password/timer for Guarenteed Payment

[bernie_carlton]

We haven't used CPU locking during a warranty period, just during a payment period. We offer the entire code once the machine is paid for to the customer with the appropriate signatures against disclosure and use for other machinery.

The customer is free to do with the machinery as they choose which includes adding to and/or modifying the code. We have rarely had to charge for a call due to badly modified code. In event of planned code changes we encourage the customer to call us so that we can help them plan the changes with little disruption to current operation.

We did have to go into a plant to revive a machine that had been brought to a standstill by an Allen-Bradley tech rep. He had zeroed out obviously (in his eyes) incorrect negative numbers, not bothering to find out that they were bit coded setup registers for an AB High Speed Counter card. Of course it was too much trouble that we were a telephone call away.

 

[DaveW]

How about just popping up the message and not shutting the machine down similiar to some shareware software? Trigger some flashing alarm lights and horn while you're at it. Will drive the operator crazy? J/k...I don't like this kind of stuff either.

 

[curlyandshemp]

How about just popping up the message and not shutting the machine down similiar to some shareware software? Trigger some flashing alarm lights and horn while you're at it. Will drive the operator crazy? J/k...I don't like this kind of stuff either.

Sort of like that annoying orange "SERVICE ENGINE SOON" light that most GM vehicles have?

 

[Nick B]

Just to chime in...


1. I have done this.
- Customer is told in quotation stage.
- We used running time. Not date
- First they get warning and 2 week extended period with hourly count down
- Block is locked down and even the best have tried and failed
- Balance of code if fully viewable

2. Customer can be given "extension password" which renables machine for 30 more day + 2 weeks extension

3. Can someone give me one real law based reason why this is illegal?

4. Once customer pays for machine we provide release code.

5. If done via indirect addressing this doesn't even show up in cross ref.

6. If you think that Plant Managers don't hold machine builders hostage...your mistaken. Some companies do it as a matter of practice. Treat the OEM as the bank.

7. Direct quote from a Plant Manager..."If I pay you guys how do I know I will get the extras I want that H.O. did not spec".

Nick

 

[Mike Dyble]

I have read this thread with interest, problems with slow/non-existant payments blight the UK as well, and certainly affect the way I work.

I have also considered time-bombs in the past but only employed them once, as a nag screen on an HMI. There was no loss of functionality, just a message about late payment. The code was buried in the executable of the HMI, so could not be removed. It was actully inserted with the collusion of the Engineer who I was working for. To quote "Accounts muck every one about, perhaps they will realise that I still have to get work done" Apparently he was always having problems with suppliers and sub cntractors due to late payments.

It was activated, and caused some heated words to be exchanged, with my final comment being "When the banks start offering Control system services I will start offering credit services" Although one battle was won the war wasnt won!

The problem with late payers is that there is no effective payback, they usually pay eventually and in the meantime you are left trying to manage a desparate cashflow situation.

I would be interested to know what percentage of business failures are caused by late/non payment.

I have tried inflating my rates a bit and then offering a prompt payment discount, but this has no effect, and I suspect that charging interest, unless it is punative which is not enforcable in the UK, would have no effect either.

Obviously in the worst cases you can cease doing business, but there are a lot of companies who seem to have an unofficial policy of using sub-contractors and suppliers as a free credit facility, and I for one cannot see how to stop this.

In my experience the worst offenders are the medium size companies, the large multi-nationals have a system, and as long as you stick to it you get paid in line with the agreed terms, and the small companies know the problems and try to play fair.

So my own view: Nag screens are OK but if you affect funtionality then you are in a legal minefield.

 

[brucechase]

I guess any company that would agree to this deserves what they get. How about something for the other side. If you program doesn't work properly (or lacks all the features required) then the company (or their rep) takes a baseball bat to your vehicle for 30 minutes. How many integrators would agree to that?


Another point to consider is that there is no code that can't have improvements done to it. I don't think that any machine I work on has the original code in it. Sometimes for new things, sometimes to make great improvements. I just don't understand why any company would agree to locked code let alone time bombs.

 

[Nick B]

Well this is mature. I'm talking about locking down a machine you have not paid for. Not a legitimate hold back for deficiencies.

Nick

I guess any company that would agree to this deserves what they get. How about something for the other side. If you program doesn't work properly (or lacks all the features required) then the company (or their rep) takes a baseball bat to your vehicle for 30 minutes. How many integrators would agree to that?...at there is no code that can't have improvements done to it. I don't think that any machine I work on has the original code in it. .

 

[brucechase]

Well this is mature. I'm talking about locking down a machine you have not paid for. Not a legitimate hold back for deficiencies.

Nick

Actually, it is the same thing. You are talking about not just locking down a machine, but possibly shutting down a complete facility, affecting hundreds of jobs, and costing the company hundreds of thousands of dollars (in certain situations). There are legal avenues to get paid that no one should ever have to go through, but they are there. Putting in a time bomb - assuming the company didn't say great idea to put that in our machines - should be illegal and in my opinion very immature. In the most extreme case where starting a machine might be required to rescue a person trapped and a screen pops up (like in Jurrasic Park asking for the magic word), the person who put that in is at a minimum morally responsible and most likely legally resposnible.

So your time bomb will do much more damage to a company that just stop a machine. How many programmers are willing to much more than that jobs pay on the line?

 

[Lancie1]

I have thought about this a lot, and it seems that it is only a good strategy in a very few limited situations.

If you know the process, the plant, and the usage made of your program, and you have a sure way to veify that the company has not paid what is due (by no means an easy thing to determine in legal terms), then maybe this approach is valid. In large projects, there are often clauses which allow withholding payment, either for non-performance or for late performance.

If there is any way the time bomb will cause damage, either financial or personal injury, then you had better not do it. Certainly, you had better do like Bernie, make sure they know about it and know what it is for, and know what they have to do to avoid the results.

 

[leitmotif]

Hmmm

Lessee here
the phone company turns off the phone if you dont pay the bill.
The power company can do the same.

I think Bernie has the right idea full disclosure in the contract. IF they dont pay turn it off.

Dan Bentler

 

[Steve Bailey]

the phone company turns off the phone if you dont pay the bill.
The power company can do the same.

That's somewhat of an apples-to-oranges comparison. The telephone company and the utility are cutting off your ability to accumulate additional charges, "sort of a fool me twice, shame on me" approach. They're telling you that when you pay what you already owe them, they'll be happy to restore your service and sell you their product again.

I don't know how your telephone company operates, but my bill for monthly service is payment in advance. The only charges that are after the fact are the toll calls.

Here's another point to consider about the time bomb approach. Let's say the time bomb goes off, the customer sheepishly pays you what they owe, you remove the block, and all is once again right with the world. From that point on, whenever the machine goes down, whether it's caused by a broken wire, blown fuse, misaligned prox switch, or operator stupidity, you're going to be among the "usual suspects". If you subscribe to the belief that there is no such thing as negative publicity, and anything that gets your name mentioned is a good thing, then by all means use the time bomb. Besides, you'll always be a hero to those people who appreciate your ability to stick it to the man.

 

[kamenges]

Originally posted by Lancie1:

If there is any way the time bomb will cause damage, either financial or personal injury, then you had better not do it.

For the purposes of this discussion I agree with the personal injury thing but not the finacial damages thing. At the point the OP is talking about the only thing you really are able to do is inflict financial damages. If you can't do that you have no leverage. If you impose this limitation your position is that you are completely against the time bomb concept, which is fine. But you are much better off stating that directly.

Let's take Steve Bailey's phone company thought one step further. Many companies will refuse service requests to customers who have outstanding balances. Steve's position is this is a 'Fool me once...' protection mechanism. In the case of phone companies that may be the case. However, having worked for company that denies service if there is a long outstanding balance I can tell you that isn't the idea. These companies are working under the often correct assumption that the financial pain to the end user of a machine being down with no one readily available to fix it is much greater than the financial pain of paying the outstanding invoice. And it usually works. Financial loss is a very strong motivator. If you can't use that you have near zero leverage. Time bombs simply advance the timetable of the same mechanism as withholding service.

Keep in mind that at this point you are in at least a moderatly adversarial relationship with a less than stellar customer. Ratchetting up the pressure probably isn't going to change the customer's opinion for you much.

I do agree with Bernie's point that this needs to be clearly spelled out in the contract. brucechase's concern only becomes valid if the acceptance criteria are not spelled out well. If they are there is very little risk to either party if they are both honest. brucechase seemes to be a tinkerer, which is fine. I like that type of customer as they tend to be pretty self-sufficient. But given his response I suspect brucechase and/or his company are in the habit of withholding an amount of payment that covers their perceived cost to 'improve' the machine. This is where the acceptance criteria meets customer perception and it gets pretty gray. It's easy to know what you want when you see it. It is much more difficult to define what you want site unseen. When you don't get what you want but it meets the letter of the contract, who's in the wrong?

Keith

 

[dmroeder]

We run into similar situations as the OP all the time, although not quite as extreme as implementing a "time bomb". Situations where the person requesting the change doesn't see the whole picture (usually because of a lack of understanding of the equipment). They come up with an idea and try cramming it down your throat. They don't always understand that there can be unintended consequences. In our case, it's almost always a remedy for one customer, but isn't always the best thing to do of everyone.

 

[Seagullplayer]

I have been asked to do the same in my past life.

It never came to that, I'm glad. But part of the contract is we supply you with an operational machine, you pay for it. If you don't pay, why should you get the machine.
If it shuts your plant down... We where not in business to give away equipment, my kids eat too...

But in the long run we decided that too much money would be lost down the road in service calls. We figured that should it ever come to the point that a costomer did get his machine shut down, they would be upset enough that they wouldn't call us to service it later...

Before you could set up a service tech, your bill had to be paid in full. Also meaning no parts orders could be out standing.

 

[brucechase]

But given his response I suspect brucechase and/or his company are in the habit of withholding an amount of payment that covers their perceived cost to 'improve' the machine. This is where the acceptance criteria meets customer perception and it gets pretty gray. It's easy to know what you want when you see it. It is much more difficult to define what you want site unseen. When you don't get what you want but it meets the letter of the contract, who's in the wrong?

Keith

Sorry, that is not even close to the truth. I have never held anything back when hiring an integrator to do a job. I have even paid for their time when I think most people would not. I never used them again, but when the work was there, I paid. As an example, I hired a small firm to rewrite a program with certain specs. The machine would be down for 1 week and I wanted it to come up on Friday. The engineer shows up on Fri. with all the 11x17 prints on 8x11 paper (not reduced - just 1/2 the print), pops open his computer and says he's ready to "bang it out". 4 12 hours days later and $5000 worth of ooops on his part and the machine runs like it was spelled out. I paid him his original contract price - DENIED his extra charges for the OT and sent him on his way.

I'm not upset about it, but I don't appreciate being accused of subversive practices. I feel I am more than fair in all my dealing with outside contractors. Stuff like this just might be the reason I'm a "tinkerer".