Manners

There is a software program called Mathcad created by a company named Mathsoft.  It's a nice piece of software.  Some years ago, I purchased Mathcad v7 (standard) and never really had an opportunity to use it all that much.  I was hoping to write some code to extend it but discovered the standard edition doesn't allow that.  It wasn't very expensive and I believe I bought it from egghead (when they were in business) for about $100.  It was one of those "previous version" deals and I get a lot of software that I'll never use because it's such a good deal.  So it was with Mathcad 7.

Not long ago, I was able to locate a version of Mathcad called 2001i Professional.  Since then, Mathsoft has come out with V11, V12 and now V13.  For some reason, they had some intermediate releases which they named by the year rather than the version number.

How not to treat a customer

I noticed today that there is a folder on my laptop called C:\C_DILLA.  This surprised me because I've been particularly anal lately about organizing my machine to reduce clutter.  One of my goals was to have very few folders off of the root.  My main folder, C:\WORK, is where I keep the projects I've checked out and am currently working on.  Applications tend to go in C:\Program Files and so on.  So to see such a folder surprised me and I discovered after a little bit of snooping and googling that C_DILLA is Mathcad's copy protection methodology.  Apparently this methodology is also used by Intuit's TurboTax.  But it is plain bad manners to be dumping software on a machine without the consent of the end user.  And if the user purchased the software and then asking his consent, well that's too late in my opinion.

Copy protection is more commonplace now but in the early days of PCs, it wasn't very successful with Lotus 123 implementing a method which was cumbersome and not particularly good for the customer.  After these feeble attempts, copy protection was more or less abandoned for years.  I certainly understand protecting intellectual property as I create it myself.  But I think there are some rules that should be part of the process.   I wear the hat of software developer but since I buy a lot of software myself, I also wear the hat of end-user.   So while I understand the need for protecting one's intellectual property, the companies that do this need to recognize that they are doing certain things that can inconvenience or even penalize the end user.  I think there are two goals that must be met:

1. Protect the software from unlicensed use.
2. Never inconvenience the end-user that paid for the software.

There are trade-offs but I really believe #2 really is the more important point.  These are your customers and they may not want to give you future business if you don't treat them right.  These are the ones that paid you good money.

I think Mathsoft has got number 1 nailed (maybe) but number 2 is an afterthought.  For starters, it is just plain rude to put things on a person's computer without informing them.  Actually, the informing part should occur before the sale takes place.   I can't remove this folder and I really don't want to see this folder in my root directory.  It's like a neighbor parking their RV in front of my house without first asking and then leaving on a six month cruise.  I'm sure you'd consider that bad manners.  From Mathsoft's website I discovered this:

Mathsoft has implemented activation to ensure that you have purchased a valid licensed copy of Mathcad. Activation does not transfer any personal information from your computer. Mathsoft product activation is completely anonymous and is only used to authenticate your license. Activation allows you to install Mathcad on both your work computer and a home computer used for work or a laptop. Hardware upgrades to your computer generally will not require reactivation, and you can reinstall Mathcad on the same machine without using up an additional activation.

Note: Activation installs a C_DILLA folder on your C-drive with your license for Mathcad use. If you delete the C_DILLA folder you may have to contact Mathsoft to restore your activation. If your computer's hardware has changed substantially you may have to contact Mathsoft to reactivate.

Here are some comments from end-users:

I think cdilla writes data to an otherwise inaccessible area on the hard drive, so an image of the disk may not be sufficient. Thus, other software with the cdilla system can interfere.

I have had cdilla fail unexpectedly, one while in the math soft offices. They fixed it immediately, but it gives me the creeps.

TurboTax and CDILLA raised a few eyebrows among end-users.  Among the issues discussed were things like what if my hard disk crashes.  And one user even used Norton Ghost to copy a drive image to a larger hard drive.  And it no longer worked and he had to fight with Intuit for a new key code.  This completely fails point number two.

And a lot has been written about C_DILLA which is reported here.   The main complaints, to which I agree, are:

1. The Program being installed and Macrovision/C-Dilla DO NOT INFORM THE USER that this software is being installed,
2. That Macrovision/C-Dilla in any manner ATTEMPS TO HIDE THEIR INSTALL from install monitoring or registry tracking software,
3. That Macrovision/C-Dilla DOES NOT UNINSTALL with the original software, when it is removed/uninstalled from the system. Because C-dilla requires a separate uninstall, which in all likely hood, the user never knew existed.

Unlicensed Software

Here is another datum:

All copy protection methods are crackable and will be cracked.

I just took a quick look and sure enough, cracks for Mathcad 13 do exist.  I'm not surprised.  So Mathsoft, that's a big flunk on rule number one.

So the methods of protecting software at best provide some protection of intellectual property.  At worst, they inconvenienced the very people that paid good money to own and operate the software.

Macromedia - Another Approach

I recently had a situation with Macromedia having to do with their Studio 8 product, which I purchased when it was released about a year ago.  Since then, the Macromedia website has been taken over my Adobe and the place where you look up keys in your account vanished.  Long story short, I had a hard drive crash, I couldn't locate my keys and I used up my activation - or so I thought.  I called Macromedia, or I mean Adobe, and after several calls being transferred, I got the help I needed.  But it cost my at least an hour or two of my time that could have been better used.  And that is a direct hit on my income.  So, while Adobe/Macromedia were helpful and did get me up and running again, it was the end-user that was inconvenienced.  To Adobe:  that's a big flunk on rule number two.  Oh guess what - I just googled and Studio 8 cracks exist!  So that's a big flunk on rule number one as well!

Dongles

I remember having to use a parallel port dongle some time ago and thought this was not such a good system.  However, with USB dongles, I am having a change of heart - maybe.  They are a slight inconvenience in that you better not lose the thing, you have to plug it in, etc.  But you can have the software installed in more than one place and then move the dongle from computer to computer as required.  Very useful if you have to get on an airplane and you need that software.  And it seems there are plenty of ports on computers these days and I know my Dell 20" monitors have a few which makes them very easy to get to.  Parallel ports were in back of the computer, it meant usually leaving it there (which makes it vulnerable to theft).

But perhaps dongles are the least intrusive.  The only real problem is what happens if you lose or break the dongle.  You may not be up and running for awhile because a new one has to get shipped and that adds time.

Web Applications

Web applications, which typically run in a browser, and are user-interface challenged (in my opinion) do have some advantages when it comes to security.  The end-user is authenticated when he starts using the application and the authentication takes place on the remote server, not on the user's machine.  But at present, even taking AJAX technologies into account, the user experience is nowhere near as good so this is simply a different type of end user inconvenience.  Flunk on number 2.  But number 1 is a pass.

The Perfect Solution

I don't know the perfect solution.  Perhaps there is none.  Or perhaps it is simply a society comprised of honest people.  But the current system seems only to inconvenience the guy that paid you the money.  And that's simply targeting the wrong person.  The non-paying customer will simply go to their favorite warez site, download the software and run it without being inconvenienced.