|
|
Posted by JimC on 09/21/06 03:18
Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:15:50 -0700, "Quanta" <none@none.NET> wrote:
>
>
>>"Charlie Hoffpauir" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>news:4lb3h2pvlqd936rtnurfad77ppvg8p532s@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:04:15 GMT, JimC <avocat5@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I understand that Time Warner has filed a patent application for a
>>>>universal "Multilayer Dual Optical Disk" that can store BluRay video; HD
>>>>DVD video; and standard DVD programs. The patent application (US
>>>>2006/0179448 A1) is for a multi-layer disk in which HD DVD, BluRay, and
>>>>standard DVD programs are stored in respective data layers such that,
>>>>with a compatable player, the consumer can play a disk in any of the
>>>>three formats.
>>>>
>>>>If it works, and if it can be marketed at a reasonable price, maybe this
>>>>will resolve the HD DVD-BluRay conflict and move high definition DVD
>>>>technology off dead center and toward market acceptance.
>>>>
>>>>Jim Cate
>>>
>>>Sounds like total BS to me. The first question I'd ask, is if it
>>>works, ie recording to all those separate layers, then why not just
>>>record (via one or the other technology) to *all* of the layers and
>>>get triple the capacity?
>>>
>>>Charlie Hoffpauir
>>>http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
>>
>>This is a rather obtuse and unfocused analysis.
>>
>>
>>Capacity means nothing per se....convenience and compatibility means
>>absolutely EVERYTHING!
>>
>>
>
> What makes the ability to read different technologies "better" than
> the ability to read one or the other? It seems in your opinion, it's
> better.... but I'd argue not. And why is it more "convenient"? I
> assume you mean for the end-user. Why is it more convenient to buy a
> disc that can be read on either kind of player, when the user in all
> likelyhood, has only one or the other kind?
>
> Now for REAL compatibility,there should be a "standard" for high
> definition DVD recording, and all manufacturers who want to make
> sales, should conform to the standard. To me, that sounds like
> convenience and compatibility.
>
> Anything that encourages other than standardization seems to me to be
> a "bad thing" rather than a good thing.
>
> Charlie Hoffpauir
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
Let me suggest that you calm down a little and sleep on it. The thought
was that by having disks including programming in both HD formats and
conventional DVD, dealers could reduce their inventory and more easily
afford to stock HD disks. Similarly, consumers could buy one disk from
which they could play a given program in either format (although it
wasn't clear whether a radically different player would be necessary to
play the disks), so that they wouldn't loose their investment in
software if one format (BluRay or HD-DVD) dropped out in a year or so,
or if they later decided to switch to a different format. The article
that appeared in the Wall Street Journal this morning seemed to imply
that the system could help to minimize the uncertainty that exists now
and thereby help move the technology toward commercial acceptance.
Whether or not the technology is of any significance,the fact that the
WSJ is suggesting that it might be could help general acceptance of the
new formats.
On reviewing the patent application more carefully, however, it remains
to be seen whether or not this is good technology, and whether it could
ever be commercialized. Also, it's not at all certain that a patent
will be issued by the USPTO. If it isn't, the teachings of the
published application, such as they are, would be freely available to
anyone. Or, a patent might be issued with the patent claims
substantially restricted during prosecution, in which case the issued
patent would be of little consequence.
Jim
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|