From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:21:24 -0800 (PST)
To: "Scott V. McGuire" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Executing Encrypted Code
Message-ID: <v02140b08aedfee1f1c35@[192.0.2.1]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 1:41 AM 12/20/1996, Scott V. McGuire wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Peter Hendrickson Wrote:
>> The manufacturer of the encrypted-code processor would protect its
>> instruction set using intellectual property law.  Given the high
>> price of a fab, it is entirely feasible to stop anybody from building
>> a new architecture which can execute the code about as fast as
>> the encrypting-code processor.

> It seems to me that this is where this scheme would be broken.  Have
> intellectual property laws been (successfully) used in this way?

I don't know, but I bet it would be possible to arrange if there was
support for it.

Or, maybe the instruction set itself remains a trade secret.  Sure,
it could leak out, but aren't there laws against industrial espionage?

(If the instruction set was secret, the manufacturer might have to
provide a compilation service.)

> And even if so, would they be enforced in all the countries where the
> chips might be fabricated?

Yes, if the laws exist they would be easy to enforce.  What does
a state-of-the-art fab cost now?  $5 billion?  $10 billion?  I was
generous when I said "G-7".  Which countries can really compete in
this market?  The U.S. and Japan, I believe.

There is no reason to rule out extra-legal pressure, either.  The
USG appears to have played the policeman in supporting the DRAM market
in an informal way.

It would be very easy to have a chat with the Japanese government
about the importance of stopping software piracy.

Peter Hendrickson
ph@netcom.com