The real world question here also is, is it more profitable to annoy your customers with some hair-brained copy protection scheme that is sure to not work in the first place than it is to just release the software and accept that some people will steal it? The only way the protection won't be broken is if the algorithm isn't worth enough to entice people to do so. I don't care if it's in the software itself, in a USB dongle, or in a PIC transmitting remotely from the surface of Mars. If it's worth anything, people will break it, at a cost much much less than what you paid to try to protect it. Have any idea how much Microsoft spent and how many legitimate customers were annoyed by XP activation? Neither do I, except to say a LOT. But no pirating "customers" are annoyed because on any respectable torrent site there are copies that don't require the activation. Likewise, Apple spent who knows how many millions of dollars locking the iPhone to AT&T, only for some high school kid to figure out how to hack it. Copy protection is really probably more at this point about some level of due diligence so that you can sue any large offenders more easily than any illusion of complete protection. I'm also reminded of the software I've had (mostly at work) in the past that had protection dongles and such. What a PITA and the reality is, hacked versions of most of that stuff are available online anyway. If you really have such a valuable algorithm, I'd be thinking about sales and marketing, not oddball copy protection schemes. You just need to make enough money to be a LOT of money, not prevent all people from pirating your work. In any case, it's probably more important just to make that money quickly so you can afford the lawyers to go after big offenders. Just my 2c. I'm definitely and admittedly biased. Few things annoy me more than really intrusive copy protection. In the long run, it's always broken anyway, and so it ends up annoying your paying users far more than the pirates. -n. On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Tamas Rudnai wrot= e: >> This won't work if the algorithm is actually *inside* the dongle. > > This is actually how they crack dongles so you can use that cracked softw= are > without the key - finding out the algorithm used by the dongle. I do not > think if someone can find out an algorithm that cannot be figured out by > someone else... Even RSA key can be cracked... > > Tamas > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Tom=E1s =D3 h=C9ilidhe = wrote: > >> >> >> Tamas Rudnai wrote: >> > Oh, and I forgot to mention that several times crackers can eliminate >> > dongles by writing a device driver that acts as the dongle, so the >> software >> > things that the dongle is attached. >> >> This won't work if the algorithm is actually *inside* the dongle. >> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> > > > > -- > Rudonix DoubleSaver > http://www.rudonix.com > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- = http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist