[Neurocyber] "To tie software varification to hardware that has a limited life is just setting itself up for failure." SSS: You are correct. Therefore, for a hardware-based solution to work, requires more than just the hardware: * It requires the existence of at least two ways for a customer to be gotten running again IMMEDIATELY under any emergency failure scenario, available 24/7/365. * It requires an institution in place that is so well backed and well run that customers have confidence that it will still be there to keep them running, even if individual vendors come and go. * It requires all CUSTOMER data FILE FORMATS to be PUBLIC-DOMAIN, so that the customer knows he can extract all his data, eternally, no matter what. - - - - - Rant (at no one in particular, just frustration): Given all this, why would any vendor take on the expense, inconvenience, and customer fears about hardware-based protection? Because all other attempted solutions at protection are becoming increasingly futile, given the interconnectedness of today's world. No, I don't have any unbiased evidence of that. But software executives aren't dumb, and don't lightly take on a cost that may include: * having to recall a huge shipment of CD's from customers, because of a glitch in the protection scheme; * significantly higher support costs due to problems with protection scheme; * customer anger at protection scheme; * lost sales from some customers. Come on - do a thought experiment, not based on anything anyone tries to convince you of - simply ground it in your own intuitions. I'm not asking you to believe software executives are altruistic. Or movie/music executives for that matter! I'm asking you to recognize them as human beings like yourself, and to look more closely at the costs they are incurring by adopting software protection. If you were that person, what would induce YOU to do that, rather than dropping it like the hot potato that it is?