🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1iaa91INNhgr@agate.berkeley.edu>, shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff) writes:
|> In article <C0CED1.60H@metaflow.com> rschnapp@metaflow.com (Russ Schnapp) writes:
|> >Is it really necessary to reverse-engineer the VCR+ algorithm?  I thought
|> >that VCR+ is patented.  If you can obtain the patent number, then the patent
|> >can be retrieved.  The patent _must_ disclose the method used.
|> 
|> The patent doesn't include enough information to decode the VCR+ code.
|> It explains how to make/decode _a_ VCR code, but not _the_ VCR+ code.  That
|> is, there are a bunch of specific details you need that aren't included.  (As
|> an analogy, the RSA patent won't help you decode a particular RSA-encoded
|> message.)
|> 
|> Ken Shirriff				shirriff@sprite.Berkeley.EDU

Has anyone thought to call their local TV station or a local newspaper that
publishes VCR+ codes?

I would imagine the manufacturer doesn't care a fig if the algorithm is
published.  They would only care to license the production of the _hardware_
in actual VCRs.  It would be in their interest, I would think, to _give away_
the encoding algorithm to TV stations and any producer of TV listings, such
as a newspaper.  Perhaps later on, they will try & get revenue out of the
guides, but at first they surely gave it away and still may be doing so. . .

I could be wrong, but for those who care, a phone call or two ought to
do it if my guess is correct.

-- 
   Larry W. Loen        |  My Opinions are decidedly my own, so please
                        |  do not attribute them to my employer