Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E

Read John's post again. The economic harm is done when someone buys the

50MHz version, intending to modify it, when in the absence of the disseminated information, they would have bought the more expensive instrument.

The moral thing would be to have announced that "We have discovered that the two instruments are electrically identical, and it is possible to modify the 50MHz version, in firmware, to behave identically to the 100MHz version. We are not disclosing how to do this. We invite comments from the manufacturer."

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

Ok, you've defined profit, but I'll ask Larkin's question again. What's a fair price for IP that costs nothing to manufacture?

No, I defined pricing, not profit,

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

I wonder if that includes altering "Subject:" headers.

;-)

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

Again, what they get when modifying it is *not* a guaranteed 100MHz scope. What they may have bought instead of the 50MHz version is not the same, they would need to pay for a guaranteed scope. They are quite entitled to buy a

50MHz scope and run it out of scec.

But at no point does anyone say that this mod equals the real thing, only that it 'appears' to be the same thing.

If you're saying that it is OK for someone to discover how to modify their own equipment and then run out of spec but not OK to tell others how to do it, then surely all those websites that provide financial information as to how to move their money around with credit cards and hence pay less interest are also wrong, after all you could discover how to do that yourself. In either case the results are legal.

Mark.

Not really (pricing is what the market will bear). You still didn't answer his question, in any case.

Really? How do you know the firmware doesn't keep a count of the number of times this has been done, or log the fact that someone hasn't 'logged in' with an unknown passphrase and keep a record of serial commands sent when no such login passphrase has been sent? Either way Rigol could check whether it has been modified. These are unknowns. As for Rogol themselves conceeding this, the only evidence we have is hearsay without a formal announcement from Rigol. I'm not going to bet that this is actually bleedinly obvious.

Mark.

Yes, do what ethical people do if they discover vulnerabilities in software: inform the manufacturer and give them time to do a fix before you go public... if you go public at all.

John

What people are willing to pay, of course.

If you had a rusty VW beetle up on blocks in your back yard, and somebody offered you $200 for it, and somebody else offered you $24,000, would you sell it to the $200 guy because that's a fair price?

John

Too bad that, with all this ranting, this thread is missing a couple of interesting technical issues re: the varicap bandwidth limiter and the compromises it forces.

John

I wouldn't dispute that. It's not what is at issue.

You've already said that, twice. I have no disagreement with that.

I was making a moral, not a legal point. Maybe you don't distinguish.

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

You poor little pissweak arse-licker. You will go through life being a slave to your stupid religion, if you don't wake up now !

Tough shit, it got you in didn't it !

OK, I understand. However I assume you also think these websites that publish these less well known financial tricks are also ammoral. I conceed that your point was a moral one though not a legal one.

Mark.

No it didn't This thread is marked "watched", and bodies get downloaded automatically.

This news client threads on reference, not subject.

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

AIUI, most financial sites are acting as brokers, hence get commission,

Caveat emptor!

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

That's my answer, but I thought you were asking Fred.

Me? Nope. Because $200 obviously isn't a fair price ($24,000 is now the fair price). OTOH, if I had sold it for $200, whether or not someone came by tomorrow willing to pay $24,000, $200 was a fair price.

On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:53:27 -0700) it happened Fred Abse wrote in :

"They" could do it right now. It is not related to the patents.

Patent laws is not the biggest problem US is facing right now.

As for the options:

- Use technical means to keep trade secrets rather than legal and sell you product outside of US.

- Elect someone with at least a crude understanding of the economy.

- Write a complaint to