The same thing happened to me. When I learned of the lock in my MGE UPS - I was very upset - to say the least. I expected our consulting engineer to have addressed this when he developed the RFP. If I purchase a substantial piece of equipment that requires maintenance, the fact that I won't have ANY SERVICE OPTIONS should be disclosed up front! I haven't been able to bypass the lock, no matter what I try. MGE is refusing to provide or even let me buy the software...you can probably imagine how much I'm paying for service. Why don't consulting engineers address this issue when developing bid documents?

S.O.P. for proprietary software. I use to work for Piller and we did the same thing. We would not let out our software settings due to the legal possibilities if the customer changes settings and blew up the equipment or made problems for Utility. It sounds like you have been duped by yet another UPS consultant that only worries about the final payment and passing the system F.A.T. There are no large scale UPS vendors that will release their software. Liebert, MGE, Powerware, Piller, Toshiba, Cat, Russelelectric, etc...... This is how we genrate $$$$$$$$. Good Luck, Steeve

FYI - MGE and Powerware are the only real players that use this tactic. Piller is not used much anymore and Liebert is very willing to work with customers.

There are third party maintenance groups that do service MGE ,Powerware and PDI products that have Lockout software. They are companies that have hired former employees of these companies. Companies like Jt Packard, Fakouri Electrical Eng. ,EEC , and DC group all got caught in a string operation by MGE using software. Other third parties are servicing the equipment and when a control board goes bad they call in manufacturer to calibrate. Look under UPS service in the web and pick a local company that will show you their experience with the machines.

With MGE, they will license the software to each site with a prime price. They use a close loop theory on their three power loops( Rectifier, Inverter and Bypass). They have a Control board, Acq. board, and driver board to keep voltages at specfic levels. If an Acq board or Control board is changed on the system calibration is required requiring software.

There have been companies that have debugged the software by reverse eng the software,( its a C++ program with address that will adjust perimeters on the boards).

If requested by End users the manufacturer will give a class and then license the software.

Simply note who does this and never do business with them again and tell them you will be going to another manufacturer, try belkin or any other make, better still if you have the ability buy the equivilant parts and develope your own system. There are plenty of options. The fact that these companies loose trade/sales will soon bring them into line. Let people know and tell them it is not worth buying from these suppliers. If enough sales are lost to them they will have to bow to the economic reality.

Powerware actually caught the US Air Force Space Command with this when the Air Force Space Command went out to bid service on all of thier worldwide assets. Now you as a taxpayer are paying 5 times the amount you should be for service on Eaton/Powerware units the military has purchased. Part of the depositions of the case for Eaton/Powerware show that the Air Force was not made aware of the locking software until it came time for contract negotiations. Thanks for wasting my money Powerware/Eaton.

Eaton/Powerware has not learned from past mistakes.

Of all the Critical Power Equipment OEMs, they have become even more aggressive in their "Padlock Software" application.

Not only are they unwilling to share or license this software to their competitors locking them out of service contract and remedial maintenance opportunities, but they withhold information from their customer who have bought equipment, never telling them up front, before they buy, that their service options are limited to only them after the sale.

Then, they they price gouge the customers for service contracts, battery replacements (often this requires their proprietary software to "calibrate" the charger), and capacitor refresh.

The latest ploy is to refuse to accept Purchase Orders from the Independent Maintenance Organizations (IMO) when software tweaks are necessary. This forces the End-User to contract Eaton/Powerware directly, which is impossible for government fixed bid business.

The result is that a very competent, and price competitive IMO loses the business to Eaton/Powerware, who the customer did not want in the first place and mountains of paperwork for the government agency affect. The GSA is looking into this matter.

There is talk of Eaton/Powerware being under investigation for violations of the Sherman Antitrust regulations which prohibit these very practices. In addition, user groups like Citizens Against Procurement Fraud (CAPF) are eluding to an End-User class action suit.

All my UPS equipment is from APC, so I don't have any problems, but... You should check your invoices to ensure you actually bought the whole system. If so, and you can not get service elsewhere you should be able to sue the manufacturer to force them to provide access to the system as it is yours. You could find others with the same issues and do a class action. The negative publicity alone might instigate a change of heart.

You may ask, why all this uproar over proprietary software?
Well, the truth is that some large critical power equipment manufacturers like Eaton/Powerware are running a tight scam which is becoming ever more abusive and restrictive, to both their customers - equipment owners, and competitors.

While most other critical power equipment manufacturers have abandoned or scaled back use of this competition limiting proprietary "Padlock Software", allowing end users the freedom of choice over their service providers, Eaton/Powerware has foolishly become even more restrictive opening themselves up to both antitrust investigation, and end user class action suits.

Until recently, a UPS equipment owner that made an independent maintenance organization (IMO)choice, due to either mixed vendor environment, better customer service, or lower cost, was still unaffected by "Padlock Software" directly since the IMO was able to "hire" Eaton/Powerware to come to the site to apply whatever software tweaks were necessary. Eaton/Powerware accepted purchase orders from the IMO, and a seamless, uninterrupted, level of service was available to the end user customer.

This fragile "partnership" often resulted in Eaton/Powerware field personnel dispatched to the site attempting to dissuade the customer from continuing with their chosen alternative
service provider, while being paid by the same company they were disparaging. The impact was minor since their motives were transparent.

Within the last couple of years, Eaton/Powerware now refuses to accept purchase orders for padlock proprietary software tweaks for their service competition who hold service contracts on equipment and are obligated to bear all cost of equipment maintenance.

This new attempt at competition killing often results in great inconvenience for the equipment owner. In the case of fixed cost service contracts, it requires the owner to justify additional funds to be eventually repaid by the IMO. This is often not possible with government service contracts since any unexpected cost funding requires lengthy approval processes, or public bid.

The end result is typically a furious equipment owner (one municipality reportedly threw out Eaton equipment and went with APC) tired of the hassle and obvious manipulation. At times, a highly competent IMO that may lose a service contract feeling blackmailed into giving the service contract to Eaton/Powerware.

The primary function of an equipment OEM is to build, sell and move product. Trying to monopolize service after the sale with superior customer service and price are all encouraged and allowed in a free market economy, and benefit the end user or customer.

Monopolizing service by inserting "padlock software" without full disclosure upfront warning the customer their service options are limited injures the customer, and is the reason class action suit interest is at an all time high.

Monopolizing service by inserting "padlock software" without licensing options or sharing it with competition is a different violation of free market principles, and a clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

I'm dealing with the same problem. I know for certain that my company purchased the entire MGE UPS system, but we still cannot service the %$#* equipment! From what I understand, there is extensive litigation, but who knows if I will get the software, even when the dust settles. To that end, we are considering selling our UPS - buying a new one will be cheaper than paying to have this one serviced. I wouldn't advise trying to work around the software. You'll just ruin your system. Sell it and cut your losses.

APC's higher costs just got a little more justifed I guess. That is bogus, and I will say that if APC is an alternative for you, they are definitely still advertising all their systems--especially the higher end ones--as "user serviceable" and even portable in a lot of cases. If you haven't purchased yet, that might just be the only option left I guess.

JT Packard, a UPS systems integrator has an anti-trust lawsuit going against MGE and Powerware for anticompetitive practices.

Fakouri a UPS service provider just won a case against MGE

I expect Packard will win as well

These OEMs shennanigans have been going on for years

Steve,

Packard does not have an anti trust lawsuit against anybody let alone MGE and Powerware. In fact, Packard was found in contempt of court and fined in excess of $25million dollars in the MGE vs JT Packard case. They then settled the suit with MGE as they were on a very slippery slope and were bound to lose even more. If you want to purchase a great UPS without any locking software, forget the big 3. Get a Mitsubishi. I have been in the business for 25 years and worked for one of the big 3. The Mitsu may cost more, but they are fantastic. Very solid and and reliable. They are easier on batteries too. You can hit it with a 100% load step and it will not draw power from the batteries. They have an IGBT charger vs reactive devices the other guys have. This allows you to use a 1:1 ratio with a generator.

Buy a Mitsubishi and forget about power problems. This is a preference of mine. I am not related to this company or benefit in any way.

MGE came to JT Packard because they knew it was not an enforcable fine. MGE wanted out just as bad as all the others involved in the case, but the reason I am replying. I totally agree with you about the Mitsubishi units. I have 4 and they are the best units out there. I am glad I sold my MGE and Powerware as soon as my boss was informed of the anti-trust practices Eaton/Powerware and MGE were involved in. Keep in mind that Liebert does not have locking software at this time, but I have heard a rumor they are seriously thinking about adding it. Keep an eye out for this and cover your rear.

Liebert does have software used on their NPower systems and all their PDU's.

Without delving in to an argument of who has the better box, let me just say that each manufacturer has features, benefits and inherent design limitations to their product even though "optimum design bandwidth" forces these products to be very, very similar especially as kVA capacity grows. I am compelled to correct some misconceptions about the IGBT front end design (Mitsubishi). Whereas it presents certain desireable advantages, it also has liabilities. First, there is no such thing as a unity power factor. That is theoretical. Next, each UPS has inefficiencies and operational overhead. Therefore you could NEVER actually size a generator 1:1. The IGBT "front end" does reduce input harmonics and therefore allows tighter generator sizing, say 1.25:1. This is especially true give that UPS are rated on output capacity. However, in most critical data power applications, the generator is well oversized to support loads on nthe protected bus but not on the critical bus; so tight ratio sizing is not an issue. I have found the Mitsubishi units to be quite reliable but also quite costly to repair. (IGBT's cost more than SCR's for one reason). I must say that the Powerware 9315, MGE EPS6000 and Liebert 600T Series also to be quite reliable. The down side of IGBT rectifier designs is most noticeable in efficiency reducing it overall by 4-7%. It does not sound like much especially when one looks at the kW/hr consumption at 30kVA. When you examine a 500kVA or parallel application, the kW/hr usage is staggering in cost over a modest 10 year system life cycle. Do not forget, that inefficiency results in additional heat load that must be dissapated. The bottom line is that there are benefits and disadvantages to evrything. That is why you need a competent, knowledgeable & professional source for critical power systems design advice. Unfortunately, far too many firms are forced to push one brand over another for self-interest rather than develop an intelligent systemic evaluation base on your particular installation environment. If you do not understand these systems and their various design iterations, find someone who does. Certainly the big 3 will probably not burn you over the life of the system. Maintnenace & repair are other issues. Once again, the big 3 probably will not burn you, but they tend not to "take ownership" of your power system. Third parties will "take ownership", but their capabilities and honesty are often in question. Therefore, you must take ownership of your system and build knowledge capital internally. At that point, you direct your service provider to perfrom the work necessary to the reliability and availability of your system with appropriate checks & balances. Above all, you need to trust the company that accesses your critical data environment. Think about all the LAN-WAN security measures that we implement to keep thieves out of the network while we let "questionable" operatives into our data center to "fix" critical power issues. (Are those VRLA batteries really bad after only 5 years?) Better to pay a little more in cost of acquisition and/or ownership than allow the foxes into the hen house.

Sounds like your factory position was laid out in a "Big 3" fashion that has served them well - fear. Only one question remains; which one you work for, I know it's not Mitsubishi, but that is a moot point as long as you steer readers to the others. As long as the market is split in thirds, you and the manufacturer you represent benefit.

As for Independent Service Providers: not all have made a commitment to invest in tooling, training and follow the moral compass you have suggested. Be clear and inclusive through, the OEM's subcontract to many of these questionable firms because they have not made a commitment to invest in tooling, training and follow that moral compass.

Not a factory position at all, but rather a well considered evaluation developed over time by a degreed electrical engineer with over 15 years in the power quality arena. Not only have I no obligation to any manufacturer, but represent no product whatsoever. My cautions are well-reasoned, unlike your childish discourse obviously taking a particular side in favor of Mitsubishi, against the others, and with sympathies towards third party providers. At least if the OEMs sub-contract to "questionable" third parties, the OEMs with their deep pockets are on the hook should anything go astray. Others may simply fold up their tent or change company names to avoid their responsibility. I have even heard of a firm refunding the service contract and running away from a costly repair with their tail between their legs rather than face up to their obligations. My point is that facilities and IT professionals must take ownership of their power systems to ensure that proper, necessary and thorough service is being performed on their behalf and at their informed direction by service providers whether supplied by the OEM or some third party questionable or otherwise. I will agree with you that third parties by their nature present competency and ethical issues that shoould be scrutinized extensively, often and continuously.

"Childish Discourse" well I can certainly go there if you prefer. But, before we do, I feel your main point is the issue worth discussing. The proper evaluation of services to be performed and the value of those services. The reasoning that ultimately leads to a decision is often not based on competencies of the service provider, but as you not-so-eloquently put it, the OEM deep pockets are the safest choice. That again is misleading, to infer that the threat of litigation will somehow get you what you think you should - is flat wrong. This provides a false sense of recourse because whoever you sign on with should be able to provide proof of solvency, in addition to insurance, safety records, O&M practices, experience, tooling, references and more. I do have a preference for third party providers who have made the investment in human and monetary resources to bring the market an alternative source for services. Not everyones experience with ISP's are the same and some are better than others. The 'Locking Software" issue is exactly why buyers, users or otherwise should be questioning the OEM on the ability to service the equipment and have the freedom of choice. That's what this is all about, the freedom to choose who, how often and how much to maintain that critical asset. OEM's are actually that, to build, sell and move product. Services were originally an after thought and left to distributors. Now that padlocks can be utilized, servicing can be monopolized and factory service is the push because it's all about the money. So without referencing my years of experience, what I do, or who I do it for, I hope you fine my contribution of value your ego is no longer bruised.

Ron

You can service your Powerware system but like most manufacturers of anything you buy if you do this in the warranty period you run the risk of voiding the manufacturers warranty. ( Try servicing your own car and then claim for something under warranty after 30,000 miles). After the warranty period you can continue to service your system and buy parts but you will have difficulty setting up any new parts without the service software. We will allow companies to service their own equipment and obtain the necessary training and spares kits to do this. What we tend to find is some third party offers a price to carry out service and then when they make a mess of it we get called to sort the mess out. No one is willing to admit they have made attempts to sort things out so our reputation gets a hit. If you have an issue you want to address give me a call and I will attempt to sort it out. Mark Derbyshire Managing Director Eaton Power Quality. 01753 608 700.

Mark,

What kind of car do you drive? I drive a Honda Accord. One of the reasons that I purchased my Accord was affordability. If I learned that the dealer would need to perform all oil changes (this is not brain surgery, it's routine maintenance) and that each oil change cost $200, the car would cease to be affordable, and I would not purchase it. Now, if I only learned of the dealer/$200 oil change scam after I purchased the car, I would be INFURIATED.

From first-hand experience, I know that Powerware is running a tight scam (I sold my company's equipment ASAP to meet budget). Nonetheless, I realize that you are probably sheltered from this scam because you seem like a decent guy.

Anyhow, be careful Mark - Powerware will eventually be exposed for its fraudulent ways and you don't want to be a part of that.

Here is an example of someone wanting more of your money to "FIX" a problem that would not be there if they had released/sold the software to the customer during the sale. More than likely the customer was not informed of this and was intentionally hidden from the customer as was found in emails and notices at Powerware. Look at the evidence collected during the Powerware/Eaton - JT Packard discovery and you will see the manufacture intentionally and knowingly mislead you as a customer. Until people like us stand up and make enough noise to the Department of Justice about Anti-trust practices we as the customer will be on the short end of the stick.

I was a Powerware technician in my past. I do remember being told to not mention the software issues until it came time for the renewal of the contract. I see you mention "Spare parts kits" in your plea for thier money. Can you name one instance the "Spare parts" were pre-programmed with the customers unit information so they could be replaced on site without having to pay Eaton/Powerware a minimum charge of 500.00 plus travel, plus any extra time the engineer could spend on site? Remember people the Customer Service Engineer is eligable for commissions on all time and material work referred to the company. The longer they are onsite the more commissions they make.

PS- They make commissions on referring full battery replacements too. Make sure you read and understand your battery readings....wait Eaton/Powerware does not give you battery readings to make sure you are not getting replacements on thier schedule instead of yours.

State entrepreneur takes on the biggies

Sued by billion-dollar firms, small business owner won't back down By RICK ROMELL
rromell@journalsentinel.com Posted: Nov. 11, 2006

He may be right and he may be wrong, but one thing is clear: Jeff Cason's not afraid to fight.

With two huge corporations suing his small business in separate cases, Cason hired pricey lawyers not just to defend his company but to counterattack in actions that have seen hundreds of documents filed - and counting - in federal courts in Tennessee and Illinois.

It's a battle of hardball business tactics peppered with accusations of copyright infringement, antitrust violations and an "underground network" dealing in trade secrets.

On one side stand Eaton Corp. ($11.1 billion in sales last year, $805 million in profit) and a subsidiary of France's Schneider Electric ($14 billion in sales, $1.2 billion in profit).

On the other stands JT Packard & Associates Inc., a Verona firm guided by Cason, a 34-year-old entrepreneur who never finished high school.

Four years ago, when it began doing the work that now finds it at odds with Eaton and Schneider subsidiary MGE UPS Systems Inc., Packard had fewer than 20 employees.

It's grown rapidly since then, and says it counts scores of Fortune 500 corporations among its clients. But Packard's staff of 235 would get lost among the 159,000 people who work for the firm's opponents, and the $65 million in revenue Packard figures to take in this year represents a couple of days' sales to each of them.

JT Packard services uninterruptible power supply equipment - battery-powered systems that kick in virtually instantly during an electrical outage. Such gear ranges from small units protecting a single home computer to massive equipment that can cost up to $250,000 and stand watch over the data center at an airline, a hospital or the Pentagon.

JT Packard services the big stuff. Eaton and MGE make it.

The manufacturers allege that Packard has illegally used their proprietary software. In their eyes, Packard is a thief who ordered or encouraged former MGE and Eaton employees to deliver property rightfully belonging only to the manufacturers.

Packard denies this, and claims in turn that each manufacturer's software is strictly a lockout device intended to thwart lawful competition by keeping anyone but Eaton or MGE from servicing the equipment even after the warranties expire. In Packard's eyes, the manufacturers' actions are the equivalent of, say, General Motors making cars with hoods that only GM dealers can open.

Further, Packard alleges, the Eaton business unit involved didn't tell customers beforehand - including the U.S. Air Force - that only the manufacturer could service the equipment they were buying.

Pirated software

To press its case, Packard has retained two of Wisconsin's elite law firms - Foley & Lardner in the Eaton litigation, Quarles & Brady in the MGE suit - as well as separate out-of-state attorneys for each action.

Cason wouldn't comment on Packard's legal bills or any other aspect of the litigation, but an MGE court filing gives a sense of the costs involved. MGE alone, the filing said, had rung up more than $100,000 in lawyer fees as of last January.

Packard recently got some potential reinforcements. Last month, Cason sold a majority interest in the firm to a California company, Power Plus. But for the great majority of the litigation to date, Cason, as Packard's sole owner, has been on his own.

The legal fight began in the spring of 2004, when MGE sued Packard and several other defendants it claimed were part of "a massive web of willful copyright infringement." Eaton filed its suit, which makes similar allegations, in June 2005.

MGE's case turns in large part on a man named David White, an alleged software pirate turned star witness for the company.

White, of Murfreesboro, Tenn., was an MGE field engineer who resigned in 1999. Suspecting later that White had improperly obtained its software, MGE's complaint says, the company hired a private investigator who bought a copy from White for $5,000.

MGE sued White and, according to its complaint, he later admitted selling the software to at least 10 other parties, including Cason.

White confessed under oath that he knowingly acquired illegal copies of the copyrighted software and distributed them to people who knew that what they were getting was illegal, the MGE complaint says.

When Cason got the software, the complaint alleges, he sent an e-mail to JT Packard employees saying, "Echo, bravo, whiskey, niner. The Eagle has landed. Repeat: The Eagle has landed. Rendezvous to the next e-mail for flight pattern."

Packard gave White a $10,000 credit on batteries in exchange for the software and a disk containing MGE trade secrets, MGE alleges.

'Beholden'

In its answer, Packard said it bought software from White, but denied being part of a network that exchanged trade secrets, and denied MGE's accusation that it wrongfully took the company's secrets. Packard said it believed White legally developed the software he provided.

Packard said it needed no permission from MGE to use the software, which Packard claims cannot properly be copyrighted. The "padlock software," Packard said, "has no legitimate business purpose; its only purpose is to force MGE customers to obtain service solely from MGE."

Packard claims MGE's conduct is "monopolistic and anticompetitive," and quotes White as testifying that "(A)n MGE (service) contract on a like size piece of equipment is 25% to 30% higher than anybody else in the market for their equipment. . . . They use the software as a tool for their customers to be, I don't know, beholden to them for the maintenance contract."

Not so, MGE says. Responding to a reporter's questions, the company said the software isn't a lockout device but a diagnostic tool that greatly reduces service time. The uninterruptible power supply equipment still can be serviced manually, but it takes three to six hours vs. an hour or less with the software, the company said. MGE charges more per hour, but customers pay less in the end because of the time savings, the company said.

In a document filed by MGE, a former employee of both MGE and Packard said MGE equipment could be serviced without the software. Letters to customers from two MGE sales executives, contained in a document filed by Packard, say the opposite.

Being able to service MGE equipment could be important to an independent firm like Packard. MGE says it accounts for more than 20% of U.S. sales of "enterprise-class" uninterruptible power supply systems.

A surprise to Air Force

The other manufacturer, Eaton, also alleges that Packard misappropriated proprietary software - software Packard claims serves no purpose but to prevent independent service firms, or Eaton's customers, from getting access to equipment the customers own.

According to Packard, the software was developed in 2003 by Powerware Corp., which Eaton acquired a year later. An Eaton spokeswoman said the company won't comment on the lawsuit.

In a deposition, former Powerware President Mark Ascolese said he "would disagree vehemently" with Packard's allegation that the company didn't tell customers beforehand that the proprietary software would prevent service by independent firms. Ascolese testified that he had told customers that some procedures on the equipment could only be performed by Powerware employees.

But Air Force contracting officers didn't find out about that until after the fact, their testimony shows.

In 2001, the Air Force bought $79 million worth of uninterruptible power supply equipment from Powerware. Two years later, the military wing wanted to seek competitive bids on servicing the equipment. But, Air Force contracting officer Deborah J. Dodd testified that, at a meeting attended by various companies interested in the work including Packard, a Powerware representative indicated that other firms didn't have the proprietary Powerware software needed to perform service.

That, Dodd testified, "was a very big surprise."

Lead contract specialist Richard G. Heinze, who had issued the 2001 purchase contract, testified that Powerware never disclosed beforehand that the software was necessary to maintain the equipment.

The Air Force reversed course on its plans for open bidding and negotiated only with Powerware, eventually awarding the company what Packard says was a $38 million service contract.

Meanwhile, a consultant who oversaw the design and construction of computer systems for Greater Bay Bancorp, a bank based in East Palo Alto, Calif., testified that the bank had sought bids from outside companies to maintain its uninterruptible power supply units, only to learn then that only Powerware could service the bank's Powerware equipment.

"I felt that I was trapped," testified the consultant, Dennis C. Eastman of Industrial Design & Construction. "I had to go with them."

Both federal lawsuits are pending - the Eaton action in Chicago, the MGE case in Nashville. MGE recently settled with another defendant that, like JT Packard, had accused the manufacturer of antitrust violations.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=540694

FYI

JT Packard settled the lawsuit against them by MGE after the most recent ruling by the Federal 6th Distruict in Nashville concerning a contempt of court motion regarding Packard's continued use of software and other proprietary material after a court issued injunction. This ruling substantially found that Packard did indeed have and use the software and other confindential items covered by copyright. Obviously this compelled Packard to settle the entire case for an undisclosed amount (est $30 to $60M). Next on the docket is Eaton/Powerware's similar case against Packard.

Regarding the software in general, it has a positive and negative effect. The manufacturerer must protect the integrity of its brand. Simply put, the control algorithm of today's UPS creates a controlled phase to phase fault condition. Should the system be improperly adjusted ( at the C++ control level), it is quite possible to create an uncontrolled fault condition that results in pyrotechnical effects similar to an 81mm mortar round. This will produce a plasma ball that will certainly disable equipment as well as any unprotected personnel within 100 feet. Additionally, when enough yAhoos blow up enough Brand X boxes and blame Brand X, people will think Brand X is a bad UPS. So the mfg must control the operational quality of its product. Negatively, this lends itself to a monopoly-like service situation prone to abuse (high cost, poor service). Liebert effectively "locks" others out of their boxes via a convoluted, expensive repair process and procedure that, if not scrupulously adhered to results in ineffective or duplicate repairs. I won't even address APC because if you are buying their stuff you have absolutely no business delving into three-phase power electronics & magnetics theory.

And finally, much of the simpler maintenance can be performed without the use of the software. Therefore, an intelligent user might utilze internal resources (trained, of course) to semi-annual maintenance and selectively call the manufacturer for an annual "check-up". Additional savings can be realized by selecting a "battery only" service company to maintain the batteries. They usually bill at $35/hr vs the $125+/hr UPS service techs go for. Certainly a good system design alleviates a lot of potential critical problems.

But finally, given the confidential and proprietary nature of our businesses, why would you ever want a company having even the appearance of software/information theft allowed access to your critical data center and its power system?

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=540694

I am presently an Application Engineer for a third party service organization. I now work with customers on replacing their UPS systems or building new data center power distribution. My past 7 years I worked for a different third party service group as the service manager / electrician / sales person / & purchaser. About 90% of my time was spent in the field servicing units. I am very familiar with your delema. Recently a number of third party service groups have tried to carry through anti-trust lawsuits. But the two manufacturers you listed are willing to spend more money in court instead of spending that money to bring you a better product. I believe the only way this issue will get a sympathetic ear is when enough customers learn about this and launch some sort of Class Action Anti-Trust lawsuit from the customers perspective.

On a side note I can tell you that the best built UPS systems I have come across from a service engineers view do not require software to service them. By far the two most reliable brands of UPS I have serviced have been the Japanese products from Mitsubishi & Toshiba. However Toshiba is starting to incorporate software features in limited capacity like MGE & Powerware. I know that Mitsubishi units recieve updates to the control programs via software, however all service issues can be done with out any laptops and the units are so reliable that there have been very few updates that were of a nature that would be considered critical. Toshiba & Mitsubishi service their products through a network of third party service groups and they allow competition amongst their service vendors. This means you get a choice after the sale.

The answer is that customers need to stop buying from manufacturers that employee these immoral and illegal tactics and or the customer needs to take them to court. I think that many of the trade show's that corporations attend would be a great platform for spreading the word and showing the spot light on this very dark side of this industry.

Slapped with a contempt finding and a huge financial penalty, a Madison-area tech firm and its founder are moving to settle a theft and copyright infringement case.

Last Tuesday, a judge in Tennessee ruled that JT Packard & Associates Inc. and its founder, Jeff Cason, had violated an earlier order to surrender software and data belonging to plaintiff MGE UPS Systems Inc.

With the contempt finding, federal Judge William J. Haynes Jr. imposed a stiff financial sanction - Packard and Cason are to pay MGE 30% of Packard's gross revenue since July 31, 2004.

Three days after the contempt finding, lawyers for both sides in the 2 1/2 -year-old case told Haynes they were preparing to settle and expected to resolve their dispute soon.

Neither Cason nor his lawyer could be reached for comment Monday, but based on Cason's previous statements, the contempt penalty, if carried out, would top $30 million. Whether the amount will be modified in the settlement now being finalized could not be learned.

In any event, the contempt finding has dealt Packard and Cason a setback in one of two legal battles they are fighting against much bigger companies.

Based in Verona, Packard services large uninterruptible power supply equipment - battery-powered systems that kick in immediately after an electrical failure and keep vital equipment running. MGE manufactures the systems.

Since entering the service business four years ago, Packard has grown from fewer than 10 employees to about 235. In an October interview, Cason said the firm's 2006 sales should total $65 million, up from $41 million in 2005.

MGE sued Packard in May 2004, alleging it had, without authorization, obtained MGE software and an MGE data disk containing trade secrets. Later, MGE added Cason as a defendant.

Packard and Cason denied any wrongdoing. They claimed MGE's software functioned only to force customers to get service only from MGE, and as such violated antitrust law.

In July 2004, a federal judge ordered Packard to stop using the MGE software and data disk and to surrender all copies of them. Last week, Haynes ruled that Packard and Cason hadn't complied with the order and found them in contempt.

The pending settlement in the case probably involves a licensing agreement, said Stephen E. Kravit, a Milwaukee lawyer specializing in complex litigation. Under such an arrangement, Packard would pay MGE for use of its software.

MGE, whose North American headquarters is in Costa Mesa, Calif., is a unit of France's Schneider Electric, which last year posted about $14 billion in sales.

Meanwhile, a similar case involving Packard and Cleveland-based Eaton Corp., another manufacturer of uninterruptible power supply equipment, continues in federal court in Illinois.

Cason, 34, was Packard's sole owner until about two months ago, when he sold a majority stake to Power Plus, an Anaheim, Calif., company that provides temporary electrical power to customers in California, Nevada and Arizona.

A representative of Power Plus could not be reached for comment Monday

Funny how they cannot be reached after they lose, isn't it? The comments posted by employees of JT Packard would have you believed that they sued MGE & Powerware. That was not the case. JT Packard obtained copies of MGE & Powerware copyrighted software illegally and converted them for its own use. A federal court judge agreed. And just so you don't think this is a David v Goliath story as some would have you believe, JT Packard's sole aim at getting the s/w was to make money, not some grand altruistic protection of the end user. And remember, JT Packard routinely "fudges" service reports to prematurely condem your batteries so they can make even more money. Nothing ever prevented any third party from sub-contracting to the manufacturer for those issues requiring the software. Unfortunately that would have eroded THEIR profits. Once again, this is not Robin Hood, it's more like Al Capone. At least you know Powerware/Liebert/MGE will not steal your proprietary information because they arbitrarily determine you don't have a right to it. Grow up people.

You would cut and paste a story from a newspaper and then try and add a paragraph at the end to try and make a point about COPYright infringment? That is too funny. The newspaper tried to call you at your office, at midnight, on Christmas and was unable to get a comment either. What are you hiding?

I only wish to comment on one point. You claim that JT Packard ""fudges" service reports to prematurely condem your batteries so they can make even more money."(you misspelled condemn). That is just plain slenderizing nonsense. The truth of the matter is that JT Packard provides more detailed and accurate data and certainly more thorough service than at least one OEM. Customers are quoted for replacement batteries only after four years of continuous service or a high failure rate. As business processes tend to move slowly in procurement of the replacement, it is often best to begin the process before a failure. That is the point isn't it, to provide a continuous back-up of critical systems? Waiting until you have already lost data, equipment, or production time is not an option for the consumer. I would caution you not to make claims you can not support Sir. Having worked for both the OEM and JT Packard, I believe I have a valid opinion.

Eaton/Powerware has not learned from past mistakes.

Of all the Critical Power Equipment OEMs, they have become even more aggressive in their "Padlock Software" application.

Not only are they unwilling to share or license this software to their competitors locking them out of service contract and remedial maintenance opportunities, but they withhold information from their customer who have bought equipment, never telling them up front, before they buy, that their service options are limited to only them after the sale.

Then, they they price gouge the customers for service contracts, battery replacements (often this requires their proprietary software to "calibrate" the charger), and capacitor refresh.

The latest ploy is to refuse to accept Purchase Orders from the Independent Maintenance Organizations (IMO) when software tweaks are necessary. This forces the End-User to contract Eaton/Powerware directly, which is impossible for government fixed bid business.

The result is that a very competent, and price competitive IMO loses the business to Eaton/Powerware, who the customer did not want in the first place and mountains of paperwork for the government agency affect. The GSA is looking into this matter.

There is talk of Eaton/Powerware being under investigation for violations of the Sherman Antitrust regulations which prohibit these very practices. In addition, user groups like Citizens Against Procurement Fraud (CAPF) are eluding to an End-User class action suit.

We have been dealing with this type of greed for many many years! You need to remember in order to perform proper preventive maintenance on your UPS system you do not necessarily need any special software. Good maintenance is largely a physical function. Don't forget your UPS batteries are half of the system and good battery maintenance is essential for proper operation of the UPS. You do not need an software to perform great battery maintenance. Our experience has been over 90% of our UPS service calls are for battery related issues.

By the way, there are more than three major UPS manufacturers. Companies like Mitsubishi & Toshiba have been selling UPS systems much longer than any of the others and have a larger installed customer base. AND software is not required for service!!!

Well Put.

JT Packard is a bunch of thieves who steal proprietary information from other companies. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are other companies, GE, Mitsubishi and Toshiba that work with third party companies and will allow them to work on there machines.

GE UPS system suck!.

The reason why GE, Mitsubishi and Toshiba allow third party maintenance is that they do not have factory direct field service. If you have a broke UPS that the third party can't repair, who are you going to call? Can you talk to the engineer that designed the system?

Power Systems & Controls located in Richmond, VA. is another manufacture of static UPS systems. They have been around for over 40 years. They however have taken a different path, in that their communication with their UPS's and frequency converters are open to the market, no locking software, so anyone with proper knowledge of how a UPS works, can service these units. Powerware and MGE, which just bought APC, will screw you any chance they get, give these guys a try. My experience is you cannot bypass the locking software.

I have worked for numerous 3th party companies and an OEM. From my experience I would buy a Mitsubishi. They are rock solid, reliable and do not have the locking software. They are so easy to work on. (they don't break). The most complex UPS I have every seen has been MGE. MGE FE's don't troubleshoot. They swap out boards until the unit starts running.

So what happened with the Nationwide Power vs Eaton lawsuit? I heard they settled.

So what ever happened with the Nationwide Power lawsuite? I heard they settled but how does that help customers? http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/8:2007cv00883/393176/

Nationwide Power Solutions Inc et al v. Eaton Electrical Inc

Share |

Access additional case information on PACER Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required. Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

So if I was a buyer for the military and sent this equipment off to Iraq or Alaska our tax dollars would have to pay for a factory technician to perform a repair. That is just wrong.

I can at least work on my car in my driveway without having it towed to a G.M. dealer for a problem. From what I see MGE won't be around much longer. Powerware is not as big and bad as they think they are. Liebert has always been the big one with the big ones. The Mitsu and Toshiba are virtually the same and solid in mid range 3 phase.

Eaton/Powerware has not learned from past mistakes.

Of all the Critical Power Equipment OEMs, they have become even more aggressive in their "Padlock Software" application.

Not only are they unwilling to share or license this software to their competitors locking them out of service contract and remedial maintenance opportunities, but they withhold information from their customer who have bought equipment, never telling them up front, before they buy, that their service options are limited to only them after the sale.

Then, they they price gouge the customers for service contracts, battery replacements (often this requires their proprietary software to "calibrate" the charger), and capacitor refresh.

The latest ploy is to refuse to accept Purchase Orders from the Independent Maintenance Organizations (IMO) when software tweaks are necessary. This forces the End-User to contract Eaton/Powerware directly, which is impossible for government fixed bid business.

The result is that a very competent, and price competitive IMO loses the business to Eaton/Powerware, who the customer did not want in the first place and mountains of paperwork for the government agency affect. The GSA is looking into this matter.

There is talk of Eaton/Powerware being under investigation for violations of the Sherman Antitrust regulations which prohibit these very practices. In addition, user groups like Citizens Against Procurement Fraud (CAPF) are eluding to an End-User class action suit.