Eugen Leitl writes: > Unfortunately no one can accept in good faith a single word coming out of > Redmond. Biddle has been denying Pd can be used for DRM in presentation > (xref Lucky Green subsequent patent claims to call the bluff), however in > recent (of this week) Focus interview Gates explicitly stated it does.
I don't know what Gates said in this "Focus interview" but you have misstated the history here. Microsoft has never denied that Palladium can be used for DRM. Rather, the issue with regard to Lucky Green's supposed patent application (whatever happened to that, anyway?) was whether Palladium would be used for software copy protection. Microsoft said that they couldn't think of any way to use it for that purpose. See http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02554.html. > Let's see, we have an ubiquitous built-in DRM infrastructure, developed > under great expense and deployed under costs in an industry turning over > every cent twice, and no-one is going to use it ("Palladium will limit > what programs people can run")? Microsoft's point with regard to DRM has always been that Palladium had other uses besides that one which everyone was focused on. Obviously they fully expect people to use the technology. I'm not sure where you get the part about it being deployed under costs. Is this more of the XBox analogy? That's a video game system, where the economics are totally dissimilar to commodity PC's. All video game consoles are sold under cost today. PCs generally are not. This is a misleading analogy. In any case, DRM does not limit what programs people can run, at least not to a greater degree than does any program which encrypts its data. > Right. It's all completely voluntary. There will be no attempts whatsoever > to lock-in, despite decades of attempts and considerable economic > interests involved. Yes, it is completely voluntary, and we should all remain vigilant to make sure it stays that way. And no doubt there will be efforts to lock-in customers, just as there have been in the past. There is no contradiction between these two points. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
