I have question for Mikey.

In an alternative universe, I purchased 4.2L 2003 S-type Loser Edition that has restrictor plate installed from the factory. They also sold identical 4.2L 2003 S-types without restrictor plate, but charge more. Seeing how S-type is plenty slow even without restrictor plate, I removed it after purchasing the car. That was the only "mod" that I have done to the car. The car was appropriately maintained. In 2004, while still in the warranty period, the engine blew up - spun a bearing.

Should my S-type, sans restrictor plate, be covered by the warranty?

 

Restrictor plate?? Must be a canadian thing

 

No, it's unique to my fellow poster who might purports to live in Canada. His restrictor is placed between his brain and his fingers.

 

You said specifically " when using a chip that Ford didn't sell". Your words.

I'm speaking specifically of using a Jaguar Approved Tune to the ecu., using identical settings that Jaguar Sells on the market today. That's very different from "Chipping" a car. Chipping is when you actually replace a chip with a reprogrammed chip, or when you add electronic piggyback hardware in line with your control systems to "Fool" them.

This does not occur in an ECU tune. What we are doing is "Chip tuning" or "Chip Priogramming". (There is a technical difference between the two terms.)

NO PHYSICAL MOD (including a restrictor plate, ha ha).

Bottom line is I feel very comfortable from a legal standpoint that I can use the 380HP "S" settings on this engine in the standard 35T, and Jaguar cannot legally support denying any warranty claims as they have this engine in production at this 380 HP level on the market today.

If Jaguar Denies a warranty claim of mine because I used their own recommeded setting for this engine, I will ask them to produce a FTC ruling that says specifically their own settings were to blame. (If they actually made such a statement, what does this say about our Jaguar Quality Confidence?) This would make me shake in my boots if I had purchased an "s" and Jaguar made such a claim about an upgrade to 380HP output.

I really don't expect any harm will come to my car running it at 380HP like the "S". That said, I'm willing to take them to court over it if Jaguar does not honor their warranty on an engine using their own, pre- approved settings...I'd insist on a Jury trial, perhaps this will set a trial precedent, eh?. It is our American Right, and 100pct legal (not a lawyer but know too many).

 

Jag doesn't sell approved tunes or 'chips' or chip tuning. Ford does. Makes all the difference in world in terms of warranty.

No OEM is obliged to pay warranty on stuff they didn't sell you.

Not sure what part of this is confusing you.

 

I beg to differ, Jag certainly sells the 380HP tune....it's included with every "S" model.

This re-sets the approved Jaguar output precedent to 380HP on this engine, so they cannot claim this XE engine or car cannot handle the power that they already market and sell as part of a 380HP package worldwide..... with no mechanical differences at all.

I'm pretty sure the 400Hp F-type shares the same engine and tranny as well!

At Jaguar they have essentially re-set the Legal Engineered maximum output for this engine, establishing a legal precedent. So they cannot reasonably claim running their own identical engine at their own identical settings is to blame for any engine malfunctions that occur during the warranty period, no matter what the settings looked like when I bought it. This truth is self-evident to any fair jury.

In other words by marketing the same mechanically identical engine in a 400Hp version, a 380Hp version, and a 340Hp version...Jaguar has clearly demonstrated that the maximum manufacturer validated output on this specific USA engine is now established at 400HP for the world to enjoy. Thanks Jaguar!

I doubt I'd ever require any more service running one tune vs the other....all the map settings points I speak of using are 100pct emissions compliant, and 100pct approved and validated at the factory by the Jaguar Engineers on this engine. I can pay an experienced tuner to simply copy the data points and re-create for my own ECU.

I think one of the sponsors of this Forum could help, or Paramount Performance in England offers to do the same for those of you across the pond.

 

But they don't sell the tune separately. Ford does.

Never mind, I give up. Good luck.

 

You don't own the software copyright. You can't legally make any of the changes you assume.

The kinds of things you suggest will void warranty and so they should.

If you want more HP and want Jaguar warranty, pay for the right HP instead of cheating.

 

By simply changing the plot points (data numbers) on the programme, there is NO violation of the software agreement.

Think of a program like Excel. When you change your data numbers in the spreadheets, you ARE NOT altering the program its self...you simply are putting the the variables that you choose to enter. Your ECU variables/settings can be unique, or match exactly what the factory does. Just like in excel you can put your own variables in, or copy figures from someone else. The background programming IS NOT CHANGED at all.


In any case, simply programming variables into our ECU DOES NOT legally invalidate you software licensing agreement ...exactly as you are able to change fingures in a spreadsheet or a GIS mapping program (think ESRI.com). Just as long as you don't exceed manufacturers "Published" maximum settings, this will not invalidate your warranty. Jaguar legally "Published" these settings when they launched the "S" for sale.

