piclist 1999\05\04\101116a >
Thread: Copy Protection; Reverse engineering vs Theft
face BY : Mark Willis email (remove spam text)

Caisson wrote:
{Quote hidden}

 IIRC the die for a /JW part is *identical* to that for an OTP part,
the only difference being that Quartz window.  John's idea might be
easier to get Microchip to implement, as it wouldn't require a silicon
change, just a test procedure change, which Microchip might be far more
agreeable to than changing their silicon so us developers won't have to
buy more pricey /JW parts...  I imagine the OTP parts make up most of
their sales, after all.

 Thought that occurs to me is that Microchip could burn this bit on ALL
devices - /JW or not - in a UV erasable area, and then require that you
erase the /JW device before first use, at which point you can tell (once
that bit erased) whether you have a JW or a OTP part.  (Flash parts
could be confusing in this situation, except the part NUMBER tells you
they're flash parts, rather clearly <G>)


<372EFFDD.127290AA@nwlink.com> 7bit

See also: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=copy+protection
Reply You must be a member of the piclist mailing list (not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the piclist. This form requires JavaScript and a browser/email client that can handle form mailto: posts.
Subject (change) Copy Protection; Reverse engineering vs Theft

month overview.

new search...