Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Mike Borgelt]

At 12:47 PM 3/8/2016, you wrote:

Hi all,

As an engineering student I independently came up with the concept as
a final year project - then discovered FLARM had beaten me to it a few
years earlier. As part of my research at the time I am confident I
found promotional material where the FLARM protocol would be "released
to the public in the interest of safety". Clearly this policy changed
as adoption increased.




My recollection also, Al. I'm pretty sure I have archived some early 
Flarm technical specs that went into great detail about the messaging 
protocol. Flarm themselves admit on their website they haven't been 
encrypting for the whole time they have been selling the units.


No, I can't be bothered digging it up.

Mike






Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring 
instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Paul Bart]

On 8 March 2016 at 12:47, Al Borowski  wrote:

Open protocols brought us things like free email (imagine if each one
> cost 5 cents to send!)
>

​Right now I wish it was at least dollar:)

Cheers

Paul​




Cheers

Paul
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Al Borowski]

On 08/03/2016, Andres Miramontes  wrote:
> After been reading all the comments on this subject  I am really surprised
> to find  we have around so many capable professionals on the topic and I
> wonder why nobody has came up yet with a more profitable and affordable
> solution to this issue to compite with companies that invest millions of
> dollars in research and development ?
[...]
> If you have a better idea just do it. It is easy to criticise others for
> what the have already done or achieved.

Because in this case, a competing product has to be compatible with
those already on the market or it is useless. FLARM have taken steps
to prevent this. Short of paying to replace every FLARM already out
there competition is now impossible.

Imagine if Apple made computers that could only connect to
Apple-hosted websites, or if Holdens could only drive on Holden
licensed roads. It'd be an unworkable mess.

Cheers,

Al
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Andres Miramontes]

After been reading all the comments on this subject  I am really surprised
to find  we have around so many capable professionals on the topic and I
wonder why nobody has came up yet with a more profitable and affordable
solution to this issue to compite with companies that invest millions of
dollars in research and development ?

May be the problem is no so simple, or the market is not as big, or there
are more challenges that some may perceive.

I completely understand and support that people may have different points
of views and opinions but some of the comments published lately are
offensive and misleading.

If you have a better idea just do it. It is easy to criticise others for
what the have already done or achieved.

My two cents.


Andres


On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Mike Borgelt <
mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:

>
> Justin Couch ,
>
> For most of the standards you talk about there are alternatives. Don't
> like Android? Use Linux or Windows. Some of you examples seem obsolete too.
> Firewire? Haven't seen that in quite a while. As I understand it the wi-fi
> thing is a straight out patent fight. Not so with
>
> Flarm.
>
> The Flarm problem is that to be at all useful all such devices must
> conform to the same standard in the rf scheme and the transmission
> protocol.
>
> This was initially unencrypted and only when a credible competitor
> appeared did Flarm institute the encryption.
>
> Now consider what would have happened had Flarm announced on first release
> of their system that they intended to enforce an effective monopoly by
> encrypting the transmissions? Or announced that they would do so in future?
> Would the takeup have been as rapid?
>
> Would a competitor immediately have appeared or announced intention,
> before the installed base of Flarms got large, to offer an unencrypted
> transmission protocol? Maybe several competitors? Would the IGC or a
> National gliding body (maybe a non Swiss one with
>
> a large number of pilots) have said  - that's a good idea but we're not
> paying those chocolate makers and yodellers a royalty* - here's our open
> standard?
>
> The IGC publishes a standard for IGC certified Flight Recorders and
> verifies that any manufacturer's product meets it. There were some
> shenanigans with that too, though. As I said, people send me stuff.
>
> Another gliding comparison would be if one of the major manufacturers had
> developed or now bought the rights to CS22 which gliders must be certified
> to in most countries and had the ability to change it at will and demand a
> licence fee. How many other manufacturer's
>
> would there be? From reading between the lines one non European
> manufacturer already ran up against Germany Inc. when trying to certify a
> glider.
>
> I really despise anti competitive behaviour and the people who indulge in
> it. In the Flarm case encryption introduces unnecessary complexity and risk
> to protect a market. The privacy argument is a mere fig leaf for anti
> competitive behaviour. ADSB and mode S have
>
> unique codes for each aircraft and are easy to eavesdrop. What next,
> flight plans and Sartimes are breaches of privacy? Who was it said around
> 15 years ago: "Privacy, there isn't any. Get used to it."?
>
> I can't see what Flarm are worried about. If they don't encrypt and have
> licence agreements those contracts still stand until one of the licencees
> develops his own source code, circuit boards and hardware and uses that
> instead of the Flarm equivalents.  Given the market
>
> penetration of Flarm and the near saturation of the market this may not
> even happen. The licencees didn't get the source code AFAIK anyway just the
> hex.
>
> For the record I was offered a licence to manufacture Flarm in 2004- 2005.
> I forget which and I'm too lazy to look it up. As it used a very similar
> GPS to that we were designing into the B500 system, my German distributor
> suggested I talk to them about it. I did so and
>
> they made the offer. I even did the research to find the correct frequency
> to use in Australia.  I wasn't really interested in manufacturing the
> things here, nor selling them as I thought they would be useless unless
> there was near universal adoption, I'm not fond of mandates
>
> and customer support was likely to be onerous.
>
> Adrian and I had scoped out the possibilities for a similar system in
> 2000. Transmitting GPS positions  for traffic awareness is an obvious thing
> and not patentable.  We actually decided how many bits in the message
> (funny how we came to the same number as Flarm)
>
> and how often it needed to transmit. Consulted Adrian's son, Peter, a
> graduate Electronic engineer about the rf side and he suggested we might
> get 5 to 6km range on the 2.4Ghz band. Good enough for a demonstration we
> thought. We had other things to do and getting
>
> decent range would likely involve the bureaucratic nightmare of getting a
> specific frequency allocated. We were somewhat 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[tom . wilksch]

 

- Original Message -
From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
Cc:
Sent:Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:51:44 +1030
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email
Circulation

 Mercy sakes. You guys are going to run me out of popcorn soon.

 ___
 Aus-soaring mailing list
 Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
 http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Mike Borgelt]

Yes, you are right. The drone anticollision 
problem will likely solve the issue once and for 
all. Don't hold your breath though. It has only 
been 20 years and ADSB still hasn't had universal rollout.


Presumably it will be an open standard arrived at 
by international agreement(or disagreement or the 
Americans will come up with  a standard and that 
will be the de facto international standard). The 
fight will be interesting. Bring popcorn.


The "fuss" is about possible flaws in a widely 
used safety aid as a result of a decision to 
encrypt for other than good engineering reasons. 
As I said, if the originators of that letter are 
who I think, I wouldn't bet against them having solid evidence.


As for the rest, Mark Newton told you twice and 
I've told you that the cases you are sleazily 
attempting  to conflate are totally unlike. I 
don't get a licence fee from other vario 
manufacturers and I don't pay one. The unit is 
just as useful to the owner if it is one or if there are


other users, unlike Flarm or any other traffic 
awareness device. Anyone is free to design, 
manufacture and market a vario system and does.


I also said that, where we want to interact with 
third party devices, we publish the interface 
specification. Yes it is our own but unencrypted. 
An industry one would have been nice but there isn't one.


Are you or LX about to release the source code 
for LX varios and nav systems? I don't think so and I wouldn't expect you to.


So once more, please stop the bullshit.

I did say please the first time too.

Mike





At 08:57 AM 3/8/2016, you wrote:
do you know how many new Flarms are sold each 
year in Australia? on a Last 5 year average less 
than 20. I do feel you are both trying to solve 
a problem where  there is nothing really to fuss about.


to an earlier point you have both ignored,  In 
time, new, very low cost anti collision devices 
will be available. drones and some serous 
stakeholders have ensured that significant chip 
level investments required are already underway. 
unlike gliding, drones are an "at scale" problem 
and as such, attract the right level of fiscal attention to do that.


and Mike, please refrain from offending language 
it's unbecoming.  your response is mainly 
unworthy of comment as your fundamental tenets 
are still commercially flawed, which you in 
running a successful business over an extended 
period of time by selling propriety and fully 
closed solutions would be fully aware of.















On 8 Mar 2016, at 9:25 AM, Optusnet 
<jjsincl...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:


So as someone who cannot program a shoebox, and 
understood less than 10% of the conversation


1 should we be advocating the removal of FLARM in Australian skies
2 do we need to change the Comp rules mandating FLARM

JJ
Sent from my iPad

On 8 Mar 2016, at 8:05 AM, Mike Borgelt 
<mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> 
wrote:



Richard,

I think Mark Newton already explained how the 
code and protocols are different things. He 
just told you again. As a supposed IT 
professional you know this so please stop with the bullshit.


Nobody is asking Flarm to share the internal 
code that makes the device work. The first 
implementation of Flarm did not encrypt the 
transmission protocol. They in fact published 
it themselves. Only when a credible 
competitor, making an inter operable system 
appeared did they encrypt the transmissions. 
They've now done it in such a way that the key 
keeps changing to make breaking the encryption 
near impossible. There is no good reason to do 
this except for commercial advantage. It in 
fact introduces complexity and risk.


As for varios and Flarms - apples and oranges. 
Are you really that silly? Again the source 
code for the firmware in our varios is 
irrelevant anyway. Deciding what the thing 
should do and how  is the hard part. I see our 
audios have been explicitly emulated in at 
least two other products and several other features also.


When it comes to interacting with other 
devices such as PNAs etc we publish the 
messaging protocol which is why XCSoar  reads 
it and also sends MacCready, bugs and ballast 
to the B600/B800. We even used the CAI 302 
input protocol to make things easier for developers.


As for hunting down the originator of that 
email, ROTFLMAO, "please don't throw me in the 
briar patch". Sure would be fun seeing the 
internal communications between the Flarm guys 
regarding the decision to encrypt, subpoenaed. 
Let alone the unwanted attention the case may 
attract from various competition law regulators in Europe and other places.


Flarm is a nice proof of concept demonstration 
that got out of hand. It has significant 
limitations but for the purpose it was 
designed (avoiding head on collisions  in the Alps) it was a great advance.


Mike










At 10:01 AM 3/7/2016, you wrote:



Mike, thats sounds pretty hypocritical coming from 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Richard Frawley]

do you know how many new Flarms are sold each year in Australia? on a Last 5 
year average less than 20. I do feel you are both trying to solve a problem 
where  there is nothing really to fuss about.

to an earlier point you have both ignored,  In time, new, very low cost anti 
collision devices will be available. drones and some serous stakeholders have 
ensured that significant chip level investments required are already underway. 
unlike gliding, drones are an "at scale" problem and as such, attract the right 
level of fiscal attention to do that. 

and Mike, please refrain from offending language it's unbecoming.  your 
response is mainly unworthy of comment as your fundamental tenets are still 
commercially flawed, which you in running a successful business over an 
extended period of time by selling propriety and fully closed solutions would 
be fully aware of.














