But this has been known to be somewhere down the pipe anyways - I at least
never expected Lego to keep compatibility forever.
> This is what's making me nervous too. The trend toward dumbing-down the
> robotics offerings -- more toward kids and less toward adults. Hey, if
> that's their chosen target market and they need to do that, then more power
> to 'em -- that's great for kids! (But I worry where it leaves us adults.)
Whatever happened to "spread the wealth" and "others first"? Younger kids
deserve their Mindstorms also. Moreover, I think Lego wants to get as many
people involved as possible, and as early as possible too. (Get a young
kid hooked on Lego and hrm, some of them keep on buying when they're older
too...)
> > Internally, the RCX may have already gone through several updates. This
> > is pretty common as designs are refined and cost-reduced. These types of
> > updates are typically unannounced and not even evident from the outside of
> > the product.
>
> What do you suppose the chances are that TLG will alter the firmware
> slightly in the RCX 1.5 so that the firmware can no longer be altered, or
> so that it can only be altered by official TLG software?
>
> Can that be done -- technically?
They can make it difficult to download new firmware to a completely new
RCX, yes, but they cannot make it impossible. But it doesn't matter. The
RCX 1.0 is out and completely safe from anything Lego might want to change.
Also, from a practical standpoint, I don't know of anybody who might be
willing to reverse engineer the successor to the RCX 1.0 to the extent that
the 1.0 brick was reverse engineered - no matter if it is as easy to hack
as the 1.0 brick - and that is certainly a prerequisite for anything
substantial to come out of future RCXs. (If somebody already knows they
are interested, I'd like to hear from them.)
> Perhaps not 100% literally, but suppose that in order to download new
> firmware to RCX 1.5, the host software communicating to the RCX via IR had
> to supply a lengthy password. That would certainly be very easy for TLG
> to implement, yes?
>
> But then what? Well, then if anyone tries to ship a third-party add-on to
> download new replacement firmware, they're now committing an alleged act of
> copyright infringement because they've shipped a copy of this proprietary
> copyrighted password/encryption bitstring.
I believe something like this is possible. But why would TLG do this? Are
there other concerns so deep that they want to limit what half (was that
the figure?) their potential buyers might do with their product? I find it
somewhat possible that the next RCX will be as easy to crack as the current
one, so that TLG can try to take advantage of the same enthusiasm that
raged (rages?) on with the current RCX.
> Given what was said in the August 9 Forbes article, I kinda would almost be
> surprised now if 1.5 didn't include both new software and a slight new twist
> on the hardware: a proprietary encryption/password chip or sequencer which
> would allow TLG considerably more leeway in the courtroom if they ever felt
> that replacement firmware was truly getting under their skin.
Why? The Forbes article almost praised Lego for being so bold with their
decision not to hinder the reverse engineering effort.
I think perhaps, like you say, you are being a bit too paranoid.
> I don't know what it would actually take before things really get under
> their skin, but note that the recent Forbes article mentioned that TLG
> executives had "thought about" suing (presumably with regard to the reverse-
> engineering efforts last year).
Presumably then they realized that the reverse engineering effort actually
got them sales and that made them change their mind? The article is vague
on this point. From a legal standpoint, I would guess that they cannot
outright encourage reverse engineering - should some contingency come up
(e.g. a competitor does something with the information) where they need to
sue, that might stop them from doing so. But not discouraging it is also
acceptable; my suspicion is that they still reserve the right to do
something later should they need to do that.
> Am I just over-reacting?
I think so. But maybe not unjustifyably.
-Kekoa
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: RIS version 1.5 coming this fall
|
| (...) <snip! snip!! snip!!!> (...) They already do this. Doesn't part of the process of downloading new firmware involve sending a five byte sequence of the word LEGO followed by a registered trademark symbol? Technically, they could probably sue (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RIS version 1.5 coming this fall
|
| I think I'm with Kekoa on this one. TLG have always been very hot on what they consider right & wrong (most of us have read the bit on www.lego.com where they take the time to list what is OK & what is not). They take copyright/patent/trademark (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RIS version 1.5 coming this fall
|
| (...) OK, that's what I thought. But from that, doesn't it follow that this statment would be true?-- It is possible to write replacement firmware which, when downloaded and executed, still allows new application code but prevents the downloading of (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: RIS version 1.5 coming this fall
|
| (...) You know, I think I'm starting to get nervous about this 1.5 business. Let's say they do happen to ship a 1.0->1.5 software compatability upgrade. The first question that comes to my mind is: Is the upgrade reversible or irreversible? Any why (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
