Multiple infringement allegations have lately ignited an industry-wide debate over OEM Intellectual Property. Combined with the general sense that OEMs are reluctant to release intellectual property after the sale of their original goods, the debate has sparked several lawsuits. Let’s explore the issue, and how it may affect consumers and the companies who serve them.
Fighting for OEM IP Ownership: The General Motors Case
In the current General Motors LLC et al v. Dorman Products, Incorporated et al case, General Motors is suing Dorman Products and Electronics Remanufacturing Company LLC for copyright infringement, alleging the stealing and unauthorized selling of vehicle control modules pre-programmed with GM’s proprietary software, and the creation of a tool to transfer existing software between units. In addition to running GM software and files reflected in six copyright registrations, the selling of these modules would also be overriding security measures in place through a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
General Motors’ case relies on the idea that the OEM has a right to protect its IP. As the argument goes, even after a module purchased, the consumer should only acquire ownership of the physical component, and not software programmed into it. With this in consideration, there is an implication that the manufacturer retains complete control over the unit, even while in the consumers’ possession, due to the withholding of IP rights.
IP Withholding Impinges on Consumer Service
Without the release of IP to the customer, the independent service center sector is limited in their ability to service modules. This potentially affects thousands of jobs. Without adequate access to OEM intellectual property, consumers are forced to return to the manufacturer for servicing and reprogramming after product failure. When this happens, consumers can be charged again for the software, or charged for upgrades, since the OEM can claim the consumer never owned the software within the unit.
This ultimately drives up the price of the module. In the GM V. Dorman case, Dorman and RMC illegally mitigated the extra steps for acquiring the software by creating and selling a data transfer tool and enabling consumers to transfer data within their own units.
From the perspective of those who work with OEMs on maintenance, repair and remanufacturing, reluctance to release software rights could have negative impacts. The argument for releasing software IP centers on the importance of considering the ongoing lifecycle of a product. Without a more open sharing of IP after consumer purchase, product maintenance could be made inconvenient for customers. In the end, the failure to release IP only hurts the consumer.