The root code of the software IS NOT changed at all. So no software violation. Software legal precedent is set here.

If Jaguar wished to prevent consumer and third party programming the ECU's, they could simply set up a lockout on the ECU. But THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL due to the Magnuson-Moss warrranty act, that states this behavior is anti-competitive.

This is why all auto manufacturers are leaglly required to "Leave the Door Open" on the OBDII so ANY third party can access the ECU parameters. By the way there are millions of car enthusiast that tune their cars this way, and entire companies founded on this VERY LEGAL practice.



Here is a simplified example, for comparison the ECU can be considered a VERY advanced switch.

Model Z car comes in a "regular" and a "super" model, the super costs $10K more for the brightest headlights. The "regular" car has two headlight settings, determined by a switch. The "super" model has three headlight settings, which is why they change $10K more for that model. The cabling and headlights and switch are identical.

The manufacturer, to save costs, decided to install the same switch for both cars.

In the back of the factory switch there is a dip switch that allows the factory to set it up as a two OR a three way control. On the "Regular" model, they have it switched to two way mode.

As the owner of the car I'd have EVERY right to go in there and enable the three-way switching. I'd not be obligated to send the manufacturer the extra $10K to upgrade to the "super"model, as they built this funcionality in at the factory.

Same thing with the ECU, I'm just throwing switches into another factory-approved configuaration.

JagV8, If you can provide written proof to support your claim that data points must remain fixed throughout the life cycle of a vehicles ECU life, I'd believe you, but you will find it impossible to legally justify your position on this, and your stance would essentially eliminate factory ECU upgradre capabilities..

This is tuning to factory approved specifications. Nothing cheating or immoral here...they deliberately "left the door open" so this feature is available to the customers who know where to look, and as customers we will legally use the swiches the manufacturer are legally required to leave open to the user.

Changing "Data Points" does not change the "software" code...if you know anthing about software prgamming you'd already know this.

Finally, I DID approach Jaguar for this service first...they did not want this business as it would erode the sales of the "S" model they launched this year. lol

 

Technology changes, and so does copyright law.

Auto Manufacturers are sued buy the Electronic Frontier Foundation for the illegal practice of claiming "Copyright Infringements" on those car owners wanting to access the settings on the Automotive ECU here. The article states that the Auto Lobby fought specifically against this precedent, exactly to keep customers "Locked Out".Has not gone well for the Auto builders, for sure, as this is an illegal practice for cellphones, printer cartriges, AND cars.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/0...sequences-dmca

The EFF is a consumer protection organization of lawyers who are the same good guys that are protecting Net Neutrality for you. Of course the Automotive lobby HATES this and is stiill attempting to enforce this lame and outdated policy...but they have not won in court (And won't, as DRM law is rewritten in favor of the consumer).

Defend your rights to Repair! Jaguar USA sure as hell won't. And this is the point of the thread I started here.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/0...cartridge-case

Strangely enough, precedent has been set in this case about printers(above). In a Supreme Court case won THIS YEAR by the EFF on behalf of consumers....the Supreme Court ruled we have the right to tinker with the electronics AND code we own. The underlying reasoning of the Supreme Court Decision rules manufacturers cannot legally persue a customer who does aftermaket mods...due to 'Copyright Infringement". As this is cosidered a Legal Precedent, this applies to all manufacturers. Like the PSA tag line used on the TV, "The more you know....."

From the article above describing the ruling, where the Justice SPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT THE AUTOMOTIVE MONOPOLY! This is AWESOME news in favor of the Jaguar owner.

"The reasoning in the Court's decision also demonstrates why Section 1201 of the DMCA has become dangerously overbroad. The Chief Justice used the auto industry as an example of a market that would be hindered if manufacturers retained a legal right to control the repair and resale of the devices they sold. This argument won't be a surprise to anyone who followed the latest rulemaking process, in which we convinced regulators to (at least temporarily) relieve some of Section 1201's restrictions on auto repair. "


https://www.eff.org/issues/right-to-repair

If any Dealers give you "shade" , contact the EFF and they MAY represent you for free. This will only benefit every car owner on this Forum.

 

Personally im all for modifying cars/trucks. Ive done it for years. But i think by now we all know your profession. And i cant help but think that youre just playing a chess game just hoping that jaguar will take your rook and suddenly find their king open for the taking without anything to do but submit. Like any good attorney you have found the game, set the trap and just waiting till they take the bait so you can snair the trophy. Good luck

 

I would not assume anything. FYI I am not a lawyer, nor do I work in the automotive field. I will not benefit from this ruling in any way other than to have my rights legally protected.

I did work 20 years in the technology sector, where some Software Legal Knowledge was obtained through sales experience. This stuff is just common sense, now my rights to tinker are 100% backed by the Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision..

