On 11/16/06, Peter Bindels wrote: > On 16/11/06, Alan B. Pearce wrote: > > >> Remember they only get one chip per piece of equipment. And if > > >> somebody calls me saying their control unit is broken and I find > > >> there's a PIC missing that's going to be very expensive to replace. > > >so replace the missing pic with a deliberately fried blank one > > >before reporting it as a fault > > > > Which is why one stamps a part number on the chip - even using an ordinary > > stamp pad, but preferably with something that is not solvent soluble with > > water or alcohol. Makes it rather obvious that the chip has been replaced > > with something else. > > Anything you can do, I can do... > > You're just throwing up another barrier. The better types of this > solution would involve using some form of non-visible marking. Also, > when the chip is literally burnt up there's no way you can check > whether the label was right or not. You're also going to cut off > honest customers the more checks you add in that must be correct. If > you require them to have a legible top surface and the chip actually > burns through due to some other fault, you'll deny them service even > though they should've gotten it. I wouldn't deny them service, just charge for a complete control unit replacement with a chip glued to the bord. What if the chip is glued to the board with glue strong enough that it can't be pulled off without destroying either the chip or the board? >From my point of view nobody is going to even try to break a PIC's code protection since that would leave them (in the best possible scenario) non-operational for several days until they had access to the firmware. And in my case nobody wants to leave their equipment idle for a single day, let alone several. So code protection is enough for me. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist