WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD

They go by many names, P01, P59, VPW, '0411 etc. Also covering E38 and newer here.
User avatar
vlad01
Posts: 7780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:41 pm
cars: VP I S
VP I executive
VP II executive
VP II executive #2
VR II executive
Location: Kyneton, Vic

Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD

Post by vlad01 »

reminds me of all the tech giants like apple, intel, samsung and the evil green eye etc..
I'm the director of VSH (Vlad's Spec Holden), because HSV were doing it ass about.
User avatar
j_ds_au
Posts: 384
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD

Post by j_ds_au »

Gampy wrote: It is illegal to INTENTIONALLY damage a customers product (ie: ecu). Proving intent is next to impossible.
Now, If you are capable of disassembling their product and showing code that is there for no other reason then to intentionally damage customers product (ecu) then you have a case.

But to disable their product that they own and are granting you use of is not illegal. (You can thank Microsoft for that)
It's no different then the engineered lifespans most manufactures are following.
Make it die, sell another!
They don't own the ECU that they brick. So it's not necessary to prove intent here; without intent, it's still negligence, which can be sued.

Joe.
User avatar
Gampy
Posts: 2330
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:38 am

Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD

Post by Gampy »

Negligence is just as difficult to prove as intent.

Lawyers say harder.

Most anybody can be sued for most anything ... Will you win?
Intelligence is in the details!

It is easier not to learn bad habits, then it is to break them!

If I was here to win a popularity contest, their would be no point, so I wouldn't be here!
User avatar
j_ds_au
Posts: 384
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD

Post by j_ds_au »

Gampy wrote:Negligence is just as difficult to prove as intent.
Not at all. You have one less element to prove (intent).

Working ECU -> HPT Software -> Bricked ECU.

Proof done.

Joe.
User avatar
NSFW
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD

Post by NSFW »

Negligence is not that simple.
Please don't PM me with technical questions - start a thread instead, and send me a link to it. That way I can answer in public, and help other people who have the same question. Thanks!
User avatar
j_ds_au
Posts: 384
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD

Post by j_ds_au »

NSFW wrote:Negligence is not that simple.
I think his local consumer affairs entity may have a different view on that.

From what he has described, it can be readily shown that this software, used in a reasonable and foreseeable manner, can cause harm/damage. A pretty open and shut case then.

Joe.
User avatar
Gampy
Posts: 2330
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:38 am

Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD

Post by Gampy »

j_ds_au wrote: Not at all. You have one less element to prove (intent).

Working ECU -> HPT Software -> Bricked ECU.

Proof done.
In that scenario all that is known is that HPT is possibly damaging the ECU, not proven it.
It still could very well be the users fault ...

Proving negligence and or intent requires finding out what was in/on that persons mind at that time. (HPT developer(s))
That is nearly impossible without some sort of collaborating documentation. (disassembled software, emails, texts, tweets, etc... etc...)
Intelligence is in the details!

It is easier not to learn bad habits, then it is to break them!

If I was here to win a popularity contest, their would be no point, so I wouldn't be here!
User avatar
j_ds_au
Posts: 384
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD

Post by j_ds_au »

Gampy wrote:Proving negligence and or intent requires finding out what was in/on that persons mind at that time. (HPT developer(s))
Well, that's half right. Proving intent does require this.

Proving negligence does not, it is sufficient to show that the outcome is unreasonable, harmful, and inconsistent with a competent duty of care. State of mind is not required. See :
https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch29s05s01.php

Joe.
User avatar
NSFW
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD

Post by NSFW »

HPT will say that they tested the upgrade process internally and it worked.
HPT will say that lots of customers did the upgrade and still have a working product.

Those things might even be true.

HPT's lawyers will say that this shows that HPT was not negligent, because they took reasonable steps to ensure that the upgrade worked. But, mistakes happen.

The big question here is whether or not they are liable. Certainly if they were found to negligent, they would be liable. But they might be liable even without negligence.
Please don't PM me with technical questions - start a thread instead, and send me a link to it. That way I can answer in public, and help other people who have the same question. Thanks!
User avatar
Gampy
Posts: 2330
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:38 am

Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD

Post by Gampy »

A simple testing program (simulators, beta testing, etc...) is enough to show competent care of duty.
That's really all that can be done ...

If it can be proven that the software or device did in fact cause damage that was not the result of outside interference (power fluctuations, RF, poor wiring, etc...) then you have a liable case.
Intelligence is in the details!

It is easier not to learn bad habits, then it is to break them!

If I was here to win a popularity contest, their would be no point, so I wouldn't be here!
Post Reply