> Everything about DVD has been a collabarative effort, in spite of several
> attempts to hijack it -- DivX anyone?
>
> | I have mentioned that regarding the DVD on the list before. The CD is
> | obvious now. But don't forget that the CD has been around much longer
> | then the MD and did not catch on for several years. Why the MD has never
> | really made is is still mystery to me.
>
> Mostly because Sony never really marketed it.
I think that poor marketing would be a better statement.
>
> | To me the DCC failure is obvious. It sucks.
>
> DCC failed because Philip really never marketed it, *and* because it has
> all the limitations of CD-DA
What when you say CD-DA, you are speaking about commercial CDs. Is that
correct? What limitations do you personally find in commercial CDs?
> || All I am saying is that if there is something in a "new format" that
> | infringes upon any of the specifications protected by patent on the DVD,
> | that would be a problem.
>
> Patents are not the issue, because the DVD specs are open.
So your saying that as long as the Logo DVD is not on it, anyone could produce a
DVD and not have to pay any licensing fees what so ever?
The term and Logo DVD is something that is copyrighted. Not a patent. Just like
VHS. The standard used to produce a VHS tape did have a patent on it though,
Not just the name (JVC owned both). But VHS is over 17 years old. So only the
logo and name are limited, the format no longer is.
>From everything you have said, accepting for the moment that you are correct, the
technology used to make DVDs could be used to produce MDs of extremely long
length. It would seem to me that the quality of a "DVD" type MD would be
superior to the present ATRAC MD.
Thanks,
Larry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