> On 8 Mar 2016, at 9:25 AM, Optusnet  wrote:
> 
> So as someone who cannot program a shoebox, and understood less than 10% of 
> the conversation 
> 
> 1 should we be advocating the removal of FLARM in Australian skies
> 2 do we need to change the Comp rules mandating FLARM 
> 
> JJ 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 8 Mar 2016, at 8:05 AM, Mike Borgelt  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Richard,
>> 
>> I think Mark Newton already explained how the code and protocols are 
>> different things. He just told you again. As a supposed IT professional you 
>> know this so please stop with the bullshit.
>> 
>> Nobody is asking Flarm to share the internal code that makes the device 
>> work. The first implementation of Flarm did not encrypt the transmission 
>> protocol. They in fact published it themselves. Only when a credible 
>> competitor, making an inter operable system appeared did they encrypt the 
>> transmissions. They've now done it in such a way that the key keeps changing 
>> to make breaking the encryption near impossible. There is no good reason to 
>> do this except for commercial advantage. It in fact introduces complexity 
>> and risk.
>> 
>> As for varios and Flarms - apples and oranges. Are you really that silly? 
>> Again the source code for the firmware in our varios is irrelevant anyway. 
>> Deciding what the thing should do and how  is the hard part. I see our 
>> audios have been explicitly emulated in at least two other products and 
>> several other features also.
>> 
>> When it comes to interacting with other devices such as PNAs etc we publish 
>> the messaging protocol which is why XCSoar  reads it and also sends 
>> MacCready, bugs and ballast to the B600/B800. We even used the CAI 302 input 
>> protocol to make things easier for developers.
>> 
>> As for hunting down the originator of that email, ROTFLMAO, "please don't 
>> throw me in the briar patch". Sure would be fun seeing the internal 
>> communications between the Flarm guys regarding the decision to encrypt, 
>> subpoenaed. Let alone the unwanted attention the case may attract from 
>> various competition law regulators in Europe and other places.
>> 
>> Flarm is a nice proof of concept demonstration that got out of hand. It has 
>> significant limitations but for the purpose it was designed (avoiding head 
>> on collisions  in the Alps) it was a great advance.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 10:01 AM 3/7/2016, you wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Mike, thats sounds pretty hypocritical coming from you.
>>> 
>>> You of all people should be honest in acknowledging the challenging 
>>> business economics that are apparent in serving what is a tiny community.
>>> 
>>> Flarm have done a great job over the many years supplying a reliable, life 
>>> saving product that cost less than some of your Varios.
>>> 
>>> Like you Mike, they have every right to protect their IP and make a living. 
>>> I don’t see you rushing to Open Sourcing your codes.
>>> 
>>> Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply.
>>> 
>>> Right now, Flarm licence their code and design to 9 other parties. Those 
>>> parties add their own value into the supply chain. As such, its a 
>>> competitive market.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:32 AM, Mike Borgelt < 
 mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:
 
 At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
>> 
>> http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/
> 
> Smells like bullshit.
> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
>  
> 
> "Encryption of the radio protocol is a consequence of the requirements 
> for privacy and security and was thus introduced nearly a decade ago: It 
> protects the system from abuse but also from rogue devices implementing 
> the protocol and system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter may have 
> serious consequences for users of 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Justin Couch]

On 7/03/2016 9:09 PM, Mark Newton wrote:


We haven’t been talking about mandating of open specifications, except to the 
extent necessary to comply with existing consumer law.


Theme and variations: can an entity have a specification with restricted 
licensing practices, possibly include cryptography to protect it.  Very 
clearly, yes.



Anticompetitive conduct is illegal in Australia. I think FLARM has as case to 
answer:


And what device did you write this email on? There's at least half a 
dozen identical cases there. USB, HDMI, Thunderbolt, Firewire, Intel 
Chip Socket layout etc - all semi open or closed data communications 
specifications that require licensing fees to implement, sometimes 
protected by cryptography. Did you use an Android device or iPhone/iPad 
today? Did you print something today? All use exactly the same mecahnism 
of cryptographically protected intellectual property (Signed graphics 
drivers, USB cable mods, Ink Cartridges in the previous three examples). 
All perfectly OK here in Oz. FLARM are completely within their rights to 
do what they've done.


--
Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
G+   WetMorgoth
---
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
 Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
 a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
 distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
 frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
---
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Ulrich Stauss]

My understanding is that the encryption was triggered by privacy advocates who 
were concerned about the activities of the OGN 
<http://wiki.glidernet.org/about#system-arch-current>  who are using a network 
of (many) USB DVB-T radio receivers to collect FLARM data from the ground and 
making the tracks openly available on the net – for example their Live Web Page 
<http://live.glidernet.org/>  or flightradar24 <https://www.flightradar24.com/> 
. This hasn’t been made much of an issue here in Australia but in Europe, 
particularly in Germany, many are very sensitive about any technology that 
could in some way infringe privacy (e.g. Google Streetview…. even credit 
cards…). Whether the Flarm guys are displaying good corporate citizenship 
(which the privacy advocates seem to be swallowing) or protecting their turf - 
or both - is probably only a temporary issue because it is most likely only a 
matter of time before the open source community has broken the code (as has 
already happened once before with an earlier, weaker encryption attempt I 
believe) – after all the processing power of the Flarm units is limited so they 
wouldn’t waste too much time for decryption otherwise their real-time 
performance gets degraded (there are some who argue that is already the case).

Just my $0.02 worth (if that).

 

Ulrich

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Richard Frawley
Sent: Monday, 7 March 2016 10:32
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

 

 

 

Mike, thats sounds pretty hypocritical coming from you.

 

You of all people should be honest in acknowledging the challenging business 
economics that are apparent in serving what is a tiny community.

 

Flarm have done a great job over the many years supplying a reliable, life 
saving product that cost less than some of your Varios.

 

Like you Mike, they have every right to protect their IP and make a living. I 
don’t see you rushing to Open Sourcing your codes.

 

Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply.

 

Right now, Flarm licence their code and design to 9 other parties. Those 
parties add their own value into the supply chain. As such, its a competitive 
market.

 

 

 

 

 

On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:32 AM, Mike Borgelt <mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com 
<mailto:mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> > wrote:

 

At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote:



On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com> > wrote:




http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/ 


Smells like bullshit.
http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
 

"Encryption of the radio protocol is a consequence of the requirements for 
privacy and security and was thus introduced nearly a decade ago: It protects 
the system from abuse but also from rogue devices implementing the protocol and 
system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter may have serious consequences 
for users of proper devices since incorrect data may lead to undefined behavior 
on the receiver end. The encryption applied is an industrial-strength symmetric 
cipher, fast enough to be run on all devices with no performance degradation. 
Since decryption or interception of encrypted communication is illegal in most 
countries, this also ensures the integrity of the system beyond the technical 
barriers. Furthermore, the encryption can be enhanced with software updates if 
security is compromised.”


This is a half-baked technical-sounding justification for a restraint of trade.



So I guess by the Flarm company's thinking ADSB is illegal as it breaks privacy 
and security? There's no encryption and every aircraft is identified by a 
unique code. Note that no individual is identified, just the aircraft, same as 
Flarm. Flarm is transmitted a few kilometers, ADSB goes to the horizon.

Let alone the engineering stupidity of implementing an unnecessary encryption 
scheme which adds complexity and failure modes.

Where is Flarm company's evidence that other devices ever caused a problem? 
Apart from cutting in to their sales.

I'm aware of only one other Flarm compatible device having been commercially 
produced and that was made by DSX. They claimed to have had 40% of the Italian 
and Spanish markets before Flarm started their encryption games and managed to 
break the initial Flarm encryption scheme in 3 weeks.

Figure out the rest for yourselves.

Oh, I really like the Flarm response to this: Let's find the messenger and 
shoot him.

Mike











Publish the standard, and have independent auditors judge compliance with the 
standard to award a FLARM-compatible Service Mark for compatible 
implementations. Devices that aren’t “rogue” get to advertise themselve

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Justin Couch]

On 7/03/2016 2:49 PM, Mark Newton wrote:


Then you’d know that RAND licensing is an area of active controversy, which 
some standards bodies have taken an active role in, particularly in the data 
communications space.


RAND: Reasonable And Non Discriminatory. Commonly misconstrued by those 
outside the standards world to mean Royalty Free. Not the same, by a 
longshot. Just means trying to keep out predatory companies from making 
and open standard that then prices all competitors (Reasonable) or 
selectively (Non-Discriminatory) out of the market.


And RAND was a subject for a while, but not much any more. In fact, most 
standards bodies that seem to have any weight haven't bothered - IEEE, 
ECMA (best standards money can buy!) and ISO. The only two really going 
hard on Royalty Free that I am aware of are IETF and Khronos. Our own 
government made a heck of a lot of money off another widely used data 
communications open standard with a bunch of patents - 802.11 - commonly 
known as Wifi.



… and yet here I am, sitting in front of a workstation loaded with free 
software, including a rich set of AV tools which support decode and encode in 
mp2, mp3 and mp4, for which no royalties have been paid to anyone.


Pure commercial reality, some legal victories by Google, and some 
reading of the MPEG-LA licensing agreement would answer that question 
for you.


BTW, MPEG2 (MP3 is just part of MPEG2 standard group) have all the 
patents expired now in the USA (last MP3 codec patent expired about 18 
months ago), so completely royalty free to implement. There's still a 
handful non-expired but in oddball places like China etc.


So, dragging this back towards the topic again: Can the government 
mandate open specifications that require royalty payments to implement - 
yes, despite moralistic wailing otherwise (again, see Digital TV). It is 
very common. If they wanted to mandate FLARM protocol, then all FLARM 
has to do is drop into the local ECMA office with a spec, get it rubber 
stamped and hand it to the government. Simple process that takes no more 
than about a month and a few grand to do. They could even boot it up to 
ISO status due to ECMA's preferred vendor status with ISO (See Microsoft 
Office format) Just add about 2 years to the process if you can buy off 
enough member countries fast enough.



--
Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
G+   WetMorgoth
---
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
 Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
 a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
 distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
 frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
---
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Justin Couch]

On 7/03/2016 6:20 PM, Optusnet wrote:

Matt what would be your guess to setup and design a standalone reconfigurable 
FLARM type of system., I was thinking about future ADSB,ACARS,AUTO MET, 
Outlanding advice , soaring spot tracker type of stuff?

If we had one box that broadcast FLARM type stuff that could utilise cheap 
Comms it might be worth investing in.


Hardware and software? Do we need aviation spec compliance? Software is 
relatively easy, even some of the hardware these days. My workmate doing 
the UAV glider as put together the something with all this output except 
FLARM for about A$400. Granted he's an electrician and knows his way 
around system config, so ahead of the game compared to your average 
glider pilot, but in bulk, pretty simple with already commonly available 
parts and software.


For the FLARM component, a reasonable dev with basic physics knowledge 
should be able to code up a robust solution in about 6 weeks.


The rest is all just packaging, bulk production and managing the 
QA/release and upgrade lifecycle.



--
Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
G+   WetMorgoth
---
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
 Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
 a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
 distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
 frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
---
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Optusnet]

Yep I deserved that, just one little L missing. Must have been the salt lost 
affecting my logic from pushing OJ five times a day for runway changes pre 
launch in January.

Here goes again,

Matt what would be your guess to setup and design a standalone reconfigurable 
FLARM type of system., I was thinking about future ADSB,ACARS,AUTO MET, 
Outlanding advice , soaring spot tracker type of stuff? 

If we had one box that broadcast FLARM type stuff that could utilise cheap 
Comms it might be worth investing in.

And before you all carry on I know of one major (non-oz) airline putting 
soaring loggers in their tail compartments attached to mobile phone technology 
to track APU use.

