>>>>Well, that's unfortunate. Then, why is there an option to encrypt the EXE, if decompilers can still decode it?
>>>>
>>>>>Sorry no, you can brand an executable with Refox but this only stops Refox from decompiling.
>>>
>>>It makes it "human" unreadable. (Like it wasn't before???) :)
>>
>>Well then... if ENCRYPT does not protect the source, and ReFox only brands EXEs to prevent ITSELF from decompiling it, is there a way to ensure proprietary rights to the application? Or, is that, in a nutshell, the whole reason for seemingly worthless copyright law?
>>
>>Michael
>
>Yeah, I think Craig B. pretty well summed it up. It's your responsibility to make sure that your copyright is enforced.
>
>FWIW, I know of no absolute way to make sure that ANY software product is fully protected from decompilation. It's just a little easier to "decompile" FoxPro since it's an interpreted language.
>
>But since you've brought the subject up, I personally think its awful that Microsoft does not provide some sort of "protection" mechanism to any/all of their products.

I agree! Microsoft has gone to great lengths to enable the consumer to know that they are buying legitimate software (e.g. hallograms, and 800-r-u-legit). It would be nice if they passed on that same kind of commitment to us, by enabling us to make decompilation harder than placing an order for ReFox. Maybe Microsoft could allow us to use their software pirating police in exchange for using their development software.