Lpc2000

As with any un-documented "feature" (assuming it even exists), it's 
of little more than academic/hobbyist interest.

I can't think any company who values their reputation would make use 
of something like this to "enhance" a lower-spec device to a higher 
one:

- the "feature" could disappear at any time, meaning you'd have to 
test every unit for the enhanced feature

- if it failed that test, what are you going to do: send the units 
back because they "er, don't have this undocumented feature we 
found"? Fine if you've bought one or two, but a bit problematic if 
you've a few thousand parts to offload....

- maybe the IC is downgraded (as others have suggested) becase it 
fails some production test in the feature that's been removed: are 
you really going to risk putting product in the field with this risk?

I'd be vey surprised if Philips even comment on this: why would or 
should they comment on an undocumented feature that may or may not 
actually exist?

Brendan

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Curtis" <plc@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, 
> 
> > I was not thinking of this reason when I asked the question.  
However,
> > after grading, the devices are typically permanantly 'fused' to
> > reflect their capabilities.
> > 
> > In the case of LPC, it appears that the grading is reversible.  
The
> > only reason for 'soft' grading I can think of is for purposes of
> > competive pricing.  If this were the case, could Philips block the
> > publication of discovered features relating to up/down grading 
device
> > capabilities?
> 
> Could they block it?  Probably not, you can opt to publish and be
> damned.  As you've alerted them via this list, then one option they 
have
> is to take out an injunction (or similar) against publication of 
that
> information, if they can get one.  I am not a lawyer, and I have no 
real
> expertise in that area, but I believe an injunction needs to be 
issued
> by a judge after a convincing argument in the UK, and it's possibly 
the
> same elsewhere.
> 
> I'm not sure of the legality of reverse engineering a device's 
firmware
> and operation, but when I have purchased LPC devices or boards with 
them
> on, I have not been subject to a license agreement relating to the
> silicon, so I think reverse engineering them is fine.  If your 
discovery
> is not covered by any license agreement you have signed or 
undertaken,
> then I believe the information can be made public.  However, I do 
not
> believe that this will stop a legal challenge to be resolved in the
> courts, should Philips wish it.
> 
> Again, just my opinion.
> 
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
> CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
>