For the last ten years I've blissfully worked in Austin's music industry (instrumentation and electronics), tinkering is in my blood and I'm always looking to leverage new technology to it's fullest potential.

Any owner of any ECU equipped car will benefit from this year's Supreme Court Ruling allowing one to "Tinker" after the purchase of a product. It's an American Right!

I'm actually surprised any owner would 'resist' or 'minimize' the impact of this year's ruling. I also think it's very, very, very telling that the Justices used the Automotive Industry as a specific example of Copyright Overreach...unsolicited and during a Printer Cartrige ruling against Lexmark.

The Supreme Court themselves basicly just threw down the gauntlet to the Automotive Industry...not me.

In the Lexmark printer Cartridge case the Automotive Manufacturers specifically called out here:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/0...cartridge-case

Just don't count on Jaguar to know about this year's Precedent/ decision, this is a very new development that has a huge impact on what can be claimed by Auto manufacturers. Remember, they fought seat belt legislations too.....Auto Manufacturers don't nescessarily do what is right, until they are sued and told to do it.

I say Congads to Consumers worldwide!!!

 

I think you may be overstating the import of the Lexmark decision. The Electronic Frontier Foundation article, which you cited, said:
"The next logical step will be for courts to recognize that people who buy digital goods are owners of those goods, not mere licensees, and can resell and tinker with their digital goods to the same extent as purchasers of tangible property." (emphasis added)

If that is the "next logical step," then by definition we're not yet there.

The EFF also said:
"The Chief Justice used the auto industry as an example of a market that would be hindered if manufacturers retained a legal right to control the repair and resale of the devices they sold."

"Repair and resale" is not the same thing as modification.

 

You're right, this is not exactly apples to apples. Just had lunch with a dude with a shingle and he said my excel arguement was not the best comparison either.

But he followed the logic that we ARE protected in working on our own vehicles under the protection of Federal Statute (M-M), even if we are paying others than Jaguar for this service...including the tuning of an ECU. If I re-marketed the car en-masse, there would be a problem. This is not the case here.

He specifically said a better example against the Auto Manufacturer's copyright law argument would be the Mona Lisa example (That if you buy the Mona Lisa, or any other copyrighted material, that becomes YOUR property, to modify as you wish. Want to paint bug eyes and a smile on it? If you own it, you can, amid all the protests in the world. You could even make money by charging patrons more to see the "Improved"version, well against the creator's original marketed intent.)

So if I want to put a bigger "Smile" on my ECU, I can...and not be in violation of any copyright infringements upon Jaguar.

I also mentioned that there is a higher horsepower version of my engine on the XE available in the US market. , and he made me promise to "Give him a call" if Jaguar tries to invalidate my warranty if I use a 380HP tune. I totally trust him, and he affirmed again I was on the right track with my legal arguments, just confirming what I knew...I'm wildly un-experienced at this Arguement and Proceedural stuff. But he confirms I am legally and morally justified if I want to tune my engine to 380HP on my own instead of paying $8K more for the "S' equivalant. And I would not be violating any emissions laws in this specific case, so it's all perfectly legal IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE.

He also said that unless I signed a document when I purchased that specifically prevented me from tuning my car's ECU, I'm protected.

And he reminded me to remember this applies to USA law only. If Jaguar trys to pull any of this BS on you, get a lawyer 'cause they will trample your rights if you roll over and play dead. It is common knowledge at Dealers and Manufacturer's levels they throw out huge FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt), and Auto manufacturers pay huge lobby fees and donations to influence the elected officials against these rights, which is another kind of evil in my opinion.

 

Sorry, but that isn't right. You are allowed by copyright law to scribble in the margins of a copyright-protected book, magazine or t-shirt, but you are not allowed to revise the text or modify the illustrations on such objects. Doing so creates a "derivative work," which is a right reserved to the copyright owner.

So if the ECU is copyright-protected software, modifying it would constitute copyright infringement.

 

'He also said that unless I signed a document when I purchased that specifically prevented me from tuning my car's ECU, I'm protected.'

you did, read the small print ' unauthorized modifications may invalidate your warranty' that is in the jaguar documents signed at the dealership when buying a new car and on any subsequent warranty's later on

 

'He specifically said a better example against the Auto Manufacturer's copyright law argument would be the Mona Lisa example (That if you buy the Mona Lisa, or any other copyrighted material, that becomes YOUR property, to modify as you wish. Want to paint bug eyes and a smile on it? If you own it, you can, amid all the protests in the world. You could even make money by charging patrons more to see the "Improved"version, well against the creator's original marketed intent.) '

Yet another bad analogy , other than a guarantee that the painting is authentic you wont get one to guarantee its condition over time so its irrelevant.

 

I was actually never offered or given a signed copy of what I signed at the dealer....they convienantly have electronic signature tables for this "signature" process, and did not provide a written copy.

