>>
   Byron (and others in this discussion), why is this an issue? Setting the
code protect bit is kind of like pulling a pin on a hand grenade and letting
go of the handle. Once you've done it, you're committed... I can't see any
R&D-related purpose in setting the bit. Asking Microchip to allow erasure of
the bit, or an alternative bit, in the "JW" parts, seems a bit ridiculous to
me considering the chip process issues. Byron, this is not directed to you
but the discussion in general.
<<

One issue is that it's often desirable to allow a customer to field-test a
product with what is almost certainly *NOT* going to be the final version.
At present, there are three methods:

[1] Lend them an OTP part and later scrap it.
[2] Lend them a windowed part (protected) and later scrap it.
[3] Lend them a windowed part (not protected) and hope they don't steal your
    code.

I think many peopl here would like to have another alternative:

[4] Lend them a windowed part (protected), and later erase and reprogram it
    with another version.

Attachment converted: wonderland:WINMAIL.DAT 1 (????/----) (0000E91B)