Righto back to my salt balance 

Justin

Sent from my iPad

> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:42 PM, Mark Fisher  wrote:
> 
> You are making far too much profit out of miniOZ Richard☺
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
>> peanuts
>> 
>>> On 7 Mar 2016, at 3:20 PM, Bob Dircks  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Matt,
>>> 
>>> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>>> 
>>> Are you thinking wool, beef or cropping ?
>>> 
 On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Optusnet  
 wrote:
 Hi Matt,
 
 Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
 
 
 Sent from my iPad
 
> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter  
> wrote:
> 
> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run 
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, 
> to license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO 
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
> 
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM 
> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages 
> fall largely outside the technical realm."
> 
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a 
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
> 
> [1]http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it 
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard 
>>> unimplementable without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>> 
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing 
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>> 
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for 
>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, 
>> so I know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have 
>> individual IP policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket 
>> across the organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent 
>> body pool called MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without 
>> paying license fees for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being 
>> an isolated incident at ISO. There are other completely open standards 
>> such as SEDRIS or X3D that require contributors to license any 
>> contributed patents for zero cost to all implementors. There's, of 
>> course, others in between.
>> 
>> 
>>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone 
>>> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG 
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>> 
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if 
>> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - 
>> to completely avoid the patents.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Mark Fisher]

You are making far too much profit out of miniOZ Richard☺

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:

> peanuts
>
> On 7 Mar 2016, at 3:20 PM, Bob Dircks  wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>
> Are you thinking wool, beef or cropping ?
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Optusnet 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter 
>> wrote:
>>
>> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run
>> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to
>> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO
>> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>>
>> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
>> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM
>> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall
>> largely outside the technical realm."
>>
>> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a
>> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
>> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>>
 Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it
 purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable
 without paying license fees, and you know it.

 Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing
 these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.

>>>
>>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for
>>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I
>>> know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP
>>> policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the
>>> organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called
>>> MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees
>>> for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at
>>> ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that
>>> require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to
>>> all implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone
 else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG
 implementations, by following the text of the standard.

>>>
>>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if
>>> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to
>>> completely avoid the patents.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>>> G+   WetMorgoth
>>> ---
>>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>>> ---
>>> ___
>>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>


-- 
Mark Fisher
Managing Director
Swift Performance Equipment
Unit 2, 1472 Boundary Rd
Wacol 4076
Australia
Ph:   +61 7 3879 3005
Fax: +61 7 36076277

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Mark Fisher]

That's a joke .no?

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Optusnet  wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter 
> wrote:
>
> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to
> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM
> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall
> largely outside the technical realm."
>
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>
> [1]
> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>
>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable
>>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>>
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>>>
>>
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for
>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I
>> know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP
>> policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the
>> organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called
>> MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees
>> for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at
>> ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that
>> require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to
>> all implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>>
>>
>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone
>>> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>>>
>>
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if
>> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to
>> completely avoid the patents.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>> ---
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>


-- 
Mark Fisher
Managing Director
Swift Performance Equipment
Unit 2, 1472 Boundary Rd
Wacol 4076
Australia
Ph:   +61 7 3879 3005
Fax: +61 7 36076277
www.spe.com.au
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Richard Frawley]

peanuts

> On 7 Mar 2016, at 3:20 PM, Bob Dircks  wrote:
> 
> Hi Matt,
> 
> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
> 
> Are you thinking wool, beef or cropping ?
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Optusnet  wrote:
>> Hi Matt,
>> 
>> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter  wrote:
>>> 
>>> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run 
>>> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to 
>>> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO 
>>> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>>> 
>>> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
>>> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM 
>>> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall 
>>> largely outside the technical realm."
>>> 
>>> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a 
>>> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>>> 
>>> [1]http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
>>> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>>> 
 On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it 
> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable 
> without paying license fees, and you know it.
> 
> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing 
> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
 
 Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for 
 just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so 
 I know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual 
 IP policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the 
 organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool 
 called MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying 
 license fees for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an 
 isolated incident at ISO. There are other completely open standards such 
 as SEDRIS or X3D that require contributors to license any contributed 
 patents for zero cost to all implementors. There's, of course, others in 
 between.
 
 
> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone 
> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG 
> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
 
 No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if 
 you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to 
 completely avoid the patents.
 
 
 -- 
 Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
 Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
 LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
 G+   WetMorgoth
 ---
 "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
 ---
 ___
 Aus-soaring mailing list
 Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
 http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>> 
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Richard Frawley]

it gets to be a moot point.

Unless someone wants to make a cheap enough and open version of comparable 
quality such that we all change over, then Flarm will continue to charge a 
reasonable amount sufficient to keep their business running and protect their 
business accordingly. that's consistent with the commercial world we operate in.

it's less than the price of a vario, it helps to save your life. it's a once 
off purchase. it's a shrinking market that has saturated. think it thru lads.

I am surprised they are not charging a fee for annual software updates. 

anyone involved with Sofware dev and open source will tell you that's no 
panacea either if you think that is an option.











> On 7 Mar 2016, at 3:12 PM, Matthew Scutter  wrote:
> 
> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run 
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to 
> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO 
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
> 
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM are 
> weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall 
> largely outside the technical realm."
> 
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a 
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
> 
> [1]http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it 
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable 
>>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>> 
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing 
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>> 
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for just 
>> over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I know 
>> it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP policy 
>> for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the organisation. 
>> In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called MPEG-LA. You 
>> cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees for the 
>> patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at ISO. 
>> There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that require 
>> contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to all 
>> implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>> 
>> 
>>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone else’s 
>>> MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG 
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>> 
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if you 
>> write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to 
>> completely avoid the patents.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>> ---
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Nelson Handcock]

I guess crops could be harvested with gliders using ground effect...
perfect practice for comp finishes at Lake Keepit, etc

Thanks & Regards,

Nelson Handcock
0409 149919

http://www.linkedin.com/in/nelsonhandcockaustralia

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Bob Dircks  wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>
> Are you thinking wool, beef or cropping ?
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Optusnet 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter 
>> wrote:
>>
>> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run
>> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to
>> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO
>> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>>
>> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
>> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM
>> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall
>> largely outside the technical realm."
>>
>> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a
>> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
>> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>>
 Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it
 purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable
 without paying license fees, and you know it.

 Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing
 these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.

>>>
>>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for
>>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I
>>> know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP
>>> policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the
>>> organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called
>>> MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees
>>> for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at
>>> ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that
>>> require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to
>>> all implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone
 else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG
 implementations, by following the text of the standard.

>>>
>>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if
>>> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to
>>> completely avoid the patents.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>>> G+   WetMorgoth
>>> ---
>>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>>> ---
>>> ___
>>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Bob Dircks]

Hi Matt,

Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?

Are you thinking wool, beef or cropping ?

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Optusnet  wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter 
> wrote:
>
> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to
> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM
> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall
> largely outside the technical realm."
>
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>
> [1]
> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>
>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable
>>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>>
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>>>
>>
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for
>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I
>> know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP
>> policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the
>> organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called
>> MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees
>> for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at
>> ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that
>> require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to
>> all implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>>
>>
>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone
>>> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>>>
>>
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if
>> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to
>> completely avoid the patents.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>> ---
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Matthew Scutter]

Amusing and tangentially relevant - FLARM licenses their prediction engine
from ONERA
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US=6438492==E=en_EP
http://www.onera.fr/en/news/flarm-aircraft-collision-avoidance-system-gliders

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Matthew Scutter 
wrote:

> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to
> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM
> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall
> largely outside the technical realm."
>
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>
> [1]
> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>
>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable
>>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>>
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>>>
>>
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for
>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I
>> know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP
>> policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the
>> organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called
>> MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees
>> for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at
>> ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that
>> require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to
>> all implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>>
>>
>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone
>>> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>>>
>>
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if
>> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to
>> completely avoid the patents.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>> ---
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Optusnet]

Hi Matt,

Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?


Sent from my iPad

> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter  wrote:
> 
> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run 
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to 
> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO 
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
> 
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM are 
> weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall 
> largely outside the technical realm."
> 
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a 
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
> 
> [1]http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it 
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable 
>>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>> 
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing 
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>> 
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for just 
>> over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I know 
>> it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP policy 
>> for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the organisation. 
>> In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called MPEG-LA. You 
>> cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees for the 
>> patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at ISO. 
>> There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that require 
>> contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to all 
>> implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>> 
>> 
>>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone else’s 
>>> MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG 
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>> 
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if you 
>> write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to 
>> completely avoid the patents.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>> ---
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Matthew Scutter]

FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run
their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to
license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO
standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.

As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
"it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM
are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall
largely outside the technical realm."

I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a
PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.

[1]
http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
[2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:

> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it
>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable
>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>
>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing
>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>>
>
> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for
> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I
> know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP
> policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the
> organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called
> MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees
> for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at
> ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that
> require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to
> all implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>
>
> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone
>> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG
>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>>
>
> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if
> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to
> completely avoid the patents.
>
>
> --
> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
> G+   WetMorgoth
> ---
> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
> ---
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Justin Couch]

On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:

Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it purchasable, is 
not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable without paying 
license fees, and you know it.

Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing these 
days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.


Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for 
just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, 
so I know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have 
individual IP policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket 
across the organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent 
body pool called MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without 
paying license fees for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being 
an isolated incident at ISO. There are other completely open standards 
such as SEDRIS or X3D that require contributors to license any 
contributed patents for zero cost to all implementors. There's, of 
course, others in between.




I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone else’s 
MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG implementations, 
by following the text of the standard.


No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if 
you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - 
to completely avoid the patents.



--
Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
G+   WetMorgoth
---
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
 Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
 a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
 distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
 frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
---
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Mark Newton]

On Mar 7, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
> On 7/03/2016 12:09 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
> 
>> It is not possible for a consumer to vote with their wallet, because no 
>> matter where they send their money, FLARM skims the cream.
>> 
>> It isn’t a competitive market, it’s a restraint of trade.
> 
> Not a good argument to make. This exact same scenario plays out all over the 
> world - even with ISO standards.

Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it purchasable, is 
not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable without paying 
license fees, and you know it.

Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing these 
days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.

And besides: The FLARM line protocol is neither patented nor secret. Everyone 
already knows how it works, the only thing that makes it unimplementable is a 
retrofitted crypto system.

> If you want have a look at a good example, see the various MPEG standards and 
> licensing those (and thus free to air digital TV).

I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone else’s 
MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG implementations, 
by following the text of the standard.

I cannot do that with FLARM. I know what the line protocol looks like, but I 
don’t have the private keys, so I can’t interoperate.

> Even government-mandated broadcast specs require something that must be 
> licensed from 3rd parties.

Yes: Legislated monopolies behave monopolistically: Huge news, film at 11.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Richard Frawley]

As pointed out by your friend Mike earlier, you are incorrectly barking up the 
wrong tree.

There is nothing stopping anyone from having a go a producing at equivalent 
product for $10 that is better and could easily replace every Flarm on the 
planet with their own solution. 

In time, this might happen if low cost high volume (think Drones) ADSB like 
products (or similar) arrive on the scene. (go search what Google have funded 
in this space)

As that has not happened yet, its probablty not econically attractive to do so.

But you are welcome to try.

In the meantime, Flarm have the rights to protect their business and the good 
service they provide to the community. In fact, its their prime responsibility 
to their shareholders.

If you feel they don't, they by all means and at your cost, go sue them. When 
you have wasted your first $100,000 in lawyers fees please let us all know.














> On 7 Mar 2016, at 12:09 PM, Mark Newton  wrote:
> 
> On Mar 7, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
>> Flarm have done a great job over the many years supplying a reliable, life 
>> saving product that cost less than some of your Varios.
> 
> That doesn’t give them a right to a monopoly.
> 
>> Like you Mike, they have every right to protect their IP and make a living. 
>> I don’t see you rushing to Open Sourcing your codes.
> 
> Nobody is talking about open sourcing code. We’re talking about standards.
> 
> You know this, because I made the same distinction on Friday.
> 
> Standards are ROUTINELY open. If they weren’t, you wouldn’t have been able to 
> send your email message or receive this one.
> 
>> Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply.
> 
> You’re talking about “source”, so you’re having the wrong argument. Nobody 
> cares about FLARM’s source code.
> 
>> Right now, Flarm licence their code and design to 9 other parties. Those 
>> parties add their own value into the supply chain. As such, its a 
>> competitive market.
> 
> It would be a competitive market if it was possible for a competitor to 
> launch a competing product without paying some of their profit margin to 
> their competitor in the form of a license fee.
> 
> It is not possible to play in this market space at the moment without 
> enriching FLARM.
> 
> It is not possible for a consumer to vote with their wallet, because no 
> matter where they send their money, FLARM skims the cream.
> 
> It isn’t a competitive market, it’s a restraint of trade.
> 
>  - mark
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[DMcD]

>>Standards are ROUTINELY open

Except if they are national or international standards.

If we want to make something to conform to many standards including
ISO and CE, we must pay for the standards document in the first place
to learn the standard.

IGES and GIF are both standards, but one has to pay to use them.

D
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Justin Couch]

On 7/03/2016 12:09 PM, Mark Newton wrote:


It is not possible for a consumer to vote with their wallet, because no matter 
where they send their money, FLARM skims the cream.

It isn’t a competitive market, it’s a restraint of trade.


Not a good argument to make. This exact same scenario plays out all over 
the world - even with ISO standards. If you want have a look at a good 
example, see the various MPEG standards and licensing those (and thus 
free to air digital TV). Even government-mandated broadcast specs 
require something that must be licensed from 3rd parties.



--
Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
G+   WetMorgoth
---
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
 Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
 a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
 distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
 frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
---
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Mark Newton]

On Mar 7, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> Flarm have done a great job over the many years supplying a reliable, life 
> saving product that cost less than some of your Varios.

That doesn’t give them a right to a monopoly.

> Like you Mike, they have every right to protect their IP and make a living. I 
> don’t see you rushing to Open Sourcing your codes.

Nobody is talking about open sourcing code. We’re talking about standards.

You know this, because I made the same distinction on Friday.

Standards are ROUTINELY open. If they weren’t, you wouldn’t have been able to 
send your email message or receive this one.

> Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply.

You’re talking about “source”, so you’re having the wrong argument. Nobody 
cares about FLARM’s source code.

> Right now, Flarm licence their code and design to 9 other parties. Those 
> parties add their own value into the supply chain. As such, its a competitive 
> market.

It would be a competitive market if it was possible for a competitor to launch 
a competing product without paying some of their profit margin to their 
competitor in the form of a license fee.

It is not possible to play in this market space at the moment without enriching 
FLARM.

It is not possible for a consumer to vote with their wallet, because no matter 
where they send their money, FLARM skims the cream.

It isn’t a competitive market, it’s a restraint of trade.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Richard Frawley]

Mike, thats sounds pretty hypocritical coming from you.

You of all people should be honest in acknowledging the challenging business 
economics that are apparent in serving what is a tiny community.

Flarm have done a great job over the many years supplying a reliable, life 
saving product that cost less than some of your Varios.

Like you Mike, they have every right to protect their IP and make a living. I 
don’t see you rushing to Open Sourcing your codes.

Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply.

Right now, Flarm licence their code and design to 9 other parties. Those 
parties add their own value into the supply chain. As such, its a competitive 
market.





> On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:32 AM, Mike Borgelt  
> wrote:
> 
> At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley > > wrote:
>> 
>>> http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/
>>>  
>>> 
>> Smells like bullshit.
>> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> "Encryption of the radio protocol is a consequence of the requirements for 
>> privacy and security and was thus introduced nearly a decade ago: It 
>> protects the system from abuse but also from rogue devices implementing the 
>> protocol and system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter may have serious 
>> consequences for users of proper devices since incorrect data may lead to 
>> undefined behavior on the receiver end. The encryption applied is an 
>> industrial-strength symmetric cipher, fast enough to be run on all devices 
>> with no performance degradation. Since decryption or interception of 
>> encrypted communication is illegal in most countries, this also ensures the 
>> integrity of the system beyond the technical barriers. Furthermore, the 
>> encryption can be enhanced with software updates if security is 
>> compromised.”
>> 
>> 
>> This is a half-baked technical-sounding justification for a restraint of 
>> trade.
> 
> 
> So I guess by the Flarm company's thinking ADSB is illegal as it breaks 
> privacy and security? There's no encryption and every aircraft is identified 
> by a unique code. Note that no individual is identified, just the aircraft, 
> same as Flarm. Flarm is transmitted a few kilometers, ADSB goes to the 
> horizon.
> 
> Let alone the engineering stupidity of implementing an unnecessary encryption 
> scheme which adds complexity and failure modes.
> 
> Where is Flarm company's evidence that other devices ever caused a problem? 
> Apart from cutting in to their sales.
> 
> I'm aware of only one other Flarm compatible device having been commercially 
> produced and that was made by DSX. They claimed to have had 40% of the 
> Italian and Spanish markets before Flarm started their encryption games and 
> managed to break the initial Flarm encryption scheme in 3 weeks.
> 
> Figure out the rest for yourselves.
> 
> Oh, I really like the Flarm response to this: Let's find the messenger and 
> shoot him.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Publish the standard, and have independent auditors judge compliance with 
>> the standard to award a FLARM-compatible Service Mark for compatible 
>> implementations. Devices that aren’t “rogue” get to advertise 
>> themselves as FLARM(sm), devices that don’t, don’t. Comps can specify 
>> that they won’t accept FLARMs without the servicemark. Then let the 
>> market’s desire for interoperability clean up the raggedy ends.
>> 
>> Using encryption to lock competitors out of the protocol altogether is going 
>> to be incredibly funny in a few years as soon as FLARM decides to stop 
>> providing software support to the 20,000-odd obsolete devices bought between 
>> 2004 and 2010. If you want to keep FLARM you’ll need to buy another device 
>> from the same company that just shafted the device you’ve already bought. 
>> 
>>- mark
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
>> Borgelt Instruments - 
>> design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978
> www.borgeltinstruments.com
>  tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: 
> int+61-7-4635 5784
> mob: 042835 5784 :  int+61-42835 5784
> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Mike Borgelt]

At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote:
On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley 
<rjfraw...@gmail.com> wrote:



http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/


Smells like bullshit.
http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf

"Encryption of the radio protocol is a 
consequence of the requirements for privacy and 
security and was thus introduced nearly a decade 
ago: It protects the system from abuse but also 
from rogue devices implementing the protocol and 
system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter 
may have serious consequences for users of 
proper devices since incorrect data may lead to 
undefined behavior on the receiver end. The 
encryption applied is an industrial-strength 
symmetric cipher, fast enough to be run on all 
devices with no performance degradation. Since 
decryption or interception of encrypted 
communication is illegal in most countries, this 
also ensures the integrity of the system beyond 
the technical barriers. Furthermore, the 
encryption can be enhanced with software updates if security is compromised.”



This is a half-baked technical-sounding 
justification for a restraint of trade.



So I guess by the Flarm company's thinking ADSB 
is illegal as it breaks privacy and security? 
There's no encryption and every aircraft is 
identified by a unique code. Note that no 
individual is identified, just the aircraft, same 
as Flarm. Flarm is transmitted a few kilometers, ADSB goes to the horizon.


Let alone the engineering stupidity of 
implementing an unnecessary encryption scheme 
which adds complexity and failure modes.


Where is Flarm company's evidence that other 
devices ever caused a problem? Apart from cutting in to their sales.


I'm aware of only one other Flarm compatible 
device having been commercially produced and that 
was made by DSX. They claimed to have had 40% of 
the Italian and Spanish markets before Flarm 
started their encryption games and managed to 
break the initial Flarm encryption scheme in 3 weeks.


Figure out the rest for yourselves.

Oh, I really like the Flarm response to this: 
Let's find the messenger and shoot him.


Mike








Publish the standard, and have independent 
auditors judge compliance with the standard to 
award a FLARM-compatible Service Mark for 
compatible implementations. Devices that 
aren’t “rogue” get to advertise themselves 
as FLARM(sm), devices that don’t, don’t. 
Comps can specify that they won’t accept 
FLARMs without the servicemark. Then let the 
market’s desire for interoperability clean up the raggedy ends.


Using encryption to lock competitors out of the 
protocol altogether is going to be incredibly 
funny in a few years as soon as FLARM decides to 
stop providing software support to the 
20,000-odd obsolete devices bought between 2004 
and 2010. If you want to keep FLARM you’ll 
need to buy another device from the same company 
that just shafted the device you’ve already bought.


   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Mark Newton]

On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:

> http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/
>  
> 
Smells like bullshit.
http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
 


"Encryption of the radio protocol is a consequence of the requirements for 
privacy and security and was thus introduced nearly a decade ago: It protects 
the system from abuse but also from rogue devices implementing the protocol and 
system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter may have serious consequences 
for users of proper devices since incorrect data may lead to undefined behavior 
on the receiver end. The encryption applied is an industrial-strength symmetric 
cipher, fast enough to be run on all devices with no performance degradation. 
Since decryption or interception of encrypted communication is illegal in most 
countries, this also ensures the integrity of the system beyond the technical 
barriers. Furthermore, the encryption can be enhanced with software updates if 
security is compromised.”

This is a half-baked technical-sounding justification for a restraint of trade.

Publish the standard, and have independent auditors judge compliance with the 
standard to award a FLARM-compatible Service Mark for compatible 
implementations. Devices that aren’t “rogue” get to advertise themselves as 
FLARM(sm), devices that don’t, don’t. Comps can specify that they won’t accept 
FLARMs without the servicemark. Then let the market’s desire for 
interoperability clean up the raggedy ends.

Using encryption to lock competitors out of the protocol altogether is going to 
be incredibly funny in a few years as soon as FLARM decides to stop providing 
software support to the 20,000-odd obsolete devices bought between 2004 and 
2010. If you want to keep FLARM you’ll need to buy another device from the same 
company that just shafted the device you’ve already bought. 

   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Richard Frawley]

Flarm have dead ended on efforts to get personal identification so far.

If anyone gets an email from the spammers directly, can you send all the header 
info to me and I will pass it on.






> On 6 Mar 2016, at 3:23 PM, m...@mals.net wrote:
> 
> Someone must have the IP ADDRESS to tracert them.
> 
> Mal
> 
> 
> On 2016-03-06 14:30, Richard Frawley wrote:
>> http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/
>> [1]
>> Links:
>> --
>> [1]
>> http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring