From: turkstra@cs.hope.edu (Chris Turkstra)
Subject: USR response - Annotated.
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: USR,sportster
Organization: Hope College Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:21:43 GMT

*  This document was posted on CompuServe in the modem vendor forum - USR
*  section file library as SPLT.PCX (apparently a FAX).  It was typed by 
*  me, so any misspellings are my fault, but the capitalization and 
*  wording are from the file. The letter had no date, no time, but was 
*  on official-looking USRobotics letterhead.  I have no connection 
*  with USR, other than being a proud owner of a USR modem.
***  This file has my own annotations insterted with a > preceding.
 
USR Robotic Inc Finance department.
	
	Important warning to BBS users.  It has recently come to our
attention that some BBS operators and other third parties have been
improperly distributing copyrighted firmware that will add proprietary 
"HST" protocal to USR "Sportster" modems without having to compensate
USR for the conversion.  Some of these persons have further been telling 
customers that if such a conversion is made, it will not adversly affect
the customers right to warranty service from USR.
 
> Didn't USR sell the modems with the "improper" firmware in them?  I'm
> fuzzy about all this.  Is someone selling chips?  Is someone uploading 
> the ROM images?  I doubt that someone is selling copies of the chips,
> and if they are they could be caught.  But I know very few BBSers that 
> have the capability to burn eproms in these new packages (even just burn
> eproms). If we bought the firmware, are we allowed to use it?
 
	USR has not authorized the dissemination of firmware.  The Company
considers any such attempt to improperly incorporate copyrighted "HST"
features into non-HST models to be a clear infringement of USR's rights 
under FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAW.  Persons contemplating such action should be
aware that the COPRRIGHT ACT OF 1976 provides stiff remedies for acts of 
copyright infringement, including the impounding of all infringing copies,
monetary damages, special statuatory damages, costs, attorney fees, and 
even potential criminal liability.  
 
> Again, whose firmware?  It seems that USR is trying to blame others for 
> their mistake.  Of course it's illegal to steal copyrighted software! 
> USR just won't acknowledge that they sold the "improper" code.  After 
> reading this a couple of times, I think the idea is to get people to 
> believe that someone hacked their firmware.
 
 	17 U.S.C. Secs. 502-506. USR will take whatever steps it deems 
nescesary to protect it's copyright rights.  In addition, USR's warranty
will not extend to products that have been tampered with in this manner.
 
> Tampered with HOW?  By passing a init string?
> They're going to make me forget that ATGW exists?
 
	Also, please note that it has also come to our attention that 
versions of the firmware being disseminated contain disguised code 
("trojan horse") that may inflict irreperable damage to the hard drive of
the computer utilizing the programs.
 
> Someone's created the first trojan NT.  If this firmware being 
> distributed has a progam claiming to upgrade your ROM, the person who
> runs it deseves to get their drive erased.  If not, there is a trojan
> in the ROM itself,  How could this erase your drive?  A modem can be 
> connected to any machine with a serial port,  are they saying that the 
> modem will somehow erase the hard drive of *any* machine connected to it?  
> That's impossible.  Hey, if someone's done it, darn, sell it to the CIA!
> And if USR is claiming to have put it there, I know a lot of people who 
> more than a bit upset.
 
	We regret the nescesity of having to post this warning.  Please 
understand that USR has spent considerable time, effort and money to research
and develop the software embodied in it's products.  Like any manufacturer, 
we cannot simply sit back and tolerate attempts to missappropriate our 
copyrighted programs in this manner.  
	
						USR, inc.
 
> I understand this.  This makes sense.  But this letter kinda stinks of 
> a legal department.  No blame is accepted by USR, and shady threats are
> planted in the minds of those who don't know any better.  I understand 
> (and abide by) copyright laws, but this seems like more propaganda than
> truth.  Since this letter is so ambiguous, I'll read it ambiguously and 
> still use the conversion.  The letter says NOTHING about people who 
> honestly bought the firmware with their modems.  It never even says that 
> USR made the mistake to begin with.
> I best get used to reading this stuff, huh?


Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems