I don't know if it has been discussed here or not, a search didn't bring it up, but FYI, the TEQC is basically dead, no new development whatsoever. If it works, fine, if it breaks, no fix and of course as new formats and receivers come on line it won't be usable at all. I gather that this was a one man development team and when Dr. Estey retired, that was end of road.
Teqc software is end-of-life (EOL) following the 2019-02-25 final release. This final release will continue to be available from the UNAVCO website.
UNAVCO will continue to host the teqc email forum, which will live on as a user to user forum. We will also work to ensure that the teqc mail list archives are searchable via the UNAVCO web site search/Google search. UNAVCO will also continue to host existing teqc documentation as well as the teqc ??helpful tip of week? archives.
We would like to thank Dr. Lou Estey, the creator of teqc, for developing and supporting this software tool and its user community for the past 22 years and we wish him the best in his retirement.
Someone asked if the code could be released to the public domain for future development, answer was no because there are non-disclosure agreements with receiver manufacturers that were necessary to get the formats for proprietary formats. Bummer.
While trying to develop a tool to guide and verify leveling observations we were stymied by the unwillingness of the instrument manufacturers to provide details about their control codes. I commend Dr Estey and UNAVCO for their great tool. Nothing like the command line to get things done.
In the patent world, if the product does not undergo some altering status for 20 years or more, or, unless the application is renewed, the product is not protected from being copied anymore. The product must also have tangible use. The beginning date is the application date for the patent.
Computer programs are "utility" patents and they must demonstrate to have a "useful, concrete and tangible" result.
When someone can take the original product and make a most definable leap to the next level that bears no resemblance, it is usually considered a new product.
One must look at the last patent date for that product to see is it is on the market for improvement by a third party.
I wonder how hard it would be to strip out the proprietary conversion code.?ÿ I would think that most teqc users could manage with RINEX alone, since all the receiver manufacturers provide RINEX converters.?ÿ It would require reworking some workflows, but at least that would open up the core functions to further development as an open source project.
Patent is probably not an issue. Proprietary/trade secret and copyright are more likely to be in play.
It's unfortunate the manufacturers have gone the route of locking users into only one brand of hardware and software. The alternative would be setting industry standards for interfaces and competing each part of the system on its merits.
Wouldn't it be great if you could use Leica hardware with somebody else's data collector and a different office software package? Standards have let us plug RS-232 serial between various hardware, and now most brands of USB printers, flash sticks and external disks, pointing devices, etc. into most brands of hosts.
All this proprietary secret handshake takes place when the two different pieces of equipment connect and failure happens when the incorrect messages are returned to one another.
I've always been compelled by the principal that technique is more competent than the brand name and still believe that to be true.
The manufactures have drawn their line in the sand and we surveyors are playing on a multi surfaced level well above theirs and deserve a product that will find its place in our world and on our terms rather than the way they want it, to buy theirs only.
It reminds me of a snake that wants you to sign a non compete agreement. The snake gets you and all your talent and keeps all the money and the only truth you know for sure is that the snake will eventually bite you, and he does always bite you.
At some point in time, your brand name equipment will move on beyond what equipment you have acquired from them and the day comes when the equipment does not work anymore and the brand name will not flip the switch that will keep that equipment working. That day has come.
For example, I have a Samsung S5 phone. A few days ago I received a message that November 3, 2019, there will be a rollover date on their GPS system and after that point in time, they can no longer guarantee that the GPS on my phone will give correct information that will be vital to the performance with mapping, 911 or other GPS functions.
To me, that means that my 2014 model $650 phone is no longer compatible and I am being required to buy the 2019 model $900+ phone to meet the new standard.
I would be satisfied that anyone would take the HP48GX with SMI and put that into an android version that would work on any android phone and connect to most any TS before I would spend $50k on any brand name set of products that can only be used together, knowing that in a few years that system of products will all be canned by the manufacturer for their latest and greatest product.
0.02
I wonder going forward how this impacts OPUS and possibly other services that used TEQC?
At one time the conversion from native binary formats where OPUS could do the conversion was accomplished by using TEQC, obviously no new formats will be recognized, of course you can always submit RINEX data. I have no knowledge if TEQC is still used within OPUS as in the past.
I believe UNAVCO used TEQC internally heavily for various tasks, have to wonder if there is a new tool coming and how this fits into the UNAVCO PBO data flow going forward.
SHG