Why FLARM protects it’s radio protocol

The FLARM device is definitely useful for avoiding collision in sailplane.

But the company behind maintains it’s monopoly position arguing that’s it’s safer and cheaper for the users:

We fundamentally believe that our low cost collision warning technology and its licensing procedures are in the
best interests of the sport and its participants.

To ensure safety, full compatibility and interoperability are essential. Experience shows that it is impossible to
be compatible just by following a written specification.

 

This text is just regular company’s crap, to reassure themselves (and the shareholders) they can maintain a high level of monopoly (and profit).

They also state the radio protocol is patented:

FLARM applies for the radio communication between the units a proprietary and copyright-protected protocol

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as copyrighted radio protocol!

My prefered part is it when the founder respond this accusation of being obscure and avoid implementation in many hardware device, and in software such as XCSoar:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.aviation.soaring/daOXteD5ois/IJ1GTbxWPCAJ

The best part it: they managed to impose the device, not only in competition but for any sailplane in France. How comes the FFVV (French Gliding Federation) can make a device mandatory without any alternative?

One person, Hiram Yaeger seemed to have reverse engineered the protocol:

FLARM PROTOCOL VERSION 4 (2008)

 

If interoperability by documentation or standardization would not be possible, even in RF, there would be no GSM, no GPRS, no WIFI, no Bluetooth.

What do you thing you are FLARM? You are just making a simple electronic device broadcasting GPS position in the free RF band, and it’s not even EASA / CAA / FAA certified! (just like any regular babyphone)

Step down while you can and publish this RF protocol, or the community will do it for you sooner or later! (and no update of the 10k units released in the world will save you)

Mes trouvailles du jour : 9 May 2014

  • Pour en finir avec le casque vélo – Lehollandaisvolant
    L’article pointé me semble plutôt light en terme d’arguments, je ne suis pas du tout convaincu par son texte.
    Pour le casque en vélo, je ne vois pas pourquoi ça ne serait pas bénéfique en cas de chute ?
    Comme disait un formateur secouriste : "lorsqu’un parent met un casque vélo à son enfant, mais n’en porte pas lui-même, c’est que l’enfant n’a plus besoin de ce parent".
    (Permalink)

Mes trouvailles du jour : 6 May 2014