Inside the CueCat Hardware

HaveBlue writes "Apparently not content to simply go after those writing software for the CueCat, Digital Convergence is now giving the evil eye to hardware hackers. I just got a letter via FedEx this morning almost exactly like the one sent to Michael Rothwell and other developers. DC just doesn't seem to understand that they can't control hardware that's given away for free..." The second link is an extremely detailed discussion of the internals of the CueCat. Mirror it while you can.

Re:SLASHDOT ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!

Can someone make a CueCat icon? I think it deserves its own topic heading now. That way, people can filter it out on their Slashdot prefs, and everyone's happy.

Conflicting Information from DC

"DC just doesn't seem to understand that they can't control hardware that's given away for free..."

Apparently they do understand.

Today, I got this response from Charles Richardson of DC.

Dear Wallace,

The Cat is yours to do with as you please. I would suggest that you give it
to a friend if you do not want this for yourself. I'm sorry but we have no
way for you to conveniently return this to us.

At 06:00 PM 9/28/00, you wrote:
>Submitted: 09/28/00 at 06:00 pm:
>====================
>Name: Wallace Lee
>Regarding: tech
>Email: [e-mail]
>Heard from: magazine
>Which one:
>Comments: Hello,
>I recently received a ":Cue:Cat" device with a magazine subscription.
>I do not agree with your EULA, and I would like to return it to your
>company. Please provide me with shipping instructions, and a prepaid
>shipping container or label. If you can supply me with such an item,
>please e-mail me [e-mail]. Otherwise, I will destroy the
>:Cue:Cat device or play around with it as I am considering it an
>unsolicited gift.
>
>Thank you,
>WL
>====================
>Browser & Operating System: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98)
>Remote Host: adsl-63-198-207-97.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (63.198.207.97)
>
>eMphormed(tm) email system v2.0.3 by eMphasys technologies, inc.
> Copyright 1998-2000, All Rights Reserved. For authorized use only.
> http://www.emphasys.net

Re:Conflicting Information from DC

The Cat is yours to do with as you please. I would suggest that you give it to a friend if you do not want this for yourself. I'm sorry but we have no way for you to conveniently return this to us.

Hmm. You might ask him about the obvious conflict between his statements and the EULA posted on their web site.


...phil

Re:Excuse me?

Shoot, all you'd have to do is get bar codes from panty hose, barb wire, "C" batteries and tabasco sauce, glue them to the edge of a dinner plate, put the plate on a turn-table and set the CueCat up next to it so it can read the labels as they go by. I can see it now: "Damn, those 27-35 year old engineers are sure buying a lot of panty-hose, barb wire, batteries and hot sauce! Get those advertisers on the phone!"

Re:Strange

I agree completely. Of all the letters I've seen from DC, they more or less say "stop doing this, or we'll stop being nice to you". I say wait til they take legal action and then humiliate them in court. DC hasn't said anything remotely intelligent in any of their letters. They're all very vague, and like to throw around the term "itellectual property" a lot. Until DC starts making specific demands and can back up their claims, let's just laugh at them!

"You'll die up there son, just like I did!" - Abe Simpson

Re:Hardware Hackers

The "On Loan" clause is a bunch of shit.

Why?

First, they changed the EULA when this stuff started happening. People were getting CueCats, and tinkering with them, and posting their findings. DC went apeshit, and modified their EULA to say "Well, we really didn't give it to you. It's on LOAN to you, and we can take it back whenever we please."

That doesn't work either. I dare them to try to "recall" my scanner. I have a legitimate receipt of purchase from Radio Shack that clearly lists the CueCat Scanner, as well as a barcoded catalog. Everyone should have gotten one of these receipts. The purchase price is $0.00, but so what? It's still a legal purchase, and I have my receipt to prove it. So if DC claims that these scanners are on LOAN, that would mean that Radio Shack is dealing in stolen merchandise.

Sounds like DC should be butting heads with Radio Shack's lawyers, and not the end users.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

One Question

Just what the heck did those bozos at Digital Convergience think they were walking into? I mean, heck, if someone picks of these at a flea market five years from now, do they still have to worry about it being improperly used? Geez, why didn't they just include a little tag, like the mattress people use:

WARNING
Failure to use this device
in the manner for which it was
originally intended will result
in us suing your pants off! So don't
even think about it! Bad! We really
mean it! Don't be naughty! Just
say No!

Also, removal of this tag will
result in a very stern letter to
your parents, dead or alive.

Where's a bowl of hot grits when you want to use something for other than it's intended purpose...


--
Chief Frog Inspector

Re:here's an idea

To whom it may concern,
Our clients, the slashdot communicty, have recently made it clear to us that your firm has been partcipating in an unjustified harassment campaign against developers of open source CueCat software on behalf of your client, Digital Convergance. Despite repeated requests for clarification from the recipients of your requests, your firm has seen fit to persist with its harassment of developers working on legitimate hardware and software development.
This letter is being provided to inform you that persuant to section 53, paragraph 12 of the State of Ohio Revised code, you are hereby ordered to cease and desist all actions against the forementioned developers until such time as a complete list of specific grievances can be included with your request. Failure to comply will result in the filing of a civil lawsuit against your firm, digital convergance, and its partners.

Thank you,
Scott F. Crosby

Will that do?

Re:Hardware Hackers

... but if you read the license agreement...

As has been explained multiple times before...

In a contractual transaction, the receiving party has to be given an opportunity to read and understand and agree to a contract (which is what a license agreement is) in order for it to be binding. I've gotten two of these little scanners so far, and neither has come with any kind of license agreement that I could see. There might have been something on the CDs, but I didn't need them, so I pitched them. There certainly wasn't anything on the package telling me that the hardware was being given to me under terms of any kind of contract or license.

Therefore, it appears that there is no contract is in force between Digital Convergence and myself. Any hardware that was given to me freely, with no conditions stated, is mine to do with AS I WILL, provided I don't violate anybody's copyrights or patents. (Copyrights and patents are binding on me no matter if I've signed a contract or not. There is no doubt a copyright on any microcode contained in the processor of the bar code reader, but I'm not attempting to do anything with that code, so I'm OK there. There have been no indications of patent violations, so I'll continue to do as I please until notified that I'm violating a patent. Note that this is different from a trade secret, which requires a contract between the secret owner and other parties. Without a signed contract, I'm under no obligation to keep private any trade secrets that may belong to Digital Convergence.)

I also understand that there might be something on a web site somewhere that talks about restricting what I can do with something that was given to me freely. Since I have not had the opportunity or desire or obligation to go to the web site, any words there are hearsay as far as I'm concerned, which also means they have no legal affect on me. It's also hard to see how terms could be imposed ex post facto, and I believe a court would agree.

So. License? What license?

obDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer.


...phil

cuecats and bungee cords

I remember a story from a few years ago, possibly apocryphal. There was a bungee tower operator, and he went to the top of his tower to make a test jump. Apparently he first checked to make sure that the cord was securely fastened to the top of the tower, and did a back-dive off the tower.

Unfortunately, he had neglected to attach the other end of the bungee cord to his legs.

He apparently started screaming about halfway down ... presumably the point that he realized his error.

Evolution in action.

Here we have the corporate equivalent. In order for DC's business model to work, they needed to ensure that no one else could write software to use their hardware. Their entire business model is based on funnelling all cuecat scans through their web site. If you can use a cuecat without going through their web site, then their business model is destroyed.

Unfortunately, they failed to do that. They used a primitive algorithm, and they made the slightly scrambled string print out in a DOS window, making it extra simple to figure out. They have NO patents that cover use of the hardware, and all of their copyrights only apply to their software, which you don't need to install to use the cuecat. Their "trade secret" was easily reverse-engineered, which is completely legal.

The reason that their vague lawyer-letters don't actually specify any specific intellectual property violation, and the reason why people are receiving vague letters instead of cease and desist letters is quite simple.

They forgot to attach the bungee cord to their legs.

Those letters are the screaming.

Evolution in action.

Sue K & K

It seems to me the author has been threatened that he will be sued for IP violations, and that penalties will accrue the longer he leaves the material up.

He then asked for clarification; that is, what exactly is illegal on the site and what laws were being violated.

K & K did not provide the information.

Therefore, it seems to me that any accrual of financial penalties has now become their burden, for failing to provide the information necessary for the flyingbuttmonkey to determine how best to serve their viewing public.

Anyway, IANAL. Everyone compares computer hardware to cars, and the "welded hood" analogy. It seems to fall apart when you get into these "give away the razor, and make you're money selling blades".

Have any aftermarket car companies been sued for making GM/FORD/HONDA/TOYO replacement parts? Shocks, Tires, Wheels, pistons, etc? What laws let someone take their car apart and posting dimensions of the piston, for example?

Also, Steve Ciarcia (former Byte Magazine/Circuit Cellar guru) ran a lengthy series on the design and programming of barcode readers.

Sheesh, only a small percentage of people getting this thing are going to hack it, anyway. All Digital Divergence is doing is screwing their image with the computing elite. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

Re:Hardware Hackers

(copied directly from the US Postal service publication 201, Consumer's Guide to Postal Services & Products, available from the USPS at http://www.usps.com [usps.com])

Unsolicited Merchandise
Federal law prohibits the shipment of
unordered merchandise. Such a practice
may constitute an unfair trade practice.
Merchandise mailed in violation of United
States Code may be treated as a gift by the
recipient without any obligation to the
sender. The laws governing this practice are
enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.
If you believe that you have received unor-dered
merchandise in violation of federal
law, contact the Commission's Bureau of
Consumer Protection at:
BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON DC 20580-0001

(emphasis added was mine. Digital Convergence has no case)

sue DC

Someone could sue DC to get a declaratory judgment that it is okay to reverse engineer and write software for the CueCat. The complaint would look something like this:

1. The CueCat is a bar code reader (explain it).
2. I would like to reverse engineer the CueCat and write software to intercept the data (explain how).
3. DC is sending out vague cease and desist letters (attach an example).
4. On information and belief, DC has no patent on the CueCat.

Then move for summary judgment asking the judge to rule that there are no patent or copyright rights in the CueCat and that you can reverse engineer it. The plaintiff wins (without having exposed himself to risk). Now, everyone can point DC to a legal decision.

Re:here's an idea

These popped up with a trip to Google [google.com]:

Student's electrial engineering project [washington.edu], includes schematic (scanner + RS232 interface)

And another. [umn.edu]

Can't be too hard to do anyway; just need an IR LED, IR phototransistor positioned to pick up the reflections, clean the signal up into digital and stuff it into a computer for processing.

Or the software way, if you've got a decent enough quality webcam, write some image recognition stuff to read the barcode off frame grabs.

A patentable business process?

I think that DC may have hit on something here.

1. Put out a lame device that's easy to take apart.

2. Record all such instances of "violations of IP".

3. Allow the "damages" to accrue.

4. Sue the IP violators for millions.

5. Patent the process and license it to other companies.

They will be more profitable than most dot.com's

Ralph

Re:here's an idea

It's not trivial, but there is enough information out there that a suitably proficient hobbyist could do it. I would if I had time.

If anyone REALLY wants this done, perhaps you can motivate me. Email me and ask me to do it. Send me money, a used laptop, or some other motivator. :-)

-Adam
My website [ubasics.com] (electronics, PIC uControllers, etc)

Re:Strange

Glad to see that you have deep pockets for court cases. No matter how silly a case is, unless you pay for competent lawyers you are screwed. Also once you start to put in motion actions that would allow you to counter-sue for legal fee's, it becomes a double-edged sword because then they can take their multi-million dollar lawyers and include that in their suit (where they couldn't before)

You must be fairly young to believe that you can take on a company in a legal battle, without VERY competent representation. Even if you win, you are going to end up paying out lots of cash out of your very pocket. A company with millions of dollars can tie up a legal case for months... years... and you still have to pay your lawyer during that time.

Things like this should NEVER be taken lightly, it may be the stupidest thing in the world; but if it gets to court 5-10k for a fees, lost work, etc. is nothing to them but that can break a lot of people I know. The best thing to do is to contact your well paid lawyer, under their guidance they will tell you to respond or not to. If they tell you a response it necessary, they draw up everything and you just put your signature on it. More than likely they will tell you to do nothing, and laughing at them, is the quickest way to get yourself into a lawsuit.

Spelling & grammar checker off because I don't care

here's an idea

can any hardware engineers out there write up a quick and dirty on how to build your own bar-code scanner? then you could base any of your software engineering on hardware you'd created yourself.

let's see em sue you for that.

p.s. since it's legal to send a cease and desist letter for anything, can we get a slash lawyer to write a cease-and-desist letter to DC that asks them to cease and desist being assholes? Then all of us can mail them a copy...

I have a dream..

Several of us at work here decided to write a little VB app that can catalog just about anything using the cue cat. We have not used any of the original code from cuecat, just the un-modified hardware. Are we going to get a rectal examination if we release this as freeware? what have we come to..........

Cue Cat Clones

Wonder if there is any law against creating a clone of the Cue Cat, the case seems small enough that the hardware wouldn't be too hard to duplicate, possibly using larger components.

Free publicity? Suuuuuure. More like seppuku.

What they got is a bunch of pissed-off freedom advocates, a few hardware hackers and trolls having fun, and a whole lot of people who either have already or are about to:

1. Go down to Radio Shack,
2. Pick up a CueCat and lie about their name and address, and
3. Either never use it with the Windoze client, hack the EEPROM before doing anything with it, or both.

All of these people are going to give DC no revenue for their outlay. The publicity alone has given DC a huge hit in their current expenses and future revenue, and frankly they're a bunch of morons to have bet their business on such a lousy business plan.

Let me predict the next cycle of the arms race.

• DC produces a new version of the scanner which truly encrypts the scan output, and fails to operate if the EEPROM is disconnected or altered.
• Some embedded hacker (like, maybe, me?) writes some code for a pin-compatible microcontroller to make their new scanner produce the same output (for ISBN, UPC, etc. codes) as the old CueCat... only without the serialization. Said code is distributed for free, or you can buy a pre-programmed microcontroller for a few bucks and an SASE.

Either way, Digital Convergence can kiss its corporate ass goodbye.
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.

Kenyon and kenyon on slashdot in 1999

Found a reference to Kenyon and Kenyon on slashdot [slashdot.org] in November of 1999. Two different opinions about them then

Hal Duston
[e-mail]

I'm sold!

Those guys are marketing GENUISES! They've gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars of free publicity out of a few pages of letterhead and some stamps.

I mean really what are we going to do, switch to one of the other bar code readers? Of course not, but we've all gone out and got a CueCat!

Whoever put together this plan has got to be sitting in his chair rocking back and forth laughing his butt off at how we fell for it hook, line and sinker! All the while churning out invoices to the CueCat enabled advertisors who signed deals at a rate of .10 per shipped CueCat for the right to use that TMed slanty barcode and logo!

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out Taco was a principle over at DC!

DISASSEMBLY BAAAAAD!

I would never [sausageparty.net] take apart a device [sausageparty.net] I was given...That's bad [sausageparty.net]. What's wrong with you nasty 'hackers'?!

--K
Ok, I said it. Now where's my $50?
---

Surprise

I knew this was coming... I'm beyond glad I printed the page out a few days ago. I was really surprised they hadn't gotten a letter yet.

I think DC can make an argument that the software violates their IP (whatever that is, and however weak their argument is... i think they can make one). Now... I don't see anythign wrong with the hardware side of it.

I got my Cue:;'#$.,==+Cat before they changed their EULA, and since RS didn't get my name and address I feel I have no obligation to any changes they make. So, therefore...I can do with this little piece of hardware as I please. It just so happens I'm allergic to white plastic...so to use their wonderful product I removed it from its casing.

You know...whatever. If they want to waste their money on Legal crap that no one cares about, let them. Are we REALLY worth it? I mean, seriously. How many people have taken theirs apart? Is it worth the cost of all this trouble and bad publicity on their part?

---