The present invention relates generally to systems, methods and apparatus for providing forensic markings for media content. Forensic marking is the practice of creating individual copies of information content that are substantially identical for most practical purposes, but that can in fact be distinguished from one another in order to ascertain information about their chain-of-custody subsequent to their distribution. For example, intentionally introduced errors in logarithmic tables were used in previous centuries to prove that certain publications of those tables had been copied from a particular source without authorization from the table's creator. In the modern era, forensic marking is widely viewed as an important technique for protection of valuable media information content such as movies, music, programming, documents, and other digital information content such as software and data files and has convincingly demonstrated its commercial efficacy. Forensic marking is typically intended to assist in locating a point in the chain-of-custody where an unauthorized use of the content occurred.
A wide range of schemes have been proposed for introducing identifiable marks into content and for subsequently identifying their presence. The broad class of techniques commonly known as “watermarking”, wherein auxiliary data is imperceptibly embedded into the content, are most commonly associated with this task, however a range of different approaches are possible. An exemplary methodology that does not incorporate watermarking is to simultaneously capture one or more scenes in a film production by employing two cameras at different locations and using these similar recordings as alternately selectable versions of content for the purpose of distinguishing copies. Another approach that can be employed with video content is to superimpose a figure or graphic onto the image that is either brief and unnoticeable (such as the “cap coding” dots that are reported to be employed in commercial film production) or that is innocuous (such as superimposing an additional face in a crowd or changing the color of a chair).
Various forensic marking schemes offering differing performance and capabilities with respect to: the types of content to which they are applicable (e.g., video, audio, textual, images, executable program instructions, data, etc.); the degree of transparency or interference of the marking with respect to primary intended purpose of the content; the payload capacity of the marking (e.g., number of uniquely marked copies that can be generated and the amount of the marked content necessary to identify the mark); the effort required to apply or identify the mark (e.g., the computational complexity of insertion or detection of the forensic mark); the recoverability of the mark following incidental use and modification of the content (“robustness”); or the resistance of the mark to attempts to interfere with its use (“security”) through forgery, modification, eavesdropping, and erasure.
In many practical circumstances, the marking must be performed under tight constraints. For example, when a high volume of individually marked copies of content must be created, it is desirable that each should be made as effortlessly as possible to minimize time, expense or resource usage. Additionally, when a copy of content must be marked at the time of its delivery or use, it is typically important that the marking occur with minimal effort so as not to delay the delivery or interfere with other simultaneous actions associated with the event. For example, on a computer server system that provides copies of content in response to requests received over a network, the effort required to supply a distinctly marked copy in response to individual requests may substantially increase the amount of processing and/or storage required to respond to a given number of requests, versus simply providing the same copy of the content in response to each, as is more typically done. Similarly, if the marking must be applied using digital electronics embedded within a consumer device such as a personal computer, portable music player, or multimedia-enabled cellular telephone, it is important that the process of customizing individual copies does not interfere with or limit other device functions, including in the areas of computing processor utilization, power consumption, or user-interface response time.
A valuable approach to minimizing the effort in forensic marking is to divide the forensic marking activity into two steps. The first step performs a “pre-processing” of the content that only needs to be performed once and may require substantial effort in order to produce one or more versions of the content and possibly also to analyze data that can be used in a subsequent “customization” step of reduced effort that is repeated with minor variations to produce the forensically marked copies of the content. While the customization step of a two-step forensic marking scheme is not inherently limited to any particular operation, some examples of common functions that may be typically included in such an arrangement include splicing of regions of content together, replacement of certain regions of content with regions taken from other content, mathematical addition of regions of content, mathematical additional of a region taken from content with the mathematical multiplication of two other content regions, and the like. This approach is generally employed in an arrangement where the pre-processing and customization steps are performed on separate physical devices and at different stages of the chain of production, distribution, and consumption of content.
Another critical consideration in forensic marking is the vulnerability of marking techniques to subversion through various avenues of attack by individuals seeking to thwart identification of the forensic mark. Such attacks may by implemented by a variety of means, but typically involve transforming the content such that the mark is altered or obscured.
It is generally advantageous to an attacker making an attack on a marking technique if they have knowledge of the details of the marking technique employed, and for this reason it is desirable for the efficacy of the system that as much information about the marking techniques employed for any particular content instance be unavailable to them. Generally, in order to avoid exposure of marking methods, tamper-resistant implementation techniques are employed in order to protect devices that perform marking and information stored internally from reverse engineering. However, a particular advantage of the two-step forensic marking approach for environments where marking is performed in a device that may be attacked is that it is possible for many of the sensitive technologies to be employed during the pre-processing step, which can be retained under the control of the content distributor, and the information regarding the marking scheme that needs to be present in the device that performs customization can be much more limited. Furthermore, cryptographic techniques may be used to enhance the security of the forensic marking system. For example, the information that is delivered to a particular customization device, including all alternate versions of the original content signal plus functions and parameters that are necessary to effect the marking, may be encrypted and the particular customization device may be required to request the delivery of proper decryption keys upon the exchange of proper identification and authentication information. Further, through encryption of alternate versions of the content with different keys and by providing the customization function with only the decryption keys associated with the versions of content that are used to form mark messages that the device is authorized to render, the security impact of a compromised customization device may be substantially diminished. In such a scenario, the attacker may be unable to access any content elements other than those that are specifically accessible to the compromised device.
Nevertheless, a number of factors may still frustrate efforts to keep secret information out of an attacker's hands. Attackers may be able to learn about particular marking technologies from any of many different sources, including leaks of confidential information, from information included in patent filings, from reverse engineering of devices that perform marking or mark detection functions, or from analysis of marked content (including, in particular, comparative analysis or combined processing of differently marked versions of the same content, the so called “collusion” attacks).
If only a single marking technique is employed, then the emergence of a successful attack may be immediate and catastrophic. Thus, it may be advantageous to employ a multiplicity of marking techniques across a range of content and devices at any given point in time. Further, if the marking technique employed is fixed, its resistance to attack will only diminish over time as information on its function is slowly gleaned by attackers. Thus it may be advantageous to be able to change marking techniques employed on a time schedule that is responsive to progress made by attackers over time.
There are additional practical considerations related to the use of forensic marking schemes. It may be desirable for the manufacturer of some product that processes content to facilitate the forensic marking of the content using a variety of different schemes. For example, the various owners or distributors of different content processed by the device might want different schemes to be used in connection with particular content which they provide for use on the device, and those wishes might change over time due to purely commercial considerations. Additionally, different types of content (such as 3 minute popular music songs versus 8 hour audiobooks) might introduce entirely different marking requirements because of their duration, bandwidth, attack threat model, commercial value, sales volume, or some other consideration. For the manufacturer of such a device, it may be impractical, burdensome, or even impossible to include sufficient capability to support all desired forensic marking schemes and a capability to update the devices functions over time, even if the marking schemes permit separate pre-processing and customization such that the device need only perform the customization steps of the various forensic marking schemes.
Clearly, if the customization step is carried out on a general-purpose programmable device, such a device may be reprogrammed at various times to apply different forensic marking techniques. Such reprogramming might be performed or even provided in conjunction with each particular piece of content, if programming instructions are provided along with the content. However, if the marking must be performed on a variety of different types of programmable devices, it may be impractical or burdensome to provide instructions for each different programmable device.
It has been proposed that a desirable method of flexibly applying forensic marking is through inclusion of a common programmable capability or so-called “virtual machine” that can execute arbitrary data processing functions expressed in program code delivered with content, including those that customize pre-processed, encrypted content in order to achieve forensic marking. This approach places a substantial burden of complexity on the device that performs customization, which must implement the virtual machine and be capable of executing the arbitrary program instructions. Additionally, it places a burden on the content producer and forensic scheme technology developer for devising program instructions and ensuring their correctness, tasks that are generally difficult, expensive, and error-prone.
Another proposed approach to the flexible application of forensic marking in a diverse range of devices is the creation of a standardized, common function that can perform a complete forensic marking operation on content in response to marking instructions provided with the content. This approach employs a set of common, fixed data processing primitives with adjustable parameters that are believed to support a range of commercially useful forensic watermark embedding schemes. This approach provides reduced complexity with respect to the development and testing of marking instruction streams in comparison with an approach that employs a generic “virtual machine,” but has several other significant drawbacks. First, the range of marking techniques that such a device can support will be inherently limited by the scope of the available primitives. As pointed out herein, a very wide range of methods have been proposed for watermarking, not to mention forensic marking generally, and diversity in the area of marking techniques is of benefit to mark security and commercial acceptability. The limitation of the fundamental method of forensic marking to a finite set that can be incorporated in a standardized specification substantially limits the efficacy and practicality of the system.
Also, the amount of processing required for many practical forensic watermarking techniques is substantial, and inclusion of the complete forensic mark application within the device responsible for content customization may have a significant negative impact on the cost and/or performance of such devices. For example, the embedding function in many practical watermarking schemes rely on perceptual modeling of the content being marked to constrain the amplitude of modifications to an amount that results in an acceptable level of perceptual distortion. Such modeling may be difficult to express in a generic messaging language, may require substantial processing and memory resources, and may introduce significant processing latency. This impact may make such an approach unsuitable for large classes of devices, such as portable media players, cellular phones, optical media players, handheld recording devices, and the like.
It would be advantageous to provide flexible forensic watermarking methods, systems and apparatus which are designed to overcome various deficiencies of the prior art systems. More specifically, it would be advantageous to be able to flexibly employ a range of different marking techniques in different instances that all rely on a common customization function that is applicable to a wide range of forensic marking schemes (and consequently, a wide range of pre-processing methods), but that support a well-defined set of functions specific to the task of forensic mark customization that can be carried out with a modest and preferably bounded effort on a wide range of devices. Because a very wide range of techniques are used for marking content, there has previously been no practical way to address these challenges. The present invention achieves such desirable features through the use of a generic transformation technique for use as a “customization” step for producing versions of content forensically marked with any of a multiplicity of mark messages, wherein the customization function is responsive to instructions provided along with pre-processed content that enable its compatibility with a range of different forensic marking schemes.
The methods, systems and apparatus of the present invention provide the foregoing and other advantages.
The present invention provides methods, systems, and apparatus which enable flexible insertion of forensic watermarks into a digital content signal by using a common customization function.
In an example embodiment of the present invention, a method for producing a distinctly marked content is provided. A plurality of tributaries and customization information are received (e.g., at a client device, a user location, a discrete processing element at the same location, or the like). The tributaries and customization information are processed using a common customization function adapted to accept a mark message in order to produce a distinctly marked content.
The plurality of tributaries and the customization information may be produced by pre-processing original content. Alternatively, the plurality of tributaries and the customization information may be produced by pre-processing the original content with at least one alternate content element. The tributaries may be derived from the alternate content elements.
The pre-processing function may comprise embedding at least a logical value in a portion said original content. The tributaries may be synthesized during the pre-processing.
The tributaries may comprise instructions for generating at least one alternate version of the original content or an alternate content element.
The method may further comprise analyzing the tributaries and customization information to obtain validation information. The validation information may comprise resource allocation profiles. Further, the validation information may represent compatibility profiles.
The processing of the tributaries and customization information may comprise selecting a subset of the tributaries, generating rendering information in accordance with the customization information and the mark message, and rendering the selected tributaries in accordance with the rendering information to form the distinctly marked content.
The selecting may be conducted in accordance with the customization information and the mark message. The selecting may also be conducted in accordance with a set of nexus resolution instructions.
The rendering may comprise assembling the selected tributaries in accordance with the rendering information. Assembling the tributaries may comprises at least one of adding, multiplying, splicing or blending of the selected tributaries. The rendering may be conducted in accordance with a set of assembly instructions. These assembly instructions may correspond to at least one of a PDF, XML, MXF, AAF, ASF, BWF, and Mobile XMF encoding formats. The rendering may comprises post-processing operations to enhance the security of the distinctly marked content. The rendering may further comprises post-processing operations to enhance the transparency of the embedded marks within the distinctly marked content.
The mark message may be encoded in accordance with at least one of an error correction coding, a channel coding, a data security protocol, or the like. The encoding of the mark message may be conducted using a look-up table.
In a further example embodiment of the present invention, an apparatus for producing a distinctly marked content is provided. The apparatus comprises means for receiving a plurality of tributaries and customization information produced by a pre-processing function and processing means for processing the tributaries and customization information using a common customization function adapted to accept a mark message in order to produce a distinctly marked content.
In another example embodiment of the present invention, a method for enabling the production of a distinctly marked content is provided. In such an embodiment, an original content is received (e.g., by transmission over a wired or wireless network, from a storage element, from another device or functional element, or the like). This original content, once received, is then pre-processed to produce a plurality of tributaries and customization information. The tributaries and customization information enable the production of a distinctly marked content (e.g., using a common customization function as discussed in the above-described embodiments).
The plurality of tributaries and the customization information may be produced by pre-processing the original content with at least one alternate content element. The tributaries may be derived from the alternate content elements.
Methods, apparatus, and systems corresponding to the foregoing example embodiments, and to combinations of the foregoing example embodiments, are encompassed by the present invention.
The present invention will hereinafter be described in conjunction with the appended drawing figures, wherein like reference numerals denote like elements, and:
The ensuing detailed description provides exemplary embodiments only, and is not intended to limit the scope, applicability, or configuration of the invention. Rather, the ensuing detailed description of the exemplary embodiments will provide those skilled in the art with an enabling description for implementing an embodiment of the invention. It should be understood that various changes may be made in the function and arrangement of elements without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims.
It should be appreciated that while
Pre-Processing
The pre-processing function 104 performs operations on the original content and, optionally, alternate content elements 102, to obtain tributaries 106 and customization information 108. The pre-processing function 104 may include all or a portion of any of a wide variety of forensic marking techniques, but its essential characteristic is that its output should be designed such that the processing of its output by a pre-defined common customization function 114 will result in the production of content that has been forensically marked with any of a multiplicity of mark messages 116.
Original content 100 is the content that would serve as the basis for all copies being produced, but for the use of a forensic marking scheme. Alternate content elements 102 are versions of all or a portion of the original content 100 that are distinguishable from the original content 100, but may be employed to modify or replace all or a portion of the original content 100 for purposes of forensic marking. The term “tributary” is used in this context to mean data that can be combined in various ways to produce distinctly marked versions of the original content 100 using methods provided by the common customization function 114. Tributaries 106 may be derived from the original content 100 or alternate content elements 102, synthesized by the pre-processing function 104, they may be an encrypted or encoded representation of content, or may comprise a method or instructions for generating an alternate version of the original content or alternate content elements. In addition, the tributaries may be produced from any combination of the aforementioned methods. Additionally, tributaries 106 may be distinguished from one another either physically (for example, as separate data structures in a storage medium) or logically (for example, as regions of a continuous data structure that may be distinguished with the use of ancillary data such as markers, pointers, formulae or other explicit and implicit means).
The customization information 108 represents instructions to the common customization function 114 as to how the tributaries 106 should be combined for various mark data values that comprise the mark message 116. One of the benefits of the present invention is that the pre-processing function 104 is not in any way fixed and could implement a multitude of marking schemes in current existence or to be created in the future. The only limitation is that the marking schemes associated with the pre-processing function 104 must be compatible with a customization technique within the capabilities of the common customization function 114. Thus, the scope of the present invention with respect to operations performed by the pre-processing function 104 is considered to encompass any operation for which there exists a complementary processing capability in the common customization function 114, as described herein (e.g., the selection and application of appropriate compression of tributaries 106 for decompression by the common customization function 114, etc.).
Customization
The marking techniques in accordance with the present invention involve the use of a common customization function 114 whose processing behavior in a given instance is controlled by specified customization information 108. The range of valid customization information 108 and the processing behavior of the common customization function 114 in response to the customization information 108 is primarily fixed and well-defined. The capability of using a range of different customization information 108 enables a common customization method to be employed with a variety of different forensic marking schemes. The limited set of functions performed by the common customization function 114 permits its operation to be reasonably bounded and efficient. This configuration permits the common customization function 114 to be implemented in a fixed device and correctly perform the customization step on appropriately pre-processed information for a range of different forensic marking schemes.
An exemplary block diagram of the common customization function 114 in accordance with the present invention is described in
Composition
The primary functions of composition function 120 is to provide a set of selected tributaries 122, in accordance with the customization information 108, to be used for producing a particular instance of distinctly marked content 118, and to determine the rendering information 124 necessary to guide its production. The composition function 120 may also include the act of mark encoding, which maps the mark message 116 into an alternate sequence of symbols (the “mark sequence”) that represent the mark message 116 as it is embodied within the distinctly marked content 118. An exemplary diagram of the relationship between the elements of the composition function is provided in
Nexus Resolution
As shown in
Mark Encoding
Mark encoding 134 performs a mapping between a mark message 116, which is the information carried by the mark that is used to distinguish the marked copy of the content from other copies of distinctly marked content, and the mark sequence 136, which is the sequence of symbols that is actually incorporated into the content. The mark encoding function 134 may provide capabilities that support any of the myriad channel coding techniques known in the art of communication and watermark technology. By way of example and not by limitation, these include the incorporation of error correction codes and synchronization symbols, interleaving and encryption of the mark message 116, as well as mapping the mark message 116 into pre-defined mark sequences using look-up tables or mapping functions.
Because it is desirable that a common customization function 114 provide compatibility with a range of forensic marking schemes, it may be useful for the mark encoding function 134 to provide a range of common channel coding techniques that may be employed in any instance according to a particular mark encoding protocol, which may be specified via customization information 108. Additionally, it may be useful for the mark encoding function 134 to provide additional data communications message formation functions, such as encryption, hashing, or digital signature formation, as directed by mark encoding protocol 130. The mark encoding protocols 130 may be communicated to the mark encoding function 134 as part of the customization information 108 produced by the pre-processing function 104. In a simple exemplary embodiment, the mark encoding protocol 130 may be implemented as a look-up table that maps the incoming mark message 116 symbols into pre-defined mark sequences 136 in accordance with any combination of the above described channel coding and security protocols. This way, the need to incorporate any specific channel coding and/or security protocols within the mark encoding function 134 is eliminated. Furthermore, the look-up table may be readily updated to reflect new security, robustness or economic requirements of the marking system.
Rendering
An exemplary diagram of the relationship between the elements of the rendering function 126 of
Assembly
The rendering function 126 provides support for one or more methods of producing assembled content 142 by assembly function 146 under the direction of the assembly information 138 provided as part of the rendering information 124. Examples of general methods of assembly that may be supported include splicing, replacement (with or without masking of various kinds), addition, multiplication, blending (e.g. linear combination), or combinations of methods such as these. In general, the assembly information 138 may express (and the assembly function 146 may support) the interpretation and execution of a range of typical content processing functions as might be found in existing systems that perform rendering of content from a collection of production elements in accordance with an expression of assembly information. Well-known content encoding formats of this type include Adobe Portable Document Format, Microsoft Word XML document schema, MXF, Advanced Authoring Format, Advanced Systems Format, Broadcast Wave Format, and Mobile XMF. Many of the techniques for expression and processing of rendering information expressions that are known in the art are considered to be useful in conjunction with the present invention.
Selection of the particular methods of assembly supported by a common customization function 114 will largely define the types of forensic marking schemes with which it will be compatible, so the methods selected should be chosen based on techniques that are expected to be useful in practical marking schemes. This selection will also dictate the operational burden placed on devices that implement the assembly function 146, so the range of assembly methods supported should be influenced by their value and generality.
Post-Processing
The rendering function 126 may optionally support the application of one or more post-processing functions 144 on the assembled content 142 in accordance with the post-processing information 140. While some post-processing operations may be utilized to further differentiate the distinctly marked content 118 from the original content 100, other operations may be used to enhance the security of the embedded marks, to enhance the transparency of the embedded marks, or to perform signal conditioning operations that facilitate subsequent storage, presentation or transmission of the marked content. By way of example and not by limitation, some post-processing operations include applying masking and anti-collusion measures, signal saturation/clipping prevention techniques, application of dither, application of special artistic/aesthetic effects, gamma correction, color correction, cryptographic operations, and the like.
Validation
The validation function 110 (
The validation function 110 may also measure certain aspects of an instance of tributaries 106 and customization information 108, such as the amount of processing, memory, or latency necessary for a common customization function 114 to evaluate those instances (‘execution profiling’), given certain assumptions about the mark message 116. Validation functions may be employed at different parts of the content distribution chain. For example, it may be desirable to perform a validation function in conjunction with pre-processing in order to select from alternative possible expressions of tributaries and customization information based on measurable characteristics of their performance or to ensure their compatibility with the common customization functions supported by a specific class of devices. Additionally, they may be employed on a standalone basis by a content distributor who wants to ensure that content that they distribute is compatible with a common customization function performed by certain specific devices to which they distribute materials. Validation functions may also exist in any environments where common customization functions reside, and be employed prior to content customization in order to determine a priori the results of performing forensic mark customization.
Techniques that may be employed for performing validation functions, such as specification compliance verification and execution profiling, are generally well-known in the art.
Exemplary Embodiment
To illustrate the most basic elements of the present invention, as a first example a simple embodiment of the invention is described. This example embodiment is described with specific, limited detail for the purpose of providing clear and concrete examples of the concepts, but is not intended in any way to limit or fix the scope of the present invention. Nevertheless, this simple example has substantial flexibility and is, as is demonstrated below, compatible with many of the forensic marking schemes known in the art.
Exemplary Common Customization Function
In this embodiment, a common customization function 114 may be defined specifically for use with schemes for the forensic marking of audio content with a 40-bit mark message 116. The common customization function 114 (including all component functions described herein) may be embodied in a stored program on a hard-disk in a computer system located in the projection booth of a commercial movie theater. The computer system may be one among many connected to a wide-area network over which digital audio and video are distributed to multiple similar computer systems in multiple similar projection booths in multiple movie theaters. An additional function of the computer system is to access content at the time when a movie is to be shown in the theater, process it with the common customization function 114 in order to obtain a distinctly marked content 118, and output the distinctly marked content 118 sequentially for playback to the movie theater audience. Each such computer system may have a stored unique serial number and an internal clock, from which the common customization function 114 may derive a 40-bit mark message 116 to be forensically marked into the audio of each movie presentation output from the computer system.
The implementation of the present invention in this particular environment enables the manufacturer of the computer system to only incorporate a single common customization function 114 to provide a playback environment that is compatible with a range of forensic marking schemes. In addition, any one of a variety of forensic marking schemes may be used for a particular movie content at the discretion of the movie producer or distributor, and such schemes will be compatible with any device that employs the common customization function 114, regardless of any other playback device characteristics.
In an exemplary movie screening scenario, prior to playback, pre-processed audio content may be securely delivered from another computer system at a movie distributor to the computer system in the projection booth over the wide area network in the form of a computer file that contains both tributaries 106 and customization information 108. (The associated video content is provided as well, and may also be pre-processed for handling by a common customization function 114, but for simplicity of exposition in this example, only the audio portion of the content is considered.) Such an audio file may be compliant with, for example, the Broadcast Wave format. Two types of data chunks exist within the file that contain the customization information 108, the nexus sequence 128 and mark encoding protocol 130, respectively, which may be provided in big-endian format. Tributaries 106 may be stored in audio chunks, with one tributary per audio chunk. Tributaries 106 may be encoded as eight channel PCM audio at a 48 kHz sampling rate. The exemplary nexus sequence and post-processing grammar may be defined as shown in Table 1 and the exemplary mark encoding protocol grammar may be shown as defined in Table 2 below, using a data format conforming to the Extended Backus-Naur form grammars.
For this example, it is assumed that the computer server does not impose tight constraints on the processing, memory, and latency of the customization function. It should be recognized, however, that such constraints will exist in many practical cases. There would be no guarantee that all content expressible in this format would meet a particular set of constraints, and careful design of the particular expression of content (in addition to the use of a validation function for measurement of these parameters) might be needed for different classes of devices with common customization functions.
Exemplary Nexus Resolution
In the exemplary embodiment shown in Table 1 above, the nexus resolution function 132 is carried out by sequentially processing the nexuses in the nexus sequence 128 in accordance with the specified grammar of Table 1. Each nexus may be expressed either as a “single nexus” which is evaluated one time, or as a “repeating nexus” which is repeatedly evaluated a specified number of times in succession. In the processing of unary nexuses, an associated tributary index (which identifies the candidate tributaries) is selected. Assembly information 138 is provided as output of the composition function 120 for rendering. In the processing of binary nexuses, a mark sequence value is received from the mark encoding function 134, and used to select one of two tributary index and assembly information 138 pairs in the nexus for output. Post-processing information 140, when present, is provided in the same data stream as the nexus sequence 128 and is time-multiplexed. Post-processing information 140 is output directly to the post-processing function 144 without modification. Assembly information 138 is provided to the assembly function 146, along with the associated tributary index value obtained from each nexus. When all nexuses from the nexus sequence 128 have been evaluated, the nexus resolution function 132 is either completed or it repeats from the start of the nexus list (in which case a counter is supplied for the total number of nexuses to be processed prior to completion of nexus resolution) according to information provided at the end of the nexus list.
Exemplary Mark Encoding
The mark encoding function 134 is carried out by sequentially processing the elements of the mark encoding protocol 130 in accordance with the grammar that is shown in Table 2 above. Processing consists of retrieving, processing, and outputting mark sequence values, in accordance with the specified mark encoding protocol 130. The “constant bit” expression in Table 2 indicates the output of a fixed mark sequence bit value, independent of the values of the mark message 116. The “mark message bit” expression indicates the output of a mark sequence bit that is equal to the corresponding bit value in the mark message 116. The “XOR mark message bit” expression indicates the output of a mark sequence bit value that results from a logical XOR between a value provided by the mark encoding protocol 130 and a value taken from the mark message 116. The “mapping” expression indicates the output of a sequence of mark sequence bit values taken from a table stored in the mark encoding protocol 130. The table is stored in the form of a table of output sequences (in rows), with the row that is output from the table selected by the value of the binary word expressed by a sequence of bits taken from the mark message 116. For example, if the input count is 3 and the output count is 4, then a table of output values that is 8 (23) rows by 4 columns is provided. Three bits from the mark message 116 are read, and their binary value (0-7) is used to select a row from the table. The mark sequence output 136 generated by the mark encoding function 134 is then the set of values stored in that row of the table.
When all elements of the mark encoding protocol 130 have been processed, the mark encoding function 134 returns to the beginning of the mark encoding protocol 130 and continues its processing as if the mark encoding protocol 130 were repeated serially. Similarly, if the mark encoding function 134 reaches the end of the mark message 116, its operations continue from the start of the mark message 116, as if values were repeated serially. The mark encoding function 134 continues to operate in this way, so long as the nexus resolution function 132 continues to require additional mark sequence values 136.
Exemplary Assembly Function
The assembly function 146 is carried out by sequentially processing the output of the nexus resolution function 132, which consists of a sequence of tributary index/assembly information element pairs. Table 1 above provides examples of such assembly information 138 that include multiple fields. Markers specify indices of the start and duration of the tributaries that are selected for composition (“tributary segment”), which may be computed from a stored tributary marker register, and an expression may also indicate modification of the register in one of several ways following its use. A fading characteristic may be specified for application to the start and end of the tributary segment (i.e. a gradual amplitude fade with a specified duration and curve shape for each endpoint of the tributary segment) prior to composition. Expressions are provided for determining an index for the starting point in the output stream where the tributary segment should be placed based on a stored output marker register, and an expression may also direct modification of the register in one of several ways following its use. An additional information field is provided that specifies how the tributary segment should be composed with other segments that may overlap in time in the assembled content (i.e. whether the data from the earlier segment in the sequence should be replaced by the latter or whether the two segments should be added together). Processing of the assembly information 138 consists of performing the retrieval, alignment, and composition of the selected tributary segments 122 to form assembled content 142 in accordance with the assembly information expressions.
Exemplary Post-Processing
The post-processing function 144 is carried out by sequentially processing the elements of post-processing information 140 as described in the exemplary grammar listing of Table 1, lines 44 through 47. Parsing consists of lexical analysis of the data in the post-processing information 140 in accordance with the nexus sequence grammar defined in the listing of Table 1. Evaluation consists of applying a function to the assembled content 142 in accordance with settings dictated by the post-processing information 140. In the case of hard clipping, the assembled content 142 is evaluated to determine whether any of the values of the content samples have exceeded the dynamic range supported by the output device. Any samples that have exceeded that dynamic range are set to the nearest value that is within the dynamic range of the output device.
In the case of soft clipping, the entirety of the assembled content 142 is processed through the non-linear function, such as the one specified by:
where x is the value of the assembled content, y is the value of the soft-limited content, and [−1,1] is the normalized range of the output device.
Exemplary Forensic Marking Schemes Using Exemplary Embodiment
To illustrate certain benefits of the exemplary embodiment, its use in conjunction with a forensic marking scheme previously known in the art is described.
Exemplary Forensic Marking Scheme
In the first embodiment described in the U.S. Pat. No. 6,612,315 an arrangement is employed whereby original audio content is pre-processed to generate two alternate versions, each embedded with a synchronous stream of watermark data. The first version is embedded with a watermark sequence comprised entirely of a first logical value, such as the binary value “0” and the second version is embedded with a watermark sequence comprised entirely of a second logical value, such as the binary value “1.” A customization method is employed whereby distinct content carrying a watermark data stream with an arbitrary mark sequence is produced by splicing sequential segments selected from one of the two alternate versions in accordance with the values of a mark sequence. To avoid introducing discontinuities through the splicing function, selected segments are taken with a short, overlapping transition regions and the segments are blended via cross-fade. For purposes of this example, it is assumes that the bits are embedded in audio segments that are 5.33 ms in duration (256 samples at 48 kHz sampling rate) and that the cross-fade region is 0.33 ms in duration (16 samples at 48 kHz). It is also assumed, for purposes of this example, that the mark encoding protocol simply prepends the frame synchronization sequence ‘0111’ to the mark message to form the mark sequence, and repeatedly transmits this sequence throughout the duration of the content.
Adaptation of the pre-processing step associated with the scheme described above to one that generates tributaries and customization information compatible with the common customization function 114 described in the exemplary embodiment of the present invention is straightforward. The original content is pre-processed to obtain the versions embedded with logical values (e.g., “0” and “1” watermark data sequences, respectively) at pre-processing function 104 and the two versions are stored in two tributaries (“tributary 0” and “tributary 1”). A nexus list is produced as shown in Table 3 below.
This nexus list shown in Table 3 comprises instructions for the first and last elements of the mark sequence 136 that are different from the instructions for the remaining elements of the sequence. A mark encoding protocol 130 is produced as shown in Table 4 below.
The original content in this case is presumed to be two hours (675,000 bits of 5.3 ms each).
Although his particular arrangement complies with the data format requirement of the exemplary embodiment and would be compatible with the described device, it should be appreciated that many different adaptations of the present invention may be made without departing from the scope of the invention. For example, it is noted that the tributaries described in this exemplary embodiment are large and the distance between alternate tributary segments employed in individual nexuses may introduce a significant memory usage requirement or alternately a random data access requirement on the common customization function. This approach may not be suitable for all devices that support the common customization, such as those with limited memory or only serial access to data. For such cases, an alternate expression might entail dividing each of the two versions of the content into many tributaries, each containing only a short segment of the content marked with “0” or “1” data symbols, and interleaving these shorter tributaries so that there is a greater locality of reference within the data stream. The nexus sequence and post-processing data might also be interleaved with the tributary data to achieve a similar advantage. By establishing requirements for processing utilization over time, memory, storage and data access, processing latency, etc., it becomes possible to design devices that implement a common customization function with a well-defined capability, and to design pre-processing and validation methodologies that enable the production of tributaries and customization information that can be reliably employed in conjunction with them to obtain forensically marked content in a range of practical environments.
It should now be appreciated that the present invention provides advantageous methods, systems and apparatus for forensic watermarking using a common customization function.
Although the invention has been described in connection with various illustrated embodiments, numerous modifications and adaptations may be made thereto without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the claims.
This application is a continuation (and claims the benefit of priority under 35 USC 120) of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/220,526, filed on Aug. 29, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,549,307, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/479,958, filed on Jun. 30, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,020,004, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/696,146, filed on Jul. 1, 2005. The disclosure of the prior applications arc considered part of (and are incorporated by reference in) the disclosure of this application.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3406344 | Hopper | Oct 1968 | A |
3842196 | Loughlin | Oct 1974 | A |
3885217 | Cintron | May 1975 | A |
3894190 | Gassmann | Jul 1975 | A |
3919479 | Moon et al. | Nov 1975 | A |
3973206 | Haselwood et al. | Aug 1976 | A |
4048562 | Haselwood et al. | Sep 1977 | A |
4176379 | Wessler et al. | Nov 1979 | A |
4199788 | Tsujimura | Apr 1980 | A |
4225967 | Miwa et al. | Sep 1980 | A |
4230990 | Lert, Jr. et al. | Oct 1980 | A |
4281217 | Dolby | Jul 1981 | A |
4295128 | Hashemian et al. | Oct 1981 | A |
4425578 | Haselwood et al. | Jan 1984 | A |
4454610 | Sziklai | Jun 1984 | A |
4464656 | Nakamura | Aug 1984 | A |
4497060 | Yang | Jan 1985 | A |
4512013 | Nash et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
4547804 | Greenberg | Oct 1985 | A |
4564862 | Cohen | Jan 1986 | A |
4593904 | Graves | Jun 1986 | A |
4639779 | Greenberg | Jan 1987 | A |
4669089 | Gahagan et al. | May 1987 | A |
4677466 | Lert, Jr. et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4686707 | Iwasaki et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
4703476 | Howard | Oct 1987 | A |
4706282 | Knowd | Nov 1987 | A |
4723302 | Fulmer et al. | Feb 1988 | A |
4729398 | Benson et al. | Mar 1988 | A |
4739398 | Thomas et al. | Apr 1988 | A |
4750173 | Bluthgen | Jun 1988 | A |
4755871 | Morales-Garza et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4755884 | Efron et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4764608 | Masuzawa et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
4764808 | Solar | Aug 1988 | A |
4789863 | Bush | Dec 1988 | A |
4805020 | Greenberg | Feb 1989 | A |
4807013 | Manocha | Feb 1989 | A |
4807031 | Broughton et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
4840602 | Rose | Jun 1989 | A |
4843562 | Kenyon et al. | Jun 1989 | A |
4876617 | Best et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4876736 | Kiewit | Oct 1989 | A |
4930011 | Kiewit | May 1990 | A |
4931871 | Kramer | Jun 1990 | A |
4937807 | Weitz et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4939515 | Adelson | Jul 1990 | A |
4943963 | Waechter et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
4945412 | Kramer | Jul 1990 | A |
4967273 | Greenberg | Oct 1990 | A |
4969041 | O'Grady et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
4972471 | Gross et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
4972503 | Zurlinden | Nov 1990 | A |
4979210 | Nagata et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
5057915 | Von Kohorn | Oct 1991 | A |
5073925 | Nagata et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5080479 | Rosenberg | Jan 1992 | A |
5113437 | Best et al. | May 1992 | A |
5116437 | Yamamoto et al. | May 1992 | A |
5161251 | Mankovitz | Nov 1992 | A |
5191615 | Aldava et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
5200822 | Bronfin et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5210820 | Kenyon | May 1993 | A |
5210831 | Emma et al. | May 1993 | A |
5213337 | Sherman | May 1993 | A |
5214792 | Alwadish | May 1993 | A |
5237611 | Rasmussen et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5251041 | Young et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5270480 | Hikawa | Dec 1993 | A |
5294962 | Sato et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5294982 | Salomon et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5319453 | Copriviza et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5319735 | Preuss et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5351304 | Yamamoto | Sep 1994 | A |
5379345 | Greenberg | Jan 1995 | A |
5402488 | Karlock | Mar 1995 | A |
5404160 | Schober et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5404377 | Moses | Apr 1995 | A |
5408258 | Kolessar | Apr 1995 | A |
5414729 | Fenton | May 1995 | A |
5424785 | Orphan | Jun 1995 | A |
5425100 | Thomas et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5432799 | Shimpuku et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5436653 | Ellis et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5450490 | Jensen et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5452901 | Nakada et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5473631 | Moses | Dec 1995 | A |
5481294 | Thomas et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5497372 | Nankoh et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5502576 | Ramsay et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5504518 | Ellis et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5508754 | Orphan | Apr 1996 | A |
5519454 | Willis | May 1996 | A |
5523794 | Mankovitz et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5526427 | Thomas et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5537484 | Kobayashi | Jul 1996 | A |
5579124 | Aijala et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5581658 | O'Hagan et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5581800 | Fardeau et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5592553 | Guski et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5612729 | Ellis et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5613004 | Cooperman et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5636292 | Rhoads | Jun 1997 | A |
5664018 | Leighton | Sep 1997 | A |
5687191 | Lee et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5687236 | Moskowitz et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5699427 | Chow et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5719619 | Hattori et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5719937 | Warren et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5737329 | Horiguchi | Apr 1998 | A |
5752880 | Gabai et al. | May 1998 | A |
5761606 | Wolzien | Jun 1998 | A |
5764763 | Jensen et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5778108 | Coleman, Jr. | Jul 1998 | A |
5787334 | Fardeau et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5805635 | Andrews, Jr. et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5809064 | Fenton et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5809139 | Girod et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5819289 | Sanford, II et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5822360 | Lee et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5822432 | Moskowitz et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5825892 | Braudaway et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5828325 | Wolosewicz et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832119 | Rhoads | Nov 1998 | A |
5841978 | Rhoads | Nov 1998 | A |
5848155 | Cox | Dec 1998 | A |
5850249 | Massetti et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5850481 | Rhoads | Dec 1998 | A |
5862260 | Rhoads | Jan 1999 | A |
5870030 | DeLuca et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5887243 | Harvey et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5889868 | Moskowitz et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5892900 | Ginter et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5893067 | Bender et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5901178 | Lee et al. | May 1999 | A |
5905800 | Moskowitz et al. | May 1999 | A |
5930369 | Cox et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933798 | Linnartz | Aug 1999 | A |
5937000 | Lee et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940124 | Janko et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940134 | Wirtz | Aug 1999 | A |
5940135 | Petrovic et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940429 | Lam et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5943422 | Van Wie et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5945932 | Smith et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5949885 | Leighton | Sep 1999 | A |
5960081 | Vynne et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5963909 | Warren et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5986692 | Logan et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6021432 | Sizer, II et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6031914 | Tewfik et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6035171 | Takaya et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6035177 | Moses et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6037984 | Isnardi et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6044156 | Honsinger et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6061793 | Tewfik et al. | May 2000 | A |
6067440 | Diefes | May 2000 | A |
6078664 | Moskowitz et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6094228 | Ciardullo et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6101310 | Terada et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6128597 | Kolluru et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6145081 | Winograd et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6154571 | Cox et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6160986 | Gabai et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6173271 | Goodman et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6175627 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6189123 | Anders Nystrom et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6209092 | Linnartz | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6209094 | Levine et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6222932 | Rao et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6229572 | Ciardullo et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233347 | Chen et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6246775 | Nakamura et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6246802 | Fujihara et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6249870 | Kobayashi et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6252972 | Linnartz | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253113 | Lu | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253189 | Feezell et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6268866 | Shibata | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6278792 | Cox et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282299 | Tewfik et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6285774 | Schumann et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6289108 | Rhoads | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6290566 | Gabai et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6330335 | Rhoads | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6330672 | Shur | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6332031 | Rhoads et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6332194 | Bloom et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6353672 | Rhoads | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363159 | Rhoads | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6373974 | Zeng | Apr 2002 | B2 |
6374036 | Ryan et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381341 | Rhoads | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385330 | Powell et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6388712 | Shinohara et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6389152 | Nakamura et al. | May 2002 | B2 |
6389538 | Gruse et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6400826 | Chen et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6400827 | Rhoads | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6404781 | Kawamae et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6404898 | Rhoads | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411725 | Rhoads | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6415040 | Linnartz et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6415041 | Oami et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424726 | Nakano et al. | Jul 2002 | B2 |
6427012 | Petrovic | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430301 | Petrovic | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6430302 | Rhoads | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6449367 | Van Wie et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
6449496 | Beith et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6473560 | Linnartz et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477431 | Kalker et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487301 | Zhao | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6490355 | Epstein | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6496591 | Rhoads | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505160 | Levy et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6510233 | Nakano | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6510234 | Cox et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6512837 | Ahmed | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6523113 | Wehrenberg | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6529506 | Yamamoto et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6530021 | Epstein et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6550011 | Sims, III | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6553127 | Kurowski | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6556688 | Ratnakar | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6557103 | Boncelet, Jr. et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6570996 | Linnartz | May 2003 | B1 |
6571144 | Moses et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6574350 | Rhoads et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6577744 | Braudaway et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6584138 | Neubauer et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6590996 | Reed et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6590997 | Rhoads | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6591365 | Cookson | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6592516 | Lee | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6598162 | Moskowitz | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6614914 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6618484 | Van Wie et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6625297 | Bradley | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6628729 | Sorensen | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6633653 | Hobson et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6636615 | Rhoads et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6636967 | Koyano | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6647128 | Rhoads | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6647129 | Rhoads | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6654501 | Acharya et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6661905 | Chupp et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6665419 | Oami | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6668068 | Hashimoto | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6671376 | Koto et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6671388 | Op De Beeck et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6674861 | Xu et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6674876 | Hannigan et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6675146 | Rhoads | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6678389 | Sun et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6681029 | Rhoads | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6683958 | Petrovic | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6697944 | Jones et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6700990 | Rhoads | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6704431 | Ogawa et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6707926 | Macy et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6721439 | Levy et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6728390 | Rhoads et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6737957 | Petrovic et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6738495 | Rhoads et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6744906 | Rhoads et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6748360 | Pitman et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6751337 | Tewfik et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6757405 | Muratani et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757908 | Vogel | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6760463 | Rhoads | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6768807 | Muratani | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6771797 | Ahmed | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6785399 | Fujihara | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6785401 | Walker et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6785815 | Serret-Avila et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6792542 | Lee et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6798893 | Tanaka | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6801999 | Venkatesan et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6810527 | Conrad et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6823455 | Macy et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6829368 | Meyer et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6829582 | Barsness | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6834344 | Aggarwal et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6834345 | Bloom et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6850555 | Barclay | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6850626 | Rhoads et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6856693 | Miller | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6871180 | Neuhauser et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6880082 | Ohta | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6888943 | Lam et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6891958 | Kirovski et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6912010 | Baker et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6912294 | Wang et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6912315 | Wong et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6915002 | Gustafson | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6915422 | Nakamura | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6915481 | Tewfik et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6928233 | Walker et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6931536 | Hollar | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6944313 | Donescu | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6944771 | Epstein | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6947571 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6947893 | Iwaki et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6952774 | Kirovski et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6954541 | Fan et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6961854 | Serret-Avila et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6973195 | Matsui | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6993154 | Brunk | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6996249 | Miller et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7007166 | Moskowitz et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7020304 | Alattar et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7024018 | Petrovic | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7043049 | Kuzma | May 2006 | B2 |
7043536 | Philyaw et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7043638 | McGrath et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7046808 | Metois et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7054461 | Zeller et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7054462 | Rhoads et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7058809 | White et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7058815 | Morin | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7068809 | Stach | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7072492 | Ogawa et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7103678 | Asai et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7107452 | Serret-Avila et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7111169 | Ripley et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7113613 | Echizen et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7123718 | Moskowitz et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7142691 | Levy | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7162642 | Schumann et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7164778 | Nakamura et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7167599 | Diehl | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7171020 | Rhoads et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7177429 | Moskowitz et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7197368 | Kirovski et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7206649 | Kirovski et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7224819 | Levy et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7231061 | Bradley | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7289643 | Brunk et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7298865 | Lubin et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7319759 | Peinado et al. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7321666 | Kunisa | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7334247 | Finseth et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7336802 | Kunisa | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7346514 | Herre et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7369677 | Petrovic et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7369678 | Rhoads | May 2008 | B2 |
7389421 | Kirovski et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7430670 | Horning et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7450727 | Griesinger | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7454019 | Williams | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7562392 | Rhoads et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7581103 | Home et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7587601 | Levy et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7616776 | Petrovic et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7617509 | Brunheroto et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7630497 | Lotspiech et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7644282 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7660991 | Nakamura et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7664332 | Wong et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7693297 | Zhang et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7698570 | Schumann et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7756272 | Kocher et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7788684 | Petrovic et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7788693 | Robbins | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7818763 | Sie et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7840006 | Ogawa et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7979881 | Wong et al. | Jul 2011 | B1 |
7983922 | Neusinger et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7986806 | Rhoads | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7991995 | Rabin et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8005258 | Petrovic et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8015410 | Pelly et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8055013 | Levy et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8059815 | Lofgren et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8138930 | Heath | Mar 2012 | B1 |
8151113 | Rhoads | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8155463 | Wong et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8189861 | Rucklidge | May 2012 | B1 |
8194803 | Baum et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8249992 | Harkness et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8315835 | Tian et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8346532 | Chakra et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8467717 | Croy et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8538066 | Petrovic et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8589969 | Falcon | Nov 2013 | B2 |
20010001159 | Ford | May 2001 | A1 |
20010021926 | Schneck et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010022786 | King et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010025341 | Marshall | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010044899 | Levy | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010051996 | Cooper et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20010054146 | Carro et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020007403 | Echizen et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020010684 | Moskowitz | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020012443 | Rhoads et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020019769 | Barritz et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020033844 | Levy et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020044659 | Ohta | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020052885 | Levy | May 2002 | A1 |
20020053026 | Hashimoto | May 2002 | A1 |
20020054089 | Nicholas et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020068987 | Hars | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020080964 | Stone et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020080976 | Schreer | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020082731 | Pitman et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020095577 | Nakamura et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020097873 | Petrovic | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020120849 | McKinley et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120854 | LeVine et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020126842 | Hollar | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020126872 | Brunk et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138734 | David et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020154144 | Lofgren et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020168087 | Petrovic | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178368 | Yin et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020199106 | Hayashi | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030009671 | Yacobi et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030012098 | Sako et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030012403 | Rhoads et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030016825 | Jones | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030021439 | Lubin et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030021441 | Levy et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030028796 | Roberts et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030031317 | Epstein | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030033321 | Schrempp et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037075 | Hannigan et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030053655 | Barone et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030056213 | McFaddin et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061489 | Pelly et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030063747 | Petrovic | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030072468 | Brunk et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030076955 | Alve et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030078891 | Capitant | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030081809 | Fridrich et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030112974 | Levy | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030112997 | Ahmed | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115504 | Holliman et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030131350 | Peiffer et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030152225 | Kunisa | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030174862 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030177359 | Bradley | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030179901 | Tian et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030185417 | Alattar et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030187679 | Odgers et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030188166 | Pelly et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030190054 | Troyansky et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030190055 | Kalker et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030200438 | Kirovski et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030223584 | Bradley et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040005076 | Hosaka et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040008864 | Watson et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040009763 | Stone et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010692 | Watson | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015400 | Whymark | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040025176 | Franklin et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040028255 | Miller | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040042635 | Epstein et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040042636 | Oh | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040073916 | Petrovic et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078575 | Morten et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088556 | Weirauch | May 2004 | A1 |
20040091111 | Levy et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040093202 | Fischer et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040093523 | Matsuzaki et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040098593 | Muratani | May 2004 | A1 |
20040101160 | Kunisa | May 2004 | A1 |
20040103293 | Ryan | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111740 | Seok et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040133794 | Kocher et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040136531 | Asano et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040151316 | Petrovic | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040169581 | Petrovic et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040174996 | Tewfik et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040202324 | Yamaguchi et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040204943 | Kirovski et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040216157 | Shain et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040250078 | Stach et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040258274 | Brundage et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040260930 | Malik et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050008190 | Levy et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050010779 | Kobayashi et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050013462 | Rhoads | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050025332 | Seroussi | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050050332 | Serret-Avila et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071283 | Randle et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071669 | Medvinsky et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050120220 | Oostveen et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144632 | Mears et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050154891 | Skipper | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050196051 | Wong et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050202781 | Steelberg et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050242568 | Long et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050251683 | Levy et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050267928 | Anderson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060005029 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060056653 | Kunisa | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060062426 | Levy et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060075424 | Talstra et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060104477 | Isogai et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060227968 | Chen et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060239501 | Petrovic et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070003103 | Lemma et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070005500 | Steeves et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070033146 | Hollar | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070039018 | Saslow et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070100483 | Kentish et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070110237 | Tehranchi et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070143617 | Farber et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070150418 | Ben-Menahem et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070168673 | Van Der Veen et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070177761 | Levy | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070192261 | Kelkar et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208711 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070214049 | Postrel | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070223708 | Villemoes et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080002854 | Tehranchi et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080016360 | Rodriguez et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080031463 | Davis | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080209219 | Rhein | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080219643 | Le Buhan et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080228733 | Davis et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080273861 | Yang et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080298632 | Reed | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080310629 | Van Der Veen et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080310673 | Petrovic et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080313741 | Alve et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090031134 | Levy | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090033617 | Lindberg et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090158318 | Levy | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090172405 | Shiomi et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090175594 | Ann et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090177674 | Yoshida | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090262932 | Petrovic | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090319639 | Gao et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090326961 | Petrovic et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100011217 | Tachibana et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100034513 | Nakano et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100069151 | Suchocki | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100115267 | Guo et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100121608 | Tian et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100146286 | Petrovic et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100159425 | Hamlin | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100162352 | Haga et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100214307 | Lee et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100226525 | Levy et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100228632 | Rodriguez | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100228857 | Petrovic et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100287579 | Petrovic et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100287609 | Gonzalez et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100332723 | Lin et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110016172 | Shah | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110068898 | Petrovic et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110091066 | Alattar | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110103444 | Baum et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110123063 | Delp et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110173210 | Ahn et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110202687 | Glitsch et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110209191 | Shah | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110214044 | Davis et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110214143 | Rits et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110219229 | Cholas et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110225427 | Wood et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110235908 | Ke et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110286625 | Petrovic et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110293090 | Ayaki et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110311056 | Winograd | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110320627 | Landow et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120017091 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120023595 | Speare et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120026393 | Petrovic et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120072729 | Winograd et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120072730 | Winograd et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120072731 | Winograd et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120084870 | Petrovic | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120130719 | Petrovic et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120203556 | Villette et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120265735 | McMillan et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120272012 | Aronovich et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120272327 | Shin et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120300977 | Petrovic et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120304206 | Roberts et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120308071 | Ramsdell et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130007462 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130011006 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130031579 | Klappert | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130073065 | Chen et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130108101 | Petrovic et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130114847 | Petrovic et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130114848 | Petrovic et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130117570 | Petrovic et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130117571 | Petrovic et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130129303 | Lee et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130132727 | Petrovic | May 2013 | A1 |
20130142382 | Petrovic et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130151855 | Petrovic et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130151856 | Petrovic et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130152210 | Petrovic et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130283402 | Petrovic | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130339029 | Petrovic et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140029786 | Winograd | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140067950 | Winograd | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140071342 | Winograd et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140074855 | Zhao et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140075465 | Petrovic et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140075466 | Zhao | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140075469 | Zhao | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140229963 | Petrovic et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140237628 | Petrovic | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140267907 | Downes et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140270337 | Zhao et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140270338 | Zhao et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140279296 | Petrovic et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140279549 | Petrovic et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140325550 | Winograd et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140325673 | Petrovic | Oct 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2276638 | Jan 2000 | CA |
282734 | Sep 1988 | EP |
372601 | Jun 1990 | EP |
581317 | Feb 1994 | EP |
1137250 | Sep 2001 | EP |
2166725 | Mar 2010 | EP |
2605485 | Jun 2013 | EP |
2653964 | Oct 2013 | EP |
2260246 | Apr 1993 | GB |
2292506 | Feb 1996 | GB |
2358313 | Jul 2001 | GB |
2363027 | Dec 2001 | GB |
10-150548 | Jun 1998 | JP |
11-086435 | Mar 1999 | JP |
11-284516 | Oct 1999 | JP |
11-346302 | Dec 1999 | JP |
2000-069273 | Mar 2000 | JP |
2000083159 | Mar 2000 | JP |
2000-174628 | Jun 2000 | JP |
2000163870 | Jun 2000 | JP |
2000216981 | Aug 2000 | JP |
2001022366 | Jan 2001 | JP |
2001-119555 | Apr 2001 | JP |
2001175270 | Jun 2001 | JP |
2001-188549 | Jul 2001 | JP |
2001-216763 | Aug 2001 | JP |
2001-218006 | Aug 2001 | JP |
2001245132 | Sep 2001 | JP |
2001257865 | Sep 2001 | JP |
2001-312570 | Nov 2001 | JP |
2001-527660 | Dec 2001 | JP |
2001339700 | Dec 2001 | JP |
2002-010057 | Jan 2002 | JP |
2002-024095 | Jan 2002 | JP |
2002-027223 | Jan 2002 | JP |
2002-091465 | Mar 2002 | JP |
2002091712 | Mar 2002 | JP |
2002100116 | Apr 2002 | JP |
2002125205 | Apr 2002 | JP |
2002135557 | May 2002 | JP |
2002-165191 | Jun 2002 | JP |
2002176614 | Jun 2002 | JP |
2002-519916 | Jul 2002 | JP |
2002-232693 | Aug 2002 | JP |
2002232412 | Aug 2002 | JP |
2002319924 | Oct 2002 | JP |
2002354232 | Dec 2002 | JP |
2003-008873 | Jan 2003 | JP |
2003-039770 | Feb 2003 | JP |
2003-091927 | Mar 2003 | JP |
2003134461 | May 2003 | JP |
2003-230095 | Aug 2003 | JP |
2003-244419 | Aug 2003 | JP |
2003-283802 | Oct 2003 | JP |
2003316556 | Nov 2003 | JP |
2003348324 | Dec 2003 | JP |
2004-023786 | Jan 2004 | JP |
2004070606 | Mar 2004 | JP |
2004-163855 | Jun 2004 | JP |
2004173237 | Jun 2004 | JP |
2004-193843 | Jul 2004 | JP |
2004194233 | Jul 2004 | JP |
2004-328747 | Nov 2004 | JP |
2005051733 | Feb 2005 | JP |
2005-094107 | Apr 2005 | JP |
2005525600 | Aug 2005 | JP |
20080539669 | Nov 2008 | JP |
20100272920 | Dec 2010 | JP |
5283732 | Jul 2013 | JP |
1020080087047 | Sep 2008 | KR |
20100009384 | Jan 2010 | KR |
1020120128149 | Nov 2012 | KR |
-94-10771 | May 1994 | WO |
-95-14289 | May 1995 | WO |
-97-09797 | Mar 1997 | WO |
-97-33391 | Sep 1997 | WO |
-98-53565 | Nov 1998 | