🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Oct22.103610.9010@cs.su.oz.au> topgun@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Chandra Bajpai) writes:

>[mod - cross post from another group]

>In article <VICTOR.92Oct14101619@terse.watson.ibm.com> victor@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>Look at the article "Decoding a VCR controller Code" by K. Shirriff,
>>C. Welch and A. Kinsman in the July 1992 issue of Cryptologia (v. XVI
>>no. 3).  The decode the 1 to 6 digit codes, but hadn't yet succeeded
>>with the 7 and 8 digit codes.  Apparently, the VCR plus people wanted
>>to quash competition by keeping the coding method a trade secret.
>>Well, I guess that didn't work.

>Isn't the VCR+ coding system patented? or is it only a trade secret?
>It would make more sense if they patented it so one one could
>use the codes even if codes were broken. On the otherhand they would
>be forced to reveal the coding system.  If it is a trade secret, wonder
>why they chose that route.

The article in Cryptologia says that "Gemstar claims copyright and
patent protection for the PlusCode numbers and software to create them."
Without more information it is difficult to know just what this means.
It is rare for anyone to get a patent in less than about two years --
does anyone recall how long ago VCR Plus has been around?

The commenter (Bajpai) correctly summarizes the pros and cons of 
seeking patent protection on something like this that is, in a very
real sense, self-revealing.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519