Stefek says that TCPA is a purely protective technical measure, and that my claims about it are `far-fetched imagining'. He denies that it was started as a DRM play. Yet the DRM aim was admitted to me in April by a serior Intel person, and has since been confirmed by Bill Gates himself in the Palladium release.
I've known Stefek for years, and despite his inaccurate and abusive post I am not claiming that he deliberately lied to us - merely that if HP sees this as a pure technical security play, you'd better sell their stock, as they are amazingly less sophisticated about information goods and services markets than other consortium members. (The other HP labs person to whom I talked in the course of my investigations was similarly uninformed about basic economics.) Sometimes it may suit managers to keep technical staff in the dark about the business plays behind technical initiatives. However, it is not in the interest of technical staff to allow themselves to work on projects with whose goals, once revealed, they and their friends may have a moral objection. It can damage relationships and impair CVs. Starting in November, I'm going to be teaching a course in economics and law to second year comp sci undergraduates at Cambridge. That's how important I think an understanding of these issues is - it should be a mandatory part of the undergraduate curriculum. If you need a quick introduction to the subject as it relates to things like software and compatibility, I'd recommend Shapiro and Varian, `Information Rules' Ross --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
