Epoxying over chip numbers?

[John Muchow]

It doesn't amaze me at all. If I knew how to do it, I wouldn't tell
you. It's an abhorrent practice.

I'm amazed that you took the time to tell me that you wouldn't tell
me.

Please don't do it. I've spent hours reverse engineering products such
as alarm panels and electric wheelchairs (for repair reasons), only to
discover that they use garden variety ICs costing around $1.

We're just doing this to the prototypes. You'll never need to repair
those.

John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

 

[John Muchow]

Don't bother for standard LS/4xxx logic - anyone interested would
desolder it and chuck it in a digital chip tester, and it will come back
what the chip number is.

Forgot about those things. ;-)

If you've got some flip flops in there, put a chip or two of those into
a GAL and secure it - that will stop all but the most hardened design
theives. Even better, put as much of the logic as possible into a CPLD,
again securing it.

Good ideas, thanks!


John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

 

[John Muchow]

How are you doing the sanding? Try using different tools in a dremel.

We're currently using a Dremel with the rubberized wheels and they
work great. But, it takes a while to do and it's easy to damage a
chip. We'd love to place a drop of epoxy on the plastic packages and
be done with it.


John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

 

[John Muchow]

For my nickel:
Any manufacturer who grinds chips (and therefore makes it impossible for
me to service the device, whatever it might be, but replacing chips that
die (they do that eventually, yknow) is a manufacturer who will never
again receive any money from me.

I'm stunned that you've never, ever purchased a product that uses a
microprocessor. The manufacturers don't post the source code and
that's no different IMHO than hiding chip numbers.


John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

 

[John Muchow]

acetone

Isn't there a chance that the acetone could affect the bond between
the IC legs and the case material, i.e., some of the acetone could
work its way inside and cause damage? Or is the chance of that no
greater than the possibility of damaging the chip with our Dremel?


John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

 

[John Muchow]

Abrasion does the trick: sanding, milling, laser.
However, anyone can still find out what chips you used, so why bother?
No other company i know of does something as infantile as hiding part
numbers.

Infantile...interesting choice of words. I'm finding out that this is
a surprisingly emotional topic for a lot of people. Frank has brought
up some great reasons for not hiding chip numbers, but there's still
the problem of micros, etc.

Because of the simple design of these products (it's the unique
packaging and combination of features that separates them from the
competition), we'd like to slow down anyone interested in copying the
design just a bit...until they come to market. Then, we can use
market penetration, great pricing, great tech support, etc. to make it
not profitable (we hope) for others to use our design.

It will inevitably happen, but if a few seconds of sanding (or
epoxying) of our prototypes can slow this process down until the
production models appear, that sounds like a damn good investment in
time and money to me.

How is hiding part numbers infantile? How is using a micro without
posting the source code not infantile then? I'm serious.


John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

 

[Impmon]

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 15:50:59 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

The only
thing the manufacturer has achieved in this case is to generate
animosity towards his brand.

Maybe not. The manufactor may not want anyone else to repair their
product.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net

 

[Wouter van Ooijen (www.vo]

You do realise there are simple designs that will identify most logic
chips automatically?


Wouter van Ooijen

-- ------------------------------------
http://www.voti.nl
PICmicro chips, programmers, consulting

 

[Brane2]

John Muchow wrote:

<SNIP>

How is hiding part numbers infantile? How is using a micro without
posting the source code not infantile then? I'm serious.


John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

Hiding part numbers is infantile because it is major pain in the ass for
anyone trying to service the device and because it doesn't stop anyone
trying to duplicate it.

It can buy you a few days at the most with the copycats and a frontrow
seat in hell, reserved by anyone who have tried to service your product
without full documentation and portfolio of spare parts...

With code inside micro, it's much different thing. It is still awkward
for servicing, but at least it is efficient against hobbyistic copiers,
so it achieves its basic goal- reasonable IP protection.

regards,


Branko

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:15:08 +0200, Brane2 <brane2@anonymous.com>
wrote:

John Muchow wrote:

SNIP

How is hiding part numbers infantile? How is using a micro without
posting the source code not infantile then? I'm serious.


John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

Hiding part numbers is infantile because it is major pain in the ass for
anyone trying to service the device and because it doesn't stop anyone
trying to duplicate it.

It can buy you a few days at the most with the copycats and a frontrow
seat in hell, reserved by anyone who have tried to service your product
without full documentation and portfolio of spare parts...

With code inside micro, it's much different thing. It is still awkward
for servicing, but at least it is efficient against hobbyistic copiers,
so it achieves its basic goal- reasonable IP protection.

regards,


Branko

I'm astonished at the number of people on this group who are incapable
of reading.

The OP said "prototypes".

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Brane2]

Jim Thompson wrote:

<SNIP>

I'm astonished at the number of people on this group who are incapable
of reading.

The OP said "prototypes".

...Jim Thompson

Same here. I was merely responding about the difference between relying
on epoxy and using codeprotected components...

Branko

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 08:19:36 GMT, John Muchow
<jmuchow@SPAMMENOTcamlight.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:

For my nickel:
Any manufacturer who grinds chips (and therefore makes it impossible for
me to service the device, whatever it might be, but replacing chips that
die (they do that eventually, yknow) is a manufacturer who will never
again receive any money from me.

I'm stunned that you've never, ever purchased a product that uses a
microprocessor. The manufacturers don't post the source code and
that's no different IMHO than hiding chip numbers.

It's not always the same thing. For example, one can buy replacement
mask ROMmed uPs for VCRs, TVs, and AV equipment. In any case, while
there are legitimate reasons for using a mask ROMmed device, there is
no legitimate excuse for grinding the numbers off a 7400 NAND gate,
say.

John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 08:12:26 GMT, John Muchow
<jmuchow@SPAMMENOTcamlight.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:

It doesn't amaze me at all. If I knew how to do it, I wouldn't tell
you. It's an abhorrent practice.

I'm amazed that you took the time to tell me that you wouldn't tell
me.

Please don't do it. I've spent hours reverse engineering products such
as alarm panels and electric wheelchairs (for repair reasons), only to
discover that they use garden variety ICs costing around $1.

We're just doing this to the prototypes. You'll never need to repair
those.

OK, sorry, I just needed to vent. I've spent the last two decades of
my life in third party maintenance and I have plenty of these kinds of
war stories.

John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 10:01:11 -0400, Impmon <impmon@digi.mon> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 15:50:59 +1000, Franc Zabkar
fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

The only
thing the manufacturer has achieved in this case is to generate
animosity towards his brand.

Maybe not. The manufactor may not want anyone else to repair their
product.

That was my point. The manufacturer has *not* prevented me from
repairing his product, so he has achieved nothing by grinding his
chips.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 08:33:23 GMT, John Muchow
<jmuchow@SPAMMENOTcamlight.com> wrote:

Abrasion does the trick: sanding, milling, laser.
However, anyone can still find out what chips you used, so why bother?
No other company i know of does something as infantile as hiding part
numbers.

Infantile...interesting choice of words. I'm finding out that this is
a surprisingly emotional topic for a lot of people. Frank has brought
up some great reasons for not hiding chip numbers, but there's still
the problem of micros, etc.

Because of the simple design of these products (it's the unique
packaging and combination of features that separates them from the
competition), we'd like to slow down anyone interested in copying the
design just a bit...until they come to market. Then, we can use
market penetration, great pricing, great tech support, etc. to make it
not profitable (we hope) for others to use our design.

It will inevitably happen, but if a few seconds of sanding (or
epoxying) of our prototypes can slow this process down until the
production models appear, that sounds like a damn good investment in
time and money to me.

How is hiding part numbers infantile? How is using a micro without
posting the source code not infantile then? I'm serious.

I feel the usual reason major manufacturers obliterate or house label
parts is so that they can't be repaired, not to prevent duplication.
Take a TV or VCR as an example. The company doesn't want them
repaired as each repaired unit is a lost sale on a new, dispoable
unit.

I have no issue with hiding numbers on a prototype. I find it very
annoying though, trying to repair something with unlabeled parts.

What kind of product are we discussing anyhow? Are these particular
parts even likely to fail in the long term?

-Chris

 

[Rich Grise]

on Sunday 04 July 2004 01:21 am, John Muchow wrote:

acetone

Isn't there a chance that the acetone could affect the bond between
the IC legs and the case material, i.e., some of the acetone could
work its way inside and cause damage? Or is the chance of that no
greater than the possibility of damaging the chip with our Dremel?

I saw a couple of guys cleaning graffiti off a sign once with laquer
thinner, which is a lot like acetone. The sign had epoxy paint, and
it shrugged off the laquer thinner like rainwater. I think the epoxy
that chips are in wouldn't even notice acetone.

Fuming nitric acid, on the other hand...

--
Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Muchow]

With code inside micro, it's much different thing. It is still awkward
for servicing, but at least it is efficient against hobbyistic copiers,
so it achieves its basic goal- reasonable IP protection.

So, both are a PITA but because hiding chip numbers isn't as effective
a method of IP protection, it's infantile?

Perhaps I'm just overreacting to the word itself.

John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

 

[John Muchow]

What kind of product are we discussing anyhow? Are these particular
parts even likely to fail in the long term?

We've never had a failure of any of our electronic components in 16
years so I don't have much data to offer...we've never had to repair
anything. Someone did rip off a battery connector a few years ago,
but he was able to repair that one himself.

We've always been ready with loaners to ship overnight and postpaid
(both ways) repair service if needed though.

John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

 

[John Muchow]

You do realise there are simple designs that will identify most logic
chips automatically?

Yea, Mark reminded about those things.
We've got some chips that aren't 74/54 (and similar series) logic
chips (they're analog).

If I'm not mistaken, can they use the testers in-circuit? We'd surely
notice if anything was removed and soldered back in again.

We are only looking for a bit more time here, not long-term protection
from copying. We figured that a couple of minutes with the prototypes
is worth it just to make any copycats with the right equipment really
have to earn their keep.

Any day I can aggravate someone who wants to steal our designs for
commercial use is a good day.

John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --

 

[John Muchow]

OK, we've determined that anyone who covers chip numbers will burn in
hell, that sanding and electric erasers work great, that Dremels work
great (but be careful), but no one had any recommendations for an
epoxy?

Guess we'll have to keep using the Dremel for the rest of the
prototypes. Thanks for your suggestions and advice!!.

....hey, is it getting hot in here?

John Muchow
-- remove SPAMMENOT for e-mail responses --