Even if i was dumb enough to sign such a thing, it would be rendered invalid with these new rulings...this year... in the USA.

But, thanks for your input! I went back and thanked all of yall, this has been a great debate so far....phanc60844, this is exactly how John Deere Co. got in trouble here in the USA. ( I believe your copyright laws across the pond are quite different. You do show G.B. as your residence? This makes what you signed and what we signed materially different anyway under different laws.)

I've also been VERY candid with both the Manufacturer and the Manager of Sales at my local Jaguar about this XE's tuning capability, and my intent to re-tune it to at least 380 HP.

I'm not trying to defraud anyone here. This is a MOVING LEGAL LINE here in the USA.

DIY Tractor Repair Runs Afoul Of Copyright Law : All Tech Considered : NPR

and the more recent United States Supreme Court EULA and operation mods are discussed by the Experts in the Tech Sector found here, updated. This is even more "line is moving" software and copyright related law.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/0...cartridge-case

news here from the EFF:


begin quote::


Why Did We Have to Wait a Year to Fix Our Cars?


By Kit Walsh
October 28, 2016

Long-overdue rules protecting security research and vehicle repair have finally taken effect, as they should have done last year. Though the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress unlawfully and pointlessly delayed their implementation, for the next two years the public can take advantage of the freedom they offer. Despite their flaws, the exemptions will promote security, innovation, and competition – and also help the next generation of engineers continue to learn by taking their devices apart to see how they work.


end quote

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/1...r-fix-our-cars

I'm no lawyer, and I'm not giving anyone legal advice here. And mine is an insanely specific circumstance.

All I know is that the EFF and FTC are very anxious to make a landmark case ruling on this matter, and If I had to throw myself on the stake on this matter, I'm personally very willing to take Jaguar to task on this issue as a Plaintiff. Which is my right under USA law. Whether I'd win is an entirely different matter.....but the legal wind blows strongly in my direction on this in the USA and if the EFF or FTC wants to / chooses my situation to represent the consumer on this legal nuance, they'd fund the fight for us on behalf of the American Consumer.


Finally, I do think the XE is a REALLY great product, with an engine engineered and PROVEN BY JAG to be safely capable of running 380HP on this chassis exact and with these exact safety features, compliant to all emissions in the USA. ( Maybe even 400Hp). So I have no concerns about warranty implications as the Magnuson-Moss act protects us here, in the good ole USA.

 

Not according to this tiny group called SEMA after recent rulings of US Patent and Trademark office. Specifically regarding the illegality of locking out software on ECU's.

SEMA's CEO statement (SEMA CEO and President Chris Kersting)

"The exemption is one of many that the Copyright Office granted to the DMCA for special industry needs (such as “fair use” exceptions in digital media, cellphones, and video games), and marks an important precedent in the battle of software ownership and liability with today’s remarkably complex engine-management systems."

Copyright Office Protects Your Legal Ability to Modify Your ECU Without Violating DMCA - Hot Rod Network

Here are "Current Exemptions" announcement at the United States Patent and Trademark Site, specifically addressing aftermarket reprogramming in Auto ECU's, addressing we SPECIFICALLY have the rights to do this. Published July 24, 2017. There is NO disputing this, and the Supreme Court and the US Patent and Trademark Office IS the absolute last word on this matter...so far.

https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-40.html

Specifically this:
§201.40 Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention.


"
(6) Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile, commercial motor vehicle or mechanized agricultural vehicle, except for computer programs primarily designed for the control of telematics or entertainment systems for such vehicle, when circumvention is a necessary step undertaken by the authorized owner of the vehicle to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle function; and where such circumvention does not constitute a violation of applicable law, including without limitation regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation or the Environmental Protection Agency; and provided, however, that such circumvention is initiated no earlier than 12 months after the effective date of this regulation. "

Which was published on Oct 28, 2015. It's been legal for over a year now. Almost two.

 

again the john Deere analogy is a bad one. Jaguar have not fitted a digital lock to their cars, they are not stopping anyone from repairing them and they are not denying warranty repairs if non jaguar repair components are fitted. What they are doing is protecting themselves and the customer from expensive litigation from denied warranty claims arising from MODIFICATIONS. Its a standard exclusion on everything that you buy and I really cant see the issue. Just put yourself in their position. you spend billions on R&D getting a new model to market, doing millions of miles of road testing to iron out any bugs and get the reliability to a good level. Then some petrol head messes with the ECU program, which unless you absolutely know what you are doing can screw an engine up pretty quickly. Even if it seems to run OK for now, what testing has been doing to confirm this, absolutely none probably. Then when the proverbial hits the fan you expect Jaguar to pay for the damage, REALLY! They warn you against it in the T's & C's so what is the problem? Has anyone actually taken a car manufacturer to court for this and won?