Viofo Dash Cams Temporarily banned on Shopify

hachielectronics said:
Novatek is extremely secretive and discloses basically zero information publicly, and I’m pretty sure they put all their customers under NDA as a matter of course, but I know for a fact they distribute SDKs with their chipsets for manufacturers to use.

I also happen to have a leaked copy of one of these SDKs, circa 2012. This SDK contains the source code for an application labeled "cardv", which matches the name of the application binary called out in the technical documents Aleph One sent me as one of the offenders in both Viofo and Vantrue's firmware. Now, this source code does not contain any YAFFS usage. But this actually tracks with other information I have discovered: Viofo's older camera designs (A119V3, A129, A139, others) don't contain YAFFS in their firmwares. This leads me to believe YAFFS implementation only began some time after STARVIS 2 came out.


View attachment 93086

View attachment 93087

Now, it's obviously not possible to determine definitively whether this cardv application is the same as Viofo and Vantrue's cardv (or perhaps more accurately a progenitor, given its age) but I think it's very likely. If so, then it's entirely plausible that Viofo and Vantrue weren't originally aware of the unlicensed software implemented within their firmwares. But according to Aleph One, they were notified some time ago, so their continued usage is hard to excuse.
Click to expand...

Good work there. I think you're basically correct. Who knew what and when is the question. Were Viofo and other brand sellers aware that this code was in the finished product? What did they and the software house ( if one was used ) discuss?

The kicker is that apparently Aleph One started out several months ago in an attempt to resolve this matter. They apparently did not get back the response they were looking for, so we see this action now where the product is taken off the market. That is how DMCA works when IP is said to be 'pilfered'. Product, art, music, etc. comes off the market. The way that is done is to go after the vendors and retailers.

I will guess that Novatec is in the clear with this. If so, that leaves any contract software house that may be involved or company code teams and their management. This is going to be a 'hard row to hoe' for these brand sellers; it will be expensive to settle, and I hope these companies can arrange a financial agreement that benefits both parties.
 
lufa6977 said:
Good work there. I think you're basically correct. Who knew what and when is the question. Were Viofo and other brand sellers aware that this code was in the finished product? What did they and the software house ( if one was used ) discuss?

The kicker is that apparently Aleph One started out several months ago in an attempt to resolve this matter. They apparently did not get back the response they were looking for, so we see this action now where the product is taken off the market. That is how DMCA works when IP is said to be 'pilfered'. Product, art, music, etc. comes off the market. The way that is done is to go after the vendors and retailers.

I will guess that Novatec is in the clear with this. If so, that leaves any contract software house that may be involved or company code teams and their management. This is going to be a 'hard row to hoe' for these brand sellers; it will be expensive to settle, and I hope these companies can arrange a financial agreement that benefits both parties.
Click to expand...

If Novatech is in the clear, then his argument falls apart. That makes the dashcam makers the offending parties.....
 
jsmith said:
Completely flawed and presumptive argument.

.
.
.

3. If Viofo, Vantrue, etc contracted out to Novatech, and in fact Novatech was the responsible party for utilizing the YAFFS source code that handles data written to storage (MicroSD), these dashcam makers would quickly provide proof to absolve themselves of ANY AND ALL liability. Plus, Novatech would have been notified by affected dashcam makers, who would then demand the code be corrected, damages be awarded, etc. Clearly, this has not happened as of right now.

4. Viofo, Vantrue, etc were "Made Aware" of a problem, and didn't forward it on to Novatech (according to you). Again, if Novatech were the responsible party, dashcam makers would be suing Novatech for damages, and demanding the offending code be fixed. Aleph One would take down the DMCA against dashcam makers and pursue Novatech.
.
.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously the infrienging code is there, as Aleph One has taken action. How old any code is shown by Hachi Electronic is immaterial.

It is likely the contract terms with Novatec did not involve writing firmware code, so it is likely moot for anything that involves Novatec. While Novatec may well have provided three software SDKs, or at least advised 'whomever coders' with the name of the software, that alone does not implement Novatec.

People writing the code are responsible for ensuring the code does not violate any licensing requirements. This issue will probably fall between the 'coding team' and the brand sellers.
 
jsmith said:
If Novatech is in the clear, then his argument falls apart. That makes the dashcam makers the offending parties.....
Click to expand...

I don't see in his post that he really argued that Novatec was responsible. He showed code possibilities and that Novatec has been providing the SDK. Regardless of age, if the SDK is included with a contract to buy chips, then I suspect the fault is still with the software house or the brand seller. Novatec has no possible way to know how their chips will be used and in how many 'firmware models'. They likely advised customers to be aware of licensing agreements.

This problem is, as Hachielectronic noted, limited to certain models. The licensing agreement, as I understand it, is per firmware, which is essentially per model. So if there are 20 models that have this code snippet included, then that is 20 x 20,000 dollars for the license. Very expensive.
 
lufa6977 said:
Well, obviously the infrienging code is there, as Aleph One has taken action. How old any code is shown by Hachi Electronic is immaterial.
Click to expand...

The YAFFS code isn't mentioned in the document, of which the YAFFS source code is the sole basis for the the DMCA letters. A 14 year old document also doesn't prove what happened then is still occurring now.

lufa6977 said:
It is likely the contract terms with Novatec did not involve writing firmware code, so it is likely moot for anything that involves Novatec. While Novatec may well have provided three software SDKs, or at least advised 'whomever coders' with the name of the software, that alone does not implement Novatec.

People writing the code are responsible for ensuring the code does not violate any licensing requirements. This issue will probably fall between the 'coding team' and the brand sellers.
Click to expand...

Unlikely. A "Waiver" from Novatech cannot absolve the company from liability involving theft. If Novatech were indeed the party providing the SDK's, and in fact wrote / stole those SDK's, liability remains with Novatech. There's no amount of signing away your rights that would get Novatech off the hook unless their waiver specifically stated....

Dashcam makers acknowledge Novatech unlawfully used Aleph One YAFFS code, and dashcam makers take the risk of utilizing this code knowing it wasn't lawfully purchased. There's zero chance dashcam makers would agree to such terms.

Novatech isn't liable because Dashcam makers are likely the offending parties who stole and recycled the code. Chinese companies have a long history of duplicating without permission.
 
jsmith said:
That makes the dashcam makers the offending parties
Click to expand...
The legal question of who is liable here, at least under US law, isn't particularly affected by who actually made the decision to implement YAFFS. If it was implemented by Novatek, Novatek is liable for doing it, the dash cam manufacturers are still liable for knowingly continuing to distribute the unlicensed software, as are any retailers who continue to do so. If it was implemented by a third party contractor, the dash cam manufacturer is still liable because they distributed, as well as retailers. If it was the manufacturers themselves who did it, same.

There's very little anyone can be certain about here, I have simply put in the legwork to get as much info as possible considering we're dealing with confidential legal matters involving the closed source software of secretive chinese companies. Feel free to do the reverse engineering yourself and extrapolate whatever conclusions you wish from that.
 
I did a quick analysis of the latest A329 firmware and it has YAFFS in the kernel, but they're using UBIFS. Hope it gets resolved easily for everyone.
 
hachielectronics said:
The legal question of who is liable here, at least under US law, isn't particularly affected by who actually made the decision to implement YAFFS. If it was implemented by Novatek, Novatek is liable for doing it, the dash cam manufacturers are still liable for knowingly continuing to distribute the unlicensed software, as are any retailers who continue to do so. If it was implemented by a third party contractor, the dash cam manufacturer is still liable because they distributed, as well as retailers. If it was the manufacturers themselves who did it, same.

There's very little anyone can be certain about here, I have simply put in the legwork to get as much info as possible considering we're dealing with confidential legal matters involving the closed source software of secretive chinese companies. Feel free to do the reverse engineering yourself and extrapolate whatever conclusions you wish from that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Who is liable is hard to say because we do not see the contracts. If Novatec included the offending software, was it at the brand seller's request? Or did Novatec provide three SDKs with instructions on how to 'hook' into the Novatec chip and tell the brand seller they need to watch out for licensing agreements? So, I know there are 4K/STARVIS II dashcams on the market now that does not use this SDK.

About two years ago, I managed to Google down into a website URL's looking for those Novatec docs. I actually found them, but they were all in Mandarin, so useless to me. I don't even recall the name of the company. I was really interested in reading them just to have a better understanding of the Novatec product line.
 
hachielectronics said:
The legal question of who is liable here, at least under US law, isn't particularly affected by who actually made the decision to implement YAFFS. If it was implemented by Novatek, Novatek is liable for doing it, the dash cam manufacturers are still liable for knowingly continuing to distribute the unlicensed software, as are any retailers who continue to do so. If it was implemented by a third party contractor, the dash cam manufacturer is still liable because they distributed, as well as retailers. If it was the manufacturers themselves who did it, same.

There's very little anyone can be certain about here, I have simply put in the legwork to get as much info as possible considering we're dealing with confidential legal matters involving secretive chinese companies. Feel free to do the reverse engineering yourself and extrapolate whatever conclusions you wish from that.
Click to expand...

Scenario 1: Novatech utilized the YAFFS unlawfully and sold their chips and software to Dashcam Makers:

Novatech would be the one served with the cease and deist, and be the responsible party in charge of notifying all affected third party companies. Novatech would also be liable for implementing a Fix and all Damages arising from the Prior use of Firmware that Utilized YAFFS.

We aren't hearing a peep about Novatech thus far, making this "unlikely".

Telling "Viofo, Vantrue, etc" their cameras use Pirated Code would still fall back on Novatech in this scenario.

Scenario 2: Chinese Intellectual Theft

Chinese Companies are notorious for intellectual property theft. If companies had to license each firmware for $20,000 USD, you can imagine costs balloon rapidly. Chances are these companies skirted the law, got caught, and don't care. China isn't going to hold them accountable and sales can still happen direct to consumer through Chinese Websites.

I don't think Novatech would "Provide" the SDK's with an instruction to "License the Software" before use, but the hardware still "works" without a license. That would defeat the whole purpose of outsourcing. Cheaper to simply do in house then. Plus, that would expose Novatech to potential liability of companies choosing to "NOT" license the software, but the software STILL WORKING.
 
Last edited:
mentadent said:
I did a quick analysis of the latest A329 firmware and it has YAFFS in the kernel, but they're using UBIFS. Hope it gets resolved easily for everyone.
Click to expand...

Do you know if it is on a Winbond chip? Including YAFFS as part of the Make is sort of silly if it is not being used.
 
jsmith said:
We aren't hearing a peep about Novatech thus far, making this "unlikely".
Click to expand...
The only reason we've heard anything at all is because this is directly affecting independent retailers selling consumer products.


jsmith said:
Chinese Companies are notorious for intellectual property theft.
Click to expand...
Novatek is also Chinese. There are non-Chinese dash cam companies involved here (who are also using Novatek SoCs) who have not been named in the takedowns because they are cooperating with Aleph One.
 
hachielectronics said:
The only reason we've heard anything at all is because this is directly affecting independent retailers selling consumer products.
Click to expand...

Correct. Chinese companies don't care about intellectual property theft. Companies trying to enforce theft will get nowhere going after these companies in China. Thus, forcing third party sellers to take down their products is Aleph One's only recourse right now. I'm not sure the logistics behind Aleph One getting the U.S. Government to bar imports of X dashcams. I say very very unlikely.

hachielectronics said:
Novatek is also Chinese. There are non-Chinese dash cam companies involved here (who are also using Novatek SoCs) who have not been named in the takedowns because they are cooperating with Aleph One.
Click to expand...

Correct (Novatek), but we still haven't heard their name be mentioned directly. I'm not saying this couldn't change, but the facts available now, point to Novatek not being at fault AS OF YET.

Could these Non Chinese Dashcam Makers (Not sure which aren't made in China) be cooperating because they engaged in the same type of theft, but got caught? Unlike the Chinese Companies, these guys now face liability and are working to settle?
 
mentadent said:
I did a quick analysis of the latest A329 firmware and it has YAFFS in the kernel, but they're using UBIFS. Hope it gets resolved easily for everyone.
Click to expand...
They’re using UBIFS for the OS but YAFFS to write to storage, because YAFFS operates directly on the MTD layer and commits data immediately upon power loss, which is good for dash cams.


jsmith said:
Could these Non Chinese Dashcam Makers (Not sure which aren't made in China) be cooperating because they engaged in the same type of theft, but got caught? Unlike the Chinese Companies, these guys now face liability and are working to settle?
Click to expand...
Blackvue, Thinkware, and Momento off the top of my head are all made in Korea. There’s also several Japanese brands but they’re not relevant outside Japan generally.

Your guess is as good as mine.
 
I never made an argument at any point in time @jsmith the video simply explains all parties involved. Who is to blame we can all continue to speculate. @hachielectronics and I have both independently done a lot of research and I do think we both have a very good understanding of what really went on here. We have exchanged a lot of info privately as well.

Like I said earlier the info I have I am only sharing with other retailers as information comes in. Not sharing on the public forum.

The video was intended to explain to people worldwide, our customers what happened and parties involved based on evidence I had. I am not looking to go all Reckless Ben and ask people where the LEGOS are or where the commercial license went wrong. There is no plans for a follow up video even though the follow up video would be absolutely killer with the info we have now.

What I love out of all of this is I am now talking to people all over the world. Learning more about their businesses. Exchanging ideas about dash cameras.

Let everyone speculate what happened. There is Viofo side, Novatek side, Aleph One side and somewhere in the middle of all 3 is the truth.
 
SafeDriveSolutions said:
I never made an argument at any point in time @jsmith the video simply explains all parties involved. Who is to blame we can all continue to speculate. @hachielectronics and I have both independently done a lot of research and I do think we both have a very good understanding of what really went on here. We have exchanged a lot of info privately as well.

Like I said earlier the info I have I am only sharing with other retailers as information comes in. Not sharing on the public forum.

The video was intended to explain to people worldwide, our customers what happened and parties involved based on evidence I had. I am not looking to go all Reckless Ben and ask people where the LEGOS are or where the commercial license went wrong. There is no plans for a follow up video even though the follow up video would be absolutely killer with the info we have now.

What I love out of all of this is I am now talking to people all over the world. Learning more about their businesses. Exchanging ideas about dash cameras.

Let everyone speculate what happened. There is Viofo side, Novatek side, Aleph One side and somewhere in the middle of all 3 is the truth.
Click to expand...

I wasn't stating you did, merely that @hachielectronics assumptions may be incorrect.
 
The GPL v2 compliance nightmare is real. Most vendors take dual-licensed code (like YAFFS) from upstream SDKs without realizing they need either a commercial license or to open-source their entire stack. Hopefully Novatek or Viofo just coughs up the licensing fee to clear up these Shopify DMCA takedowns for retailers soon.
 
Did anything happen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top