Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ISM780!patrick
From: patrick@ISM780.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: Lotus 1-2-3 question
Message-ID: <31300005@ISM780.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 01:27:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ISM780.31300005
Posted: Fri Aug 16 01:27:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 21:33:22 EDT
References: <31300003@ISM780.UUCP>
Lines: 48
Nf-ID: #R:ISM780:31300003:ISM780:31300005:000:2686
Nf-From: ISM780!patrick    Aug 16 01:27:00 1985


Thanks for the suggestions guys, but I'm not there yet.

I can't use a "keyboard enhancer" because the need for backward
compatibility with previously-existing software (PC/IX) precluded the use
of BIOS to read the keyboard.  Why?  Because Microsoft in their wisdom
seem to have decided that no-one will ever want to use the "5" key on the
numeric keypad (in its non-numlock mode).  BIOS refuses to return this
value to me.  There's a gap in the table of "Auxilliary Byte Values"
where this code should be (cursor left returns 75 and cursor right
returns 77).  You can hold down the 5 key till you drop, but the BIOS
won't return a 76.  Anyone from Microsoft care to explain this to me?
Unfortunately this key is the HELP key for the PC/IX editor, and I
couldn't reassign it.  So, no BIOS, and no nifty keyboard enhancers.

As to disassembly, and cracking the copy protection (I assume that the
sign-on message is part of the copy protection scheme), there's not
much I can say in a public forum; I'll restrict myself to a discussion
of the general principles.

As someone who is responsible for developing a PC product which has cost
a lot of money, I fully understand the urge to protect such an investment
by protecting the resulting software.  However, our product is not copy
protected.  I wouldn't have the nerve to tell my customers that they
couldn't install it on a hard disk, or that they could not back up
_every_ portion of it for their own protection.  We will sell site
licenses, and will assume that our (corporate) customers will abide by
the terms of those licenses.  I admit that the decision would have been
much more difficult if we were selling single copies to the general
public.

Our product is designed to be used in conjunction with 123 and other
popular PC packages.  If 123 were capable of purely batch-type
operations, I could download data from my host system, manipulate it with
123, and ship the resulting report back up to the host for distribution
by electronic mail.  All of this without human intervention (I could take
a coffee break while the machines did their stuff).   As it is, I must
stand by the PC, ready to "Press any Key to Continue".

So, in order to protect their own investment in software development,
Lotus have implemented a copy-protection scheme which makes our product a
little less useful, and hence reduces the returns on _our_ investment in
software development.

I would gladly exchange this copy of 123 for one which was copy-protected
in any other way, but which allowed me to perform true batch operations.
Anyone from Lotus want to take me up on this?   Where are these dongles
you keep talking about?  I'll take one now.