Page 3 of 8
Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD
Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:28 pm
by vlad01
reminds me of all the tech giants like apple, intel, samsung and the evil green eye etc..
Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD
Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:28 pm
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.
Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD
Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:30 am
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?
Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD
Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:30 am
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.
Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD
Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:15 pm
by NSFW
Negligence is not that simple.
Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD
Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:35 pm
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.
Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD
Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:00 pm
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...)
Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD
Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:30 pm
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.
Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD
Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:08 am
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.
Re: WARNING HP Tuners MPV1 DEAD
Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:10 am
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.