Article View: comp.sys.mac
Article #23521Re: Copy protection and the consumer
From: Richard A. O'Keefe
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1988 04:01
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1988 04:01
16 lines
1614 bytes
1614 bytes
In article <4676@ihlpg.ATT.COM>, tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) writes: > In article <1319@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > Copy protection based on use of a serial number unique to a machine is > NO COPY PROTECTION AT ALL and is expensive for the seller since he has to > customize each copy he sells! The serial number has to be imbedded in the code > somewhere and tested. To break this one runs the program under a debugger Wrong. We have such a scheme. The serial number doesn't need to be anywhere in the code. We ship *one* copy of the code. The customer tells us the serial numbers of the machines he wants it to run on (any number that he has paid for). New machines can be added to this list at any time. (Think "trapdoor functions".) The customer can make any number of copies of the code, and run any copy on any of the machines he is licensed for. If he tries to run the product on another machine, it just prints a polite message saying how to get a licence and quits. Everybody wins. (Yes, a really determined pirate can still steal the program. We're stopping only dumb crooks, but that's most of them.)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<565@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!quintus!okReferences:
<4663@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <3823@husc6.harvard.edu> <4676@ihlpg.ATT.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!quintus!ok From: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.misc Subject: Re: Copy protection and the consumer Message-ID: <565@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> Date: 23 Jan 88 04:01:07 GMT References: <4663@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <3823@husc6.harvard.edu> <4676@ihlpg.ATT.COM> Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA Lines: 16 Summary: wrong