The third bit is used for a sort of copy protection. If the bit is set, it tells a digital recorder listening to the data not to record. This is why a DAT wont record all of your CD's so you can take them back and not have to pay for them. Record companies thought about this in advance...
People on slashdot are always bringing up prior art, as if that completely invalidates a patent.
Here's a (very) basic example:
Someone back in the dark ages patents a 4 legged stool.
Someone comes along later and adds a back to it. The second person can get a patent on it, even though it's only a stool with a back.
The patent doesn't give them the right to make a chair, it just allows them the ability to not let others make that same chair. The second company would have to first aquire the rights to the stool in order to make the chair. (this is why patents are refered to as a "negative right")
Admitedly, if the first company had been adding backs to their stools and just never patented it, THAT prior art would invalidate the patent.
It's also possible, given the first patent, that someone 'skilled in the art' would have thought adding a back would be obvious, and the patent examiner shouldn't have granted it in the first place.
That's one place where the internet patent idea fails, because those 'skilled in the art' are off making dot-com bucks instead of examining patents....
My main point here is that patents that add a novel twist to an existing idea are just as valid as those built on completely novel ideas. Just because it looks like something you've seen before, you can't just write it off.
Keep in mind you've seen a lot of stools.
(I know there's a patents=stool joke in here somewhere, but i'll leave that to the trolls)
Slashdot Mirror
The whole line is "Internet Explorer 8 Release Candidate 1 (RC1) indicates the end of the Internet Explorer 8 beta period"
The cache will be updated shortly, i'm sure
because cd's already have a 'copy bit'
From: All about subcode
The third bit is used for a sort of copy protection. If the bit is set, it tells a digital recorder listening to the data not to record. This is why a DAT wont record all of your CD's so you can take them back and not have to pay for them. Record companies thought about this in advance...
http://my.aol.com/news/news_special.psp?newsid=wor ldtrade
People on slashdot are always bringing up prior art, as if that completely invalidates a patent.
Here's a (very) basic example:
Someone back in the dark ages patents a 4 legged stool.
Someone comes along later and adds a back to it. The second person can get a patent on it, even though it's only a stool with a back.
The patent doesn't give them the right to make a chair, it just allows them the ability to not let others make that same chair. The second company would have to first aquire the rights to the stool in order to make the chair. (this is why patents are refered to as a "negative right")
Admitedly, if the first company had been adding backs to their stools and just never patented it, THAT prior art would invalidate the patent.
It's also possible, given the first patent, that someone 'skilled in the art' would have thought adding a back would be obvious, and the patent examiner shouldn't have granted it in the first place.
That's one place where the internet patent idea fails, because those 'skilled in the art' are off making dot-com bucks instead of examining patents....
My main point here is that patents that add a novel twist to an existing idea are just as valid as those built on completely novel ideas. Just because it looks like something you've seen before, you can't just write it off.
Keep in mind you've seen a lot of stools.
(I know there's a patents=stool joke in here somewhere, but i'll leave that to the trolls)