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