Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!bloom-beacon!think!ames!ptsfa!varian!madvax!davidlo From: davidlo@madvax.UUCP (David Lo) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Copy protection: A marketing analysis Message-ID: <611@madvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 17-Jul-87 16:58:45 EDT Article-I.D.: madvax.611 Posted: Fri Jul 17 16:58:45 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 18:31:38 EDT References: <207@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> Organization: Varian Instruments, Walnut Creek CA Lines: 25 Summary: Comment In article <207@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM>, denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes: > affects of various copy protections schemes. > > Assume that I am a company with a software package to sell. I view the market > as dividing into the following groups: > > ZAPPED-SECTOR PROTECTION > > THE GIZMO: This is a computer-readable gadget which must be plugged into the A missing element from the model - the sales lost to a competing software which neither use a zapped-section nor a gizmo protection. For instance, I bought PageSetter because it is not protected. ( vs. Publisher 1000 that uses the "gizmoz" protection scheme. ) Also, sales may lost because of customers' internal regulation - e.g. I believe DOD has, or has had, a rule that not buying copy protected software. That was one of the major driving forces for Lotus and Aston-Tate to drop their copy protection. -- David Lo (415)939-2400 /\ o Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/ {ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!davidlo