Not sure how all this gets this far.
I am an automation tech, and a large part of my job is to write custom code for DDC controllers that then go on and run HVAC systems. This code is entirely written by me, and then of course remains on the site. That code belongs to the building owners,since they paid my company to install the system, and my company has paid me to write it. If in the future they wish to have someone else decompile the program and alter it, that is their choice. The only right we hold is the right to refuse warranty if the code has been changed. If the customer decided to control the exact same equipment with a new controller they can reuse that code, because they own it. The only thing they could not do is sell that code to others, representing it as their own.
Why is this any different? You bought the car, so you bought the code.You can not legally, or morally, sell that code, but you do own it. If you remove the engine from a GM car and install it in a Ford body you should be able to move the electronics, and embedded code. GM can not be expected to honor a warranty in this situation, but it should be legal.
GMās not the only company that do that. For instance, here in Europe you can buy essentially the same car badged as a SEAT, Skoda, Volkswagen or Audi- though of course they will have different engines available, different features, and will be marketed to different people.
Someone has to fix the self checkout machines, and that is a better paying job. The cash registers rarely broke.
Our public transportation company is in the process of going cashless.The people who collected and sorted the cash may lose their jobs, but someone has to maintain the thousands of ticket machines. I personally work in a branch of my chosen field that did not even exist 20 years ago. Almost every building of any size today has a computer controlled building management system, and we now need people to install and maintain them, but buildings now need less maintenance people. It is often hard to figure out if a change added or removed jobs from the economy.
Yes, exactly. Thatās the point I was making.
No, it really isnāt.
Because if you canāt spread butter on toast without breaking the law you canāt have what you want for breakfast anymore.
Under US copyright law (and I believe Berne); absent specific language otherwise in the sales contract that code belongs to the company, not the building owners, since you wrote it as a work for hire (so itās not yours) and itās copyrightable.
Or you can tell the lawyers to go stuff themselves where they belong, and feed yourself the way you want. Just donāt let the cops see you with butter on your chin. Problem solved.
Right its pretty standard for car companies these days. But GM at least till a few years ago used to take it to such a bizarre extreme. Even after they re-branded the GM Suburban a āYukon XLā they were selling the exact same car, with the exact same features and options, under the exact same name (till the re-brand) with two different manufacturerās badges. The bizarre thing was IIRC correctly the GM version was at various times inexplicably more expensive, despite being literally the same car from the same factory with the same kit out and coming from the same dealership but with the minor change of a logo on either end (and eventually a name change). And then there was the Denali, effectively the same car as either Suburban with its luxury package, but more expensive then either because of the luxury branding. From what I understand the situation was even weirder in Europe, because youād see exactly this situation with various GM models repeating across GM owned brands but then also see that same car being branded as another manufacturer that just had some sort of business deal with GM. They did the same bit with some Asian manufacturers too. So in Europe where a much broader span of global brands are available in the US you might see the same exact GM built and designed car from 5 different manufacturers at 5 different price points. With little or no change in the car itself! And they did this shit for decades! ITS GOD DAMNED WACKY.
They basically took the idea of a platform car and ditched the platform part, saying āhey weāll actually just make one carā. Not even bother to iterate.
Coryā¦that picture is a Ford Escapeā¦
But those arenāt entry-level jobs. I think there are definitely going to be fewer and fewer low-skill jobs in the future.
Here in Japan my mother-in-law liked the Nissan Moco (yes, Spanish-speakers, thatās really the name) But the Nissan dealer in her town sucks. So we went down to the Suzuki shop and she bought an MR Wagon, which is the identical vehicle aside from the grill and available colors. And it was significantly cheaper, because Nissan has better brand image than Suzuki.
This could end up being a pretty good thing for GM licensees. I mean, since customers donāt own the hardware, say they get into a bingle with a sign post or something, mash up the body to the point the thing doesnāt work, I suspect GM is liable for the repairs since the thing is licensed and the fact that its software allowed the body to be damaged is clearly GMās responsibility to repair.
ok thereās a flaw in this argument copyright patent and trademark protect the owner from others profiting from their ideas excetra if you donāt want me to own it donāt sell it to me lease it rent it make a subscription service thatās how itās handled in the software industry today
Iām fairly certain that someone named Eula owns about 3/4 of my stuff anyway. 
Yup. Thereās a dude named Theo. C. Cuppier has a lot of unpaid bills at my address as well.
IKR, but I donāt want to have to apply my DIY marijuana laws hack to every aspect of life!
When I buy a car, I do so with the understanding that I OWN the vehicle and all parts thereof. There are Leasing programs. If GM is so worried about its COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY code, stop selling cars and lease them all.
I donāt. Having the fuel pump directly above the distributor caused me a fire on two different Beetles.
Which is why I never use the self-checkouts at supermarkets. My kids are going to be looking for after-school jobs soon, and their first full time jobs not too long after that. At this rate thereās not going to be many entry-level jobs left by then
You should go around breaking windows too! Think of all the jobs that will be created to repair those windows.
