At 18:35 23/04/97 -0800, Andrew Warren wrote:
>> Erasing the [Code Protect] bit after (or even together with) all
>> the program data doesn't seem like stealing code...
>
>    Right, Gerhard... But how would you ensure that the bit gets
>    erased AFTER the program data?

It seems possible to influence the "erasability" of memory bits by design.
They could put the configuration bits in a memory different from program
memory, thus making sure that they get erased after the program.

Tjaart seems to agree with me, I just read in another message. I think it
could be really helpful to be able to deliver completely erasable (and
therefore reprogrammable) chips _with_ (erasable) memory protection.