Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!reed!orpheus
From: orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Idea for painless copy protection
Message-ID: <15981@reed.UUCP>
Date: 30 Jan 91 11:18:39 GMT
References: <3845@uakari.primate.wisc.edu> <wemiw1w163w@tosh.UUCP> <43375@ut-emx.uucp> <1991Jan30.020329.22174@dhw68k.cts.com>
Reply-To: orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne)
Distribution: na
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR
Lines: 29


  Mark Hartman writes:

. My viewpoint is that I am willing to take a little time (not a lot, but a
. little) to help my software supplier protect their return-on-investment.
. If I don't, chances are that not enough copies will be sold to justify
. upgrades and support, which will decrease the value of MY investment.


  This method has the potential to hurt network products, though.

  I know at least three corporate presidents that use what are technically
  pirated copies of software to decide whether or not they are going to buy.
  I would place their total software investment at twenty thousand dollars,
  and hardware at three quarters of a million, including imagesetters.

  If it is a network product they are going to test, they need to be able
  to run two copies of the application in order to test it. If they can't,
  it will only frustrate them, but it will probably hurt the developer.

  Perhaps if there are only two copies of a network application running,
  the application should close after a modest amount of time has passed,
  so that there is a chance to test it at least.

  Every network product should come with a license for at least two users.
  One is rude.


  orpheus@reed