|
Copyright on HP service manuals
I don't have any HP user or service manuals, but I suspect they are
copyrighted. Has anyone ever asked Agilent for permission to copy an HP manual and put it on the web. The manual in question (HP 5370B time interval counter) is dated 1995, part number 05370-90031. The equipment is no longer supported. I'm hoping to obtain a copy and was wondering where I wold stand in making it publicly available. Has anyone ever asked Agilent for permission to do this on equipment manuals? I know there are a lot of dealers that do it, but whether or not they pay for the privilidge I don't know. |
|
Dave wrote:
I don't have any HP user or service manuals, but I suspect they are copyrighted. Has anyone ever asked Agilent for permission to copy an HP manual and put it on the web. The manual in question (HP 5370B time interval counter) is dated 1995, part number 05370-90031. The equipment is no longer supported. I'm hoping to obtain a copy and was wondering where I wold stand in making it publicly available. Has anyone ever asked Agilent for permission to do this on equipment manuals? I know there are a lot of dealers that do it, but whether or not they pay for the privilidge I don't know. Take a look at Agilent's web site. If I remember correctly, they put a bunch of the stuff out in the public domain or something very close to that. Last time I was rummaging around on their site, I saw the notice and was impressed enough to remember it. Bob |
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:42:38 +0100, Dave wrote:
I don't have any HP user or service manuals, but I suspect they are copyrighted. Has anyone ever asked Agilent for permission to copy an HP manual and put it on the web. The manual in question (HP 5370B time interval counter) is dated 1995, part number 05370-90031. The equipment is no longer supported. I'm hoping to obtain a copy and was wondering where I wold stand in making it publicly available. Has anyone ever asked Agilent for permission to do this on equipment manuals? I know there are a lot of dealers that do it, but whether or not they pay for the privilidge I don't know. Lots of people sell cd's of old HP and Tek manuals on ebay. And you can buy an original 5370B manual lots of places. That's a great counter, incidentally. I have 3 or 4 of them, a lot older than '95 I think. It has 25 ps single-shot resolution, and the jitter typically runs around 30 rms, a lot less than the new SRS clone. The CPU is a an ancient nmos depletion-load 6800, and it'll process about 2000 shots per second; the firmware must be heavy-duty clever. John |
HP is enforcing their copyright over manuals, even for old unsupported
equipment. Look at this: http://bama.sbc.edu/images/Letter%204-18-05.pdf ....Stepan |
Stepan, wrote...
HP is enforcing their copyright over manuals, even for old unsupported equipment. Look at this: http://bama.sbc.edu/images/Letter%204-18-05.pdf I see the BoatAnchor Manual Archive public-service site has complied, http://bama.sbc.edu/hp.htm removing masses of valuable documentation for ancient hp instruments from public availability. That letter from Agilent's counsel is going to bring a massive response from me as director of a Harvard University research laboratory, directed to the relevant authorities at Agilent to get the policy changed. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests, and it's manifestly unfair to the owners of old HP / Agilent equipment who for one reason or another no longer have an operating or service manual, and who cannot get one from Agilent. For Agilent to close them off from a solution to their problem is to render their bought and paid-for equipment useless. It also means Agilent is capriciously denying the implied warranty of merchantability for their older products; the product can hardly do what it is supposed to do if the owner doesn't know what button to push, or how to interpret the panel reading. And it means Agilent is denying the owners' right to his own self-help in repairing something he purchased fair and square. Moreover, it takes a big step toward removing from the public weal the value of old instruments, no longer manufactured, which in many cases are not replaced by newer instruments performing the same function. -- Thanks, - Win |
I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill
-edu wrote (in ) about 'Copyright on HP service manuals', on Fri, 22 Apr 2005: That letter from Agilent's counsel is going to bring a massive response from me as director of a Harvard University research laboratory, directed to the relevant authorities at Agilent to get the policy changed. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests, and it's manifestly unfair to the owners of old HP / Agilent equipment who for one reason or another no longer have an operating or service manual, and who cannot get one from Agilent. The crux is whether indeed Agilent have been habitually refusing, or will refuse, to supply. The letter by itself is unobjectionable; someone else should not be selling (or even providing free) a copyrighted work. For Agilent to close them off from a solution to their problem is to render their bought and paid-for equipment useless. It also means Agilent is capriciously denying the implied warranty of merchantability for their older products; the product can hardly do what it is supposed to do if the owner doesn't know what button to push, or how to interpret the panel reading. And it means Agilent is denying the owners' right to his own self-help in repairing something he purchased fair and square. Moreover, it takes a big step toward removing from the public weal the value of old instruments, no longer manufactured, which in many cases are not replaced by newer instruments performing the same function. All the above is totally pertinent IFFI Agilent refuse to supply. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. There are two sides to every question, except 'What is a Moebius strip?' http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
That letter from Agilent's counsel is going to bring a massive
response from me as director of a Harvard University research laboratory, directed to the relevant authorities at Agilent to get the policy changed. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests, Well said! Does Agilent actually make money selling these old manuals? No? They probably have always lost money selling manuals. Accordingly, they should be glad that somebody else wants to do it for them! Also, their copyright might be hard to enforce if they no longer sell the manuals themselves. No loss of market; no harm; nothing to sue for. |
"Winfield Hill" -edu wrote in
message ... Stepan, wrote... HP is enforcing their copyright over manuals, even for old unsupported equipment. Look at this: That letter from Agilent's counsel is going to bring a massive response from me as director of a Harvard University research laboratory, directed to the relevant authorities at Agilent to get the policy changed. Maybe you could start a petition from all HP enthusiasts. I can see HP's point in that if someone puts poor-quality scans of their manuals up, some people might think it reflects HP quality in documentation. I'd argue anyone smart enough to need and buy HP kit would not blame HP/Ag. HP made a good name for good kit that did a good job and price took second place. They were an American icon, like Harley Davison or Maglite or Leatherman. Then some pointy haired bunch threw away the old name, diversified into new areas, and promptly turned a steady business into instability. Hmph. Perhaps one could ask HP to provide the better versions, maybe donate mint condition manuals for scanning or even original files. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests On one hand they pressure people to buy new products by doing so, but as a customer I'd be put off buying kit from a company that was so petty as to begrudge manuals to a old customers. Making manuals free in electronic form reduces the waste of paper and office space, which helps everyone. |
["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:15:15 GMT, wrote in Msg. HP is enforcing their copyright over manuals, even for old unsupported equipment. Look at this: That's sooo idiotic. Companies that don't want to host old stuff on their websites any more should be *thankful* if others did so. They should offer their stuff for free for anybody who would want to distribute it. Free marketing. --Daniel |
On 22 Apr 2005 04:05:20 -0700, Winfield Hill
-edu wrote: Stepan, wrote... HP is enforcing their copyright over manuals, even for old unsupported equipment. Look at this: http://bama.sbc.edu/images/Letter%204-18-05.pdf I see the BoatAnchor Manual Archive public-service site has complied, http://bama.sbc.edu/hp.htm removing masses of valuable documentation for ancient hp instruments from public availability. That letter from Agilent's counsel is going to bring a massive response from me as director of a Harvard University research laboratory, directed to the relevant authorities at Agilent to get the policy changed. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests, and it's manifestly unfair to the owners of old HP / Agilent equipment who for one reason or another no longer have an operating or service manual, and who cannot get one from Agilent. For Agilent to close them off from a solution to their problem is to render their bought and paid-for equipment useless. It also means Agilent is capriciously denying the implied warranty of merchantability for their older products; the product can hardly do what it is supposed to do if the owner doesn't know what button to push, or how to interpret the panel reading. And it means Agilent is denying the owners' right to his own self-help in repairing something he purchased fair and square. Moreover, it takes a big step toward removing from the public weal the value of old instruments, no longer manufactured, which in many cases are not replaced by newer instruments performing the same function. Shakespeare was correct ;-) But I've had a bias against hp equipment for at least 30 years... a whole lot of it was crap or became crap within one year. When I ran the Phoenix Analog Design Center for GenRad I forbade the purchase of hp 'scopes. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
Jim Thompson wrote:
When I ran the Phoenix Analog Design Center for GenRad ... GenRad. No kidding? I hadn't run into a GenRad guy for many years. Back in '76, during college break, I interviewed for a temp. technician position at GenRad in Concord, MA. The particular dept. developed bed-of-nails-type board testers, the brains of which were PDP (8? 10? 11?) mini's. I was impressed by the engineers, *very* intrigued by the work, and was quite keen to get the job but ... some to-be college senior got it. I wound up at Data Terminal Systems (point-of-sale terminals) in Maynard (home of DEC, coincidently). Them thar new fangled cash registers used the PPS-4 chip set. Very sexy. Much mo' better than a mini. :-) |
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:26:13 GMT, Michael wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote: When I ran the Phoenix Analog Design Center for GenRad ... GenRad. No kidding? I hadn't run into a GenRad guy for many years. Back in '76, during college break, I interviewed for a temp. technician position at GenRad in Concord, MA. The particular dept. developed bed-of-nails-type board testers, the brains of which were PDP (8? 10? 11?) mini's. I was impressed by the engineers, *very* intrigued by the work, and was quite keen to get the job but ... some to-be college senior got it. I wound up at Data Terminal Systems (point-of-sale terminals) in Maynard (home of DEC, coincidently). Them thar new fangled cash registers used the PPS-4 chip set. Very sexy. Much mo' better than a mini. :-) Yep. I was with OmniComp (a start-up), acquired by GenRad, from 1977-1987. Startled the hell out of me to have them start sending a monthly pension payment when I turned 65... I didn't even know I was entitled ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
Kryten wrote: I can see HP's point in that if someone puts poor-quality scans of their manuals up, some people might think it reflects HP quality in documentation. I'd argue anyone smart enough to need and buy HP kit would not blame HP/Ag. HP made a good name for good kit that did a good job and price took second place. They were an American icon, like Harley Davison or Maglite or Leatherman. Then some pointy haired bunch threw away the old name, diversified into new areas, and promptly turned a steady business into instability. Hmph. Perhaps one could ask HP to provide the better versions, maybe donate mint condition manuals for scanning or even original files. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests On one hand they pressure people to buy new products by doing so, but as a customer I'd be put off buying kit from a company that was so petty as to begrudge manuals to a old customers. Making manuals free in electronic form reduces the waste of paper and office space, which helps everyone. I'd like to be a bit of a contrarian here for once. rant The instrument manual the OP is seeking is available from several sources. It's a little pricey, but is still a good value, and only a small fraction of the price of a reconditioned HP 5370B. Much of the value of an instrument is contained in its usability and serviceability. A lot of the effort that goes into making a good instrument _should_ be spent on the operating and service manuals. To my experience, HP/Agilent has _always_ produced easily readable, logically written manuals that are eminently helpful in using the instrument. An important point that's being neglected here is that these manuals are intellectual property which has been copyrighted to make sure the fruits of that work goes to the owners. This forum has many well-respected engineers who depend, at least in part, on the residual value of the intellectual property they have created in order to make a living, through patents, non-disclosure agreements, and copyrights, allowing them to sell the same art to more than one customer. I don't believe they would be happy if the owners of the fruits of their labor decided to bypass those patents and non-disclosure agreements in order to swipe some of that value for themselves. If a certain universally respected textbook of Electronics Engineering went out of print (may that day never arrive) but was still under copyright (under current law there will be many years to go), a teacher who owned one text wouldn't have the right to make copies and sell them to students. Copyright laws still apply. And whether that certain universally respected textbook of Electronics Engineering was out of print or not wouldn't have anything to do with implied warranties of merchantability. The book would still have the same value. Some thought should be given to the perceived value of making a really excellent manual to the manufacturer as well. I'm sure one of the reasons the engineers at HP were allowed by the bean counters to spend so much time making top quality manuals was the expected return for selling copies of those manuals after the sale. I've seen CDs for sale which have scans of HP/Agilent instruments which are currently supported or even in production, as well as the obsolete ones. If the rules are changed to permit copying of manuals, the MBAs will have another idiotic justification to cut the labor hours spent on making the manual. I want and need good documentation when I specify an instrument, so I can get the quality results I want and get the full value of the meter. If everyone is making poor quality, minimalist manuals (and those manufacturers know who they are -- so do we), none of the instrument buyers are going to be happy. Look at it this way. Let's assume the authors of that universally respected textbook of Electronics Engineering knew that within several years of publishing the 2nd edition, everyone would be using Xeroxes of their text. Would they have taken the time to make the second edition as great as it is? Or support it in s.e.d.? Would it have remained in print as long as it has? And would they have enough motivation to publish a 3rd edition (please -- just give me 30 seconds to cut the check!). Agilent has a webpage which recommends a number of resellers of manuals, several of which have the one the OP is talking about. At some time, Agilent may also be willing to look at selling the documentation for obsolete and unsupported instruments in electronic form, once good digital protection is available which prevents unauthorized copying. When that happens, A of E will undoubtedly also be in digital form, too. But either way, the intellectual property belongs to the author, and should be respected whether the authors are respected professors or a corporation. Sorry for the loss of self-control. I've got my asbestos suit on -- let the flames begin. /rant Chris |
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:16:34 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill .... The crux is whether indeed Agilent have been habitually refusing, or will refuse, to supply. The letter by itself is unobjectionable; someone else should not be selling (or even providing free) a copyrighted work. .... old instruments, no longer manufactured, which in many cases are not replaced by newer instruments performing the same function. All the above is totally pertinent IFFI Agilent refuse to supply. In other words, they could write Agilent and ask, "May we have permission to offer these manuals on our site, as long as we give credit?" Cheers! Rich |
I read in sci.electronics.design that Chris wrote
(in .com) about 'Copyright on HP service manuals', on Fri, 22 Apr 2005: An important point that's being neglected here is that these manuals are intellectual property which has been copyrighted to make sure the fruits of that work goes to the owners. Absolutely NOT!!! There is no objection whatsoever to legitimate defence of copyright. What is NOT acceptable is to use copyright to deny ALL access to legacy data. IIRC, the Sherlock Holmes stories are still just in copyright. Would it be reasonable for the estate of the author to assert the right to prohibit the use of the words 'Sherlock Holmes' in any context? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. There are two sides to every question, except 'What is a Moebius strip?' http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
On 22 Apr 2005 04:05:20 -0700, Winfield Hill
-edu wrote: Stepan, wrote... HP is enforcing their copyright over manuals, even for old unsupported equipment. Look at this: http://bama.sbc.edu/images/Letter%204-18-05.pdf I see the BoatAnchor Manual Archive public-service site has complied, http://bama.sbc.edu/hp.htm removing masses of valuable documentation for ancient hp instruments from public availability. That letter from Agilent's counsel is going to bring a massive response from me as director of a Harvard University research laboratory, directed to the relevant authorities at Agilent to get the policy changed. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests, and it's manifestly unfair to the owners of old HP / Agilent equipment who for one reason or another no longer have an operating or service manual, and who cannot get one from Agilent. For Agilent to close them off from a solution to their problem is to render their bought and paid-for equipment useless. --- _If_ Agilent was closing them off from a solution, perhaps you'd have a point. However, I understand that Agilent has licensed the reproduction and sale of manuals and makes reference to those vendors in their (Agilent's) web site, so that's hardly what I'd call "closing them off from a solution". --- It also means Agilent is capriciously denying the implied warranty of merchantability for their older products; the product can hardly do what it is supposed to do if the owner doesn't know what button to push, or how to interpret the panel reading. And it means Agilent is denying the owners' right to his own self-help in repairing something he purchased fair and square. Moreover, it takes a big step toward removing from the public weal the value of old instruments, no longer manufactured, which in many cases are not replaced by newer instruments performing the same function. --- Blather. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
John Woodgate wrote: I read in sci.electronics.design that Chris wrote (in .com) about 'Copyright on HP service manuals', on Fri, 22 Apr 2005: An important point that's being neglected here is that these manuals are intellectual property which has been copyrighted to make sure the fruits of that work goes to the owners. Absolutely NOT!!! There is no objection whatsoever to legitimate defence of copyright. What is NOT acceptable is to use copyright to deny ALL access to legacy data. IIRC, the Sherlock Holmes stories are still just in copyright. Would it be reasonable for the estate of the author to assert the right to prohibit the use of the words 'Sherlock Holmes' in any context? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. There are two sides to every question, except 'What is a Moebius strip?' http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk Hi, Mr. Woodgate. Very respectfully, excessively long copyright protection is a problem, particularly the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in the States, which extended copyrights to 75 to 95 years in the case of corporate copyrights, or 70 years after the death of the author. That was another act of blatant pandering by Congress, and it pushes right up against the copyright clause in Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" 75 to 95 years isn't a "limited time" by my reading. Since I got burned many years ago, I've never purchased a used instrument without docs included or available from another source. And in the last ten years, I've almost always been able to find the instrument manuals I need from one legal source or another. I admit that the price of a manual has affected my decision to buy or not once or twice (the OP's manual costs $75 USD from one vendor), but I don't see Agilent as actively prohibiting anyone from getting the information. If they were doing that, they would be trying to buy up the manuals and take them off the market. Agilent obviously has an interest in drumming up sales, and if I were them, I wouldn't be making too much of an effort to get potential customers to scrounge and repair something I sold 25 years ago. The real problem, of course, is that the manuals are not free in the age of the internets. Well, so it goes. I guess I'm picky about this stuff. When I get responsibility for an instrument, I'll see that we get the docs. All manuals have to be filed and signed out. And it really isn't much of a problem to me. I guess my priorities are different, because I'm willing to pay for my pleasures. Just a cost of doing business. ;-) Good luck Chris |
"Chris" wrote in message oups.com... An important point that's being neglected here is that these manuals are intellectual property which has been copyrighted to make sure the fruits of that work goes to the owners. HP should certainly retain the copyright so that (for example) a portion of one of their manuals couldn't be reproduced in the manual of a competing product. But HP should be willing to let people distribute HP manuals in complete unaltered form, because HP benefits thereby. |
Chris wrote...
I feel the IP is embedded in the instrument, not the manual. Thus the manual provides a way to make use of the IP you've bought and paid for in the instrument. It's the old instruments HP / Agilent no longer supports that we're talking about here. The simple fact is that there are *far* more instruments out there, than original manuals, because when one goes surplus the company's file drawers of manuals tend to get thrown away or otherwise lost, while the old instrument exchanges hands a few times and finds a new home. Plus there are manuals that disappear for who knows what reason. The manuals for some HP equipment I purchased new when I came to the Institute 17 years ago somehow no longer exists at the Institute. Did a postdoc carry it off with him in his files when he left? Did it get thrown out by mistake? Who can say, but it's gone. And now a copy is not available from Agilent, the product line having been discontinued long ago... So I do rely on others who are willing to make a copy to keep the IP in my instrument useful. -- Thanks, - Win |
Chris wrote:
Kryten wrote: I can see HP's point in that if someone puts poor-quality scans of their manuals up, some people might think it reflects HP quality in documentation. I'd argue anyone smart enough to need and buy HP kit would not blame HP/Ag. HP made a good name for good kit that did a good job and price took second place. They were an American icon, like Harley Davison or Maglite or Leatherman. Then some pointy haired bunch threw away the old name, diversified into new areas, and promptly turned a steady business into instability. Hmph. Perhaps one could ask HP to provide the better versions, maybe donate mint condition manuals for scanning or even original files. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests On one hand they pressure people to buy new products by doing so, but as a customer I'd be put off buying kit from a company that was so petty as to begrudge manuals to a old customers. Making manuals free in electronic form reduces the waste of paper and office space, which helps everyone. I'd like to be a bit of a contrarian here for once. rant The instrument manual the OP is seeking is available from several sources. It's a little pricey, but is still a good value, and only a small fraction of the price of a reconditioned HP 5370B. Much of the value of an instrument is contained in its usability and serviceability. A lot of the effort that goes into making a good instrument _should_ be spent on the operating and service manuals. To my experience, HP/Agilent has _always_ produced easily readable, logically written manuals that are eminently helpful in using the instrument. An important point that's being neglected here is that these manuals are intellectual property which has been copyrighted to make sure the fruits of that work goes to the owners. This forum has many well-respected engineers who depend, at least in part, on the residual value of the intellectual property they have created in order to make a living, through patents, non-disclosure agreements, and copyrights, allowing them to sell the same art to more than one customer. I don't believe they would be happy if the owners of the fruits of their labor decided to bypass those patents and non-disclosure agreements in order to swipe some of that value for themselves. If a certain universally respected textbook of Electronics Engineering went out of print (may that day never arrive) but was still under copyright (under current law there will be many years to go), a teacher who owned one text wouldn't have the right to make copies and sell them to students. Copyright laws still apply. And whether that certain universally respected textbook of Electronics Engineering was out of print or not wouldn't have anything to do with implied warranties of merchantability. The book would still have the same value. Some thought should be given to the perceived value of making a really excellent manual to the manufacturer as well. I'm sure one of the reasons the engineers at HP were allowed by the bean counters to spend so much time making top quality manuals was the expected return for selling copies of those manuals after the sale. I've seen CDs for sale which have scans of HP/Agilent instruments which are currently supported or even in production, as well as the obsolete ones. If the rules are changed to permit copying of manuals, the MBAs will have another idiotic justification to cut the labor hours spent on making the manual. I want and need good documentation when I specify an instrument, so I can get the quality results I want and get the full value of the meter. If everyone is making poor quality, minimalist manuals (and those manufacturers know who they are -- so do we), none of the instrument buyers are going to be happy. Look at it this way. Let's assume the authors of that universally respected textbook of Electronics Engineering knew that within several years of publishing the 2nd edition, everyone would be using Xeroxes of their text. Would they have taken the time to make the second edition as great as it is? Or support it in s.e.d.? Would it have remained in print as long as it has? And would they have enough motivation to publish a 3rd edition (please -- just give me 30 seconds to cut the check!). Agilent has a webpage which recommends a number of resellers of manuals, several of which have the one the OP is talking about. At some time, Agilent may also be willing to look at selling the documentation for obsolete and unsupported instruments in electronic form, once good digital protection is available which prevents unauthorized copying. When that happens, A of E will undoubtedly also be in digital form, too. But either way, the intellectual property belongs to the author, and should be respected whether the authors are respected professors or a corporation. Sorry for the loss of self-control. I've got my asbestos suit on -- let the flames begin. /rant Chris You are ignoring the fact that the equipment was shipped with the manuals to start with. As far as the image quality have you ever tried to use those lousy microfilm manuals? -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
Again, this is a job for a copyright lawyer, but if Agilent *benefits* from
the "unauthorized" copying -- and cannot claim any loss of sale or any other harm -- then a judge would laugh them out of court if they sued you. |
Winfield Hill wrote:
Chris wrote... I feel the IP is embedded in the instrument, not the manual. Thus the manual provides a way to make use of the IP you've bought and paid for in the instrument. It's the old instruments HP / Agilent no longer supports that we're talking about here. The simple fact is that there are *far* more instruments out there, than original manuals, because when one goes surplus the company's file drawers of manuals tend to get thrown away or otherwise lost, while the old instrument exchanges hands a few times and finds a new home. Plus there are manuals that disappear for who knows what reason. The manuals for some HP equipment I purchased new when I came to the Institute 17 years ago somehow no longer exists at the Institute. Did a postdoc carry it off with him in his files when he left? Did it get thrown out by mistake? Who can say, but it's gone. And now a copy is not available from Agilent, the product line having been discontinued long ago... So I do rely on others who are willing to make a copy to keep the IP in my instrument useful. -- Thanks, - Win Thanks for taking the time to respond, Mr. Hill. I stand corrected -- there are far more "orphaned" old HP instruments out there than original manuals. Your point is valid. Maintaining an instrument document control system is relatively easy in a manufacturing facility with a limited number of engineering personnel. It's certainly much more difficult in an academic environment with dozens or even hundreds of students who all want access to the instruments and their manuals, and don't have enough experience with instruments to make educated guesses about how they work. Agilent and other manufacturers might be inclined to cut academic institutions some slack as far as making copies of manuals for internal use. I'm sure they want their meters to be specified by as many future engineers and professors as possible. Considering your special requirements, they may be inclined to allow a limited waiver in your case. People who need the OP/SV manuals will generally get them, whether through purchasing a used manual, copying one from someone else, or another means. The market, like life, usually finds a way. Although I can understand why, I don't think not selling new manuals helps Agilent get more business. They may wake up some day and farm out their obsolete instrument documentation orders to either a book on demand or lawyer's/barrister's Xeroxing firm. They could provide ring- or comb-bound copies of these operating and service manuals with only an additional day or two on turnaround compared to keeping thousands of cubic meters of printed manuals on the shelf in stock. I know of several automation machinery manufacturers that do just this with their prints and manuals very profitably. Until then, Agilent is perpetuating a bad setup, and annoying loyal customers. I guess I'll keep doing it my way, though. If one is willing to pay, there isn't much of a shortage of manuals now on most common older "orphaned" HP instruments these days. (Of course, if more people felt the way I did, the limited supply would undoubtedly dry up, as you suggested.) I agree that the value of the instrument is inherent in the instrument itself, not the manual. But just the fact that we're having this conversation indicates the documentation is of value, although of another kind. It allows me to utilize the investment in the instrument. And I find that value sufficient that, if I cut a CER for a used/reconditioned "orphaned" HP instrument, I'll make sure to include the purchase price of a legal copy of the manual from ManualsPlus or another of the instrument documentation resellers along with it. I'm saving more than enough by buying used to afford a little more for the docs. As a bonus, I can get it FedExed so it arrives before the instrument, and I will have read it and be just about ready to roll when the box arrives. Thanks again (and the check is still ready to be signed ;-) Chris |
"Winfield Hill" -edu wrote in message ... Stepan, wrote... HP is enforcing their copyright over manuals, even for old unsupported equipment. Look at this: http://bama.sbc.edu/images/Letter%204-18-05.pdf I see the BoatAnchor Manual Archive public-service site has complied, http://bama.sbc.edu/hp.htm removing masses of valuable documentation for ancient hp instruments from public availability. That letter from Agilent's counsel is going to bring a massive response from me as director of a Harvard University research laboratory, directed to the relevant authorities at Agilent to get the policy changed. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests, and it's manifestly unfair to the owners of old HP / Agilent equipment who for one reason or another no longer have an operating or service manual, and who cannot get one from Agilent. For Agilent to close them off from a solution to their problem is to render their bought and paid-for equipment useless. It also means Agilent is capriciously denying the implied warranty of merchantability for their older products; the product can hardly do what it is supposed to do if the owner doesn't know what button to push, or how to interpret the panel reading. And it means Agilent is denying the owners' right to his own self-help in repairing something he purchased fair and square. Moreover, it takes a big step toward removing from the public weal the value of old instruments, no longer manufactured, which in many cases are not replaced by newer instruments performing the same function. Agreed. What is it about lawyers? These land sharks have this mentality that if their corporation doesn't say NO to absolutely everything - that if even one teeny-weeny yes gets out, that sheer pandemonium will result. As a result, counsel recommends (and usually gets their way) that any - even the smallest - violation be immediately stopped. One example. http://www.elvislounge.com/barrykoltnow.html It's truly shameful. Another point. Because of corporate bullying of copyright infringement, the price of manual often exceeds the price of the used equipment it belongs to. So sellers buy scrap not for the value of the equipment, but for the manuals they contain. -- Thanks, - Win |
"John Woodgate" wrote in message ... I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill -edu wrote (in ) about 'Copyright on HP service manuals', on Fri, 22 Apr 2005: That letter from Agilent's counsel is going to bring a massive response from me as director of a Harvard University research laboratory, directed to the relevant authorities at Agilent to get the policy changed. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests, and it's manifestly unfair to the owners of old HP / Agilent equipment who for one reason or another no longer have an operating or service manual, and who cannot get one from Agilent. The crux is whether indeed Agilent have been habitually refusing, or will refuse, to supply. The letter by itself is unobjectionable; someone else should not be selling (or even providing free) a copyrighted work. For Agilent to close them off from a solution to their problem is to render their bought and paid-for equipment useless. It also means Agilent is capriciously denying the implied warranty of merchantability for their older products; the product can hardly do what it is supposed to do if the owner doesn't know what button to push, or how to interpret the panel reading. And it means Agilent is denying the owners' right to his own self-help in repairing something he purchased fair and square. Moreover, it takes a big step toward removing from the public weal the value of old instruments, no longer manufactured, which in many cases are not replaced by newer instruments performing the same function. All the above is totally pertinent IFFI Agilent refuse to supply. One thought. Many of the test equipment (and manuals) were duplicated for the miltary. One off the top of my head is the AN/USM-81 which was the same as the Tek 541 'scope, IIRC. This may not be copyrighted, or may have some other way of getting around the copyright laws. And many schools, such as the military schools, published schematics to use for training. Also, I'm sure that some other countries had something similar, such as when NATO or other int'l org published an equipment manual in a foreign language. Hey, a schematic is a schematic, even if it's in French, right? ;-)) -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. There are two sides to every question, except 'What is a Moebius strip?' http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
"Jim Thompson" wrote in message ... [snip] But I've had a bias against hp equipment for at least 30 years... a whole lot of it was crap or became crap within one year. When I ran the Phoenix Analog Design Center for GenRad I forbade the purchase of hp 'scopes. But their scopes always took a back seat to Tek, so if they didn't want to flush money down the toilet, they would not have bothered to invest the money to make and sell a scope that was competetive with Tek. However I used a HP 1741 back in '79, and I thought it was a solid scope. It was a blessing after rubbing my fingers raw from turning the timebase and other knobs 100's of times a day on a Tek toob scope. The HP probably saved the company tons of money on electric and air conditioning costs by getting rid of those old Tek toob scopes, which used a half a kilowatt of power all day long. ...Jim Thompson -- |
"Chris" wrote in message oups.com... [snip] I'd like to be a bit of a contrarian here for once. rant [snip] An important point that's being neglected here is that these manuals are intellectual property which has been copyrighted to make sure the fruits of that work goes to the owners. Many of these equipoments and manuals are no longer sold or supported by HP. So I don't see what benefit they get by enforcing their copyrights. All they seem to do is make it exceedingly difficult and miserable for the owners of that old equipment. This forum has many well-respected engineers who depend, at least in part, on the residual value of the intellectual property they have created in order to make a living, through patents, non-disclosure agreements, and copyrights, allowing them to sell the same art to more than one customer. I don't believe they would be happy if the owners of the fruits of their labor decided to bypass those patents and non-disclosure agreements in order to swipe some of that value for themselves. As I said, no longer sold or supported, so this doesn't apply. [snip] Agilent has a webpage which recommends a number of resellers of manuals, several of which have the one the OP is talking about. Do they get a payment from the manual reseller when a manual is sold? I doubt it. [snip] /rant Chris |
Jim Thompson wrote:
On 22 Apr 2005 04:05:20 -0700, Winfield Hill -edu wrote: Stepan, wrote... HP is enforcing their copyright over manuals, even for old unsupported equipment. Look at this: http://bama.sbc.edu/images/Letter%204-18-05.pdf I see the BoatAnchor Manual Archive public-service site has complied, http://bama.sbc.edu/hp.htm removing masses of valuable documentation for ancient hp instruments from public availability. That letter from Agilent's counsel is going to bring a massive response from me as director of a Harvard University research laboratory, directed to the relevant authorities at Agilent to get the policy changed. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests, and it's manifestly unfair to the owners of old HP / Agilent equipment who for one reason or another no longer have an operating or service manual, and who cannot get one from Agilent. For Agilent to close them off from a solution to their problem is to render their bought and paid-for equipment useless. It also means Agilent is capriciously denying the implied warranty of merchantability for their older products; the product can hardly do what it is supposed to do if the owner doesn't know what button to push, or how to interpret the panel reading. And it means Agilent is denying the owners' right to his own self-help in repairing something he purchased fair and square. Moreover, it takes a big step toward removing from the public weal the value of old instruments, no longer manufactured, which in many cases are not replaced by newer instruments performing the same function. Shakespeare was correct ;-) But I've had a bias against hp equipment for at least 30 years... a whole lot of it was crap or became crap within one year. When I ran the Phoenix Analog Design Center for GenRad I forbade the purchase of hp 'scopes. ...Jim Thompson Do not know about their scopes, but i still have an HP410C analog VOM in excellent condition; only had to replace pass transistor in power supply once. I got the manual when i got the meter, so there has never been a problem for calibration or repair. |
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:34:35 -0700, "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the
Dark Remover\"" wrote: One thought. Many of the test equipment (and manuals) were duplicated for the miltary. One off the top of my head is the AN/USM-81 which was the same as the Tek 541 'scope, IIRC. This may not be copyrighted, or may have some other way of getting around the copyright laws. And many schools, such as the military schools, published schematics to use for training. Jeepers, I wish those military manuals were better. I downloaded a few of them from https://www.logsa.army.mil/etms/online.htm and although they were usefull, they certainly were not up to par when compared to the real thing. Often unreadable schematics and missing vital info. If anyone has found a better place to download this stuff then I'd love to see a follow up post about it. On a side note, it's my experience that there are not many folks out there who really know how to maintain electronic records without corruption and loss for more than a few years. I've seen data get corrupt because folks do silly things like copy large repositories of data from one place to another and then neglect to do a binary compare, run disk defrag software against large drives containing valuable data on machines with crappy systemic bit-error-rates, transfer gigabytes of data on computers without ECC memory or without UPS protection, no backup strategies or crappy media or unmaintained tape drives. Failure to check C1/C2 error rates on freshly burned CDROMS, and on and on. Many perils. It is awakening to see how a paper record can last thousands of years while digital data evaporates out of EEPROMS and magnetic media in a few ephemeral years even before the copyright has a chance to expire. When the duration of copyright protection, far exceeds the data retention of digital media, then there is an increased risk of loosing it. This is not the fault of copyright but a weakness of the media and a lack of use of digital signatures to prove authenticity or heritage. It's interesting to note how long ago the DNA of dinasours appeared on earth, in comparison to the half-life of digitally preserved data. Note also that data evolves over time in a way reminiscent of the evolution of DNA in living species. After all,only the most valuable data survives and it is constantly improved upon and stepwise changed. Data however, seems to evolve much more quickly than living species, and the host machines it lives in seem to evolve with it at an equally fast rate. Stepan |
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Chris wrote: Kryten wrote: I can see HP's point in that if someone puts poor-quality scans of their manuals up, some people might think it reflects HP quality in documentation. I'd argue anyone smart enough to need and buy HP kit would not blame HP/Ag. HP made a good name for good kit that did a good job and price took second place. They were an American icon, like Harley Davison or Maglite or Leatherman. Then some pointy haired bunch threw away the old name, diversified into new areas, and promptly turned a steady business into instability. Hmph. Perhaps one could ask HP to provide the better versions, maybe donate mint condition manuals for scanning or even original files. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests On one hand they pressure people to buy new products by doing so, but as a customer I'd be put off buying kit from a company that was so petty as to begrudge manuals to a old customers. Making manuals free in electronic form reduces the waste of paper and office space, which helps everyone. I'd like to be a bit of a contrarian here for once. rant The instrument manual the OP is seeking is available from several sources. It's a little pricey, but is still a good value, and only a small fraction of the price of a reconditioned HP 5370B. Much of the value of an instrument is contained in its usability and serviceability. A lot of the effort that goes into making a good instrument _should_ be spent on the operating and service manuals. To my experience, HP/Agilent has _always_ produced easily readable, logically written manuals that are eminently helpful in using the instrument. An important point that's being neglected here is that these manuals are intellectual property which has been copyrighted to make sure the fruits of that work goes to the owners. This forum has many well-respected engineers who depend, at least in part, on the residual value of the intellectual property they have created in order to make a living, through patents, non-disclosure agreements, and copyrights, allowing them to sell the same art to more than one customer. I don't believe they would be happy if the owners of the fruits of their labor decided to bypass those patents and non-disclosure agreements in order to swipe some of that value for themselves. If a certain universally respected textbook of Electronics Engineering went out of print (may that day never arrive) but was still under copyright (under current law there will be many years to go), a teacher who owned one text wouldn't have the right to make copies and sell them to students. Copyright laws still apply. And whether that certain universally respected textbook of Electronics Engineering was out of print or not wouldn't have anything to do with implied warranties of merchantability. The book would still have the same value. Some thought should be given to the perceived value of making a really excellent manual to the manufacturer as well. I'm sure one of the reasons the engineers at HP were allowed by the bean counters to spend so much time making top quality manuals was the expected return for selling copies of those manuals after the sale. I've seen CDs for sale which have scans of HP/Agilent instruments which are currently supported or even in production, as well as the obsolete ones. If the rules are changed to permit copying of manuals, the MBAs will have another idiotic justification to cut the labor hours spent on making the manual. I want and need good documentation when I specify an instrument, so I can get the quality results I want and get the full value of the meter. If everyone is making poor quality, minimalist manuals (and those manufacturers know who they are -- so do we), none of the instrument buyers are going to be happy. Look at it this way. Let's assume the authors of that universally respected textbook of Electronics Engineering knew that within several years of publishing the 2nd edition, everyone would be using Xeroxes of their text. Would they have taken the time to make the second edition as great as it is? Or support it in s.e.d.? Would it have remained in print as long as it has? And would they have enough motivation to publish a 3rd edition (please -- just give me 30 seconds to cut the check!). Agilent has a webpage which recommends a number of resellers of manuals, several of which have the one the OP is talking about. At some time, Agilent may also be willing to look at selling the documentation for obsolete and unsupported instruments in electronic form, once good digital protection is available which prevents unauthorized copying. When that happens, A of E will undoubtedly also be in digital form, too. But either way, the intellectual property belongs to the author, and should be respected whether the authors are respected professors or a corporation. Sorry for the loss of self-control. I've got my asbestos suit on -- let the flames begin. /rant Chris You are ignoring the fact that the equipment was shipped with the manuals to start with. As far as the image quality have you ever tried to use those lousy microfilm manuals? On one HP gear that i had bought, i had to settle for the manual (from HP) in the form of microfiche; the equipment was long discontinued, and that was all they had. The quality of the copy was excellent. |
|
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:
"John Woodgate" wrote in message ... I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill -edu wrote (in ) about 'Copyright on HP service manuals', on Fri, 22 Apr 2005: That letter from Agilent's counsel is going to bring a massive response from me as director of a Harvard University research laboratory, directed to the relevant authorities at Agilent to get the policy changed. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests, and it's manifestly unfair to the owners of old HP / Agilent equipment who for one reason or another no longer have an operating or service manual, and who cannot get one from Agilent. The crux is whether indeed Agilent have been habitually refusing, or will refuse, to supply. The letter by itself is unobjectionable; someone else should not be selling (or even providing free) a copyrighted work. For Agilent to close them off from a solution to their problem is to render their bought and paid-for equipment useless. It also means Agilent is capriciously denying the implied warranty of merchantability for their older products; the product can hardly do what it is supposed to do if the owner doesn't know what button to push, or how to interpret the panel reading. And it means Agilent is denying the owners' right to his own self-help in repairing something he purchased fair and square. Moreover, it takes a big step toward removing from the public weal the value of old instruments, no longer manufactured, which in many cases are not replaced by newer instruments performing the same function. All the above is totally pertinent IFFI Agilent refuse to supply. One thought. Many of the test equipment (and manuals) were duplicated for the miltary. One off the top of my head is the AN/USM-81 which was the same as the Tek 541 'scope, IIRC. This may not be copyrighted, or may have some other way of getting around the copyright laws. And many schools, such as the military schools, published schematics to use for training. Also, I'm sure that some other countries had something similar, such as when NATO or other int'l org published an equipment manual in a foreign language. Hey, a schematic is a schematic, even if it's in French, right? ;-)) -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. There are two sides to every question, except 'What is a Moebius strip?' http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk Check, double-check, check-mate, and GAME! |
writes:
It just occured to me that I used to do a nifty thing to protect my most valuable data from single byte corruption as can be caused by oxidized memory DIM contacts etc. I would burn the data to a RAW CDROM image file which includes error correction and just save it to my hard drive. Once I did that I could open up the CD image in a hex editor and pepper it full of crap, but then when I would mount it the error correction would keep it perfectly readable! Pretty cool. Unfortunately that won't really work. A CD-ROM image is normally an ISO 9660 image, which doesn't contain the error correction codes. It only has the 2048-byte data payload of each sector. Some software will let you generate a "raw" image (2352 byte sectors rather than 2048). This does contain the top level of the error correction codes. But it doesn't have the bottom two layers, or the interleaving, so by itself it doesn't gain much. See "The Art of Digital Audio" by Watkinson or "Principles of Digital Audio" by Pohlman for details of the CD-Audio format (Red Book), or buy a copy of ISO 60908. The CD-ROM format is layered on top of the CD-Audio format, as documented in the Yellow Book. ECMA 130 is equivalent to the relevant portion of the Yellow Book, and a PDF file can be downloaded at no charge: http://www.ecma-international.org/pu...s/Ecma-130.htm If you're worried about data corruption, you are best off keeping multiple copies of your data, preferrably on separate mediums. And it probably is worthwhile to either put it in ZIP files (which store a CRC of the file to detect corruption), or to store an MD5SUM of the file on the same medium. Eric |
I read in sci.electronics.design that wrote (in
) about 'Copyright on HP service manuals', on Sat, 23 Apr 2005: It's interesting to note how long ago the DNA of dinasours appeared on earth, in comparison to the half-life of digitally preserved data. Why stop a dinosaurs, 65 million years ago? The oldest DNA still identifiable in living creatures ('cyanobacteria') is about 3.8 billion years old. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. There are two sides to every question, except 'What is a Moebius strip?' http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
I read in sci.electronics.design that Robert Baer
wrote (in .net) about 'Copyright on HP service manuals', on Sat, 23 Apr 2005: On one HP gear that i had bought, i had to settle for the manual (from HP) in the form of microfiche; the equipment was long discontinued, and that was all they had. The quality of the copy was excellent. But they vary a lot. When British Standards were available in public libraries on microfiche, some were OK and others almost unreadable. One man's fiche is another man's poisson. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. There are two sides to every question, except 'What is a Moebius strip?' http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:03:10 -0400, the renowned "mc"
wrote: That letter from Agilent's counsel is going to bring a massive response from me as director of a Harvard University research laboratory, directed to the relevant authorities at Agilent to get the policy changed. It's dramatically counter-productive to their own business interests, Well said! Does Agilent actually make money selling these old manuals? No? They probably have always lost money selling manuals. Accordingly, they should be glad that somebody else wants to do it for them! Also, their copyright might be hard to enforce if they no longer sell the manuals themselves. No loss of market; no harm; nothing to sue for. I think you underestimate the legal mind. One could argue that the copyright infringement unnaturally prolongs the useful life of unsupported HP/Agilent instruments, thus reducing the overall market for new instruments. It's perhaps possible to dig up figures that would support a cost to Agilent of x% of a new instrument for every instance of infringement. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
Obviously, HP is well within their rights to do so. The electronics market
is also well within its rights to say screw you to such application insensitive nonsense. All this discussion of the matter is silly. The letter from HP indicates a lousy attitude about support and the reaction that it sucks is reasonable. The fact is that people will continue to distribute obsolete manuals because there is a market. It is doubtful that HP and others will go to great expense to stop it. I am sure that the data from the database will be erased and never accidentally show up somewhere else...right, sure. Come to the real world people. Leonard "Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message ... I think you underestimate the legal mind. One could argue that the copyright infringement unnaturally prolongs the useful life of unsupported HP/Agilent instruments, thus reducing the overall market for new instruments. It's perhaps possible to dig up figures that would support a cost to Agilent of x% of a new instrument for every instance of infringement. |
John Woodgate wrote...
One man's fiche is another man's poisson. http://www.poissonrouge.com/toys/index.htm -- Thanks, - Win |
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:50:26 -0700, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark
Remover" wrote: "Jim Thompson" wrote in message [snip] But I've had a bias against hp equipment for at least 30 years... a whole lot of it was crap or became crap within one year. When I ran the Phoenix Analog Design Center for GenRad I forbade the purchase of hp 'scopes. But their scopes always took a back seat to Tek, so if they didn't want to flush money down the toilet, they would not have bothered to invest the money to make and sell a scope that was competetive with Tek. However I used a HP 1741 back in '79, and I thought it was a solid scope. It was a blessing after rubbing my fingers raw from turning the timebase and other knobs 100's of times a day on a Tek toob scope. The HP probably saved the company tons of money on electric and air conditioning costs by getting rid of those old Tek toob scopes, which used a half a kilowatt of power all day long. HP dumped their REALLY crap scopes on the military. The worst scope I ever tried to use was an HP in a waterproof AGE[1] box. Not only did it have the legendary "can't trigger" problem that's endemic to HP scopes, but the waterproof knobs gave new meaning to the term "backlash." But then again, the only thing I could honestly testify to re HP test equipment is they never got the triggering as good as Tek. All of their other stuff was, as we all know, essentially perfect. Cheers! Rich [1] Aerospace Ground Equipment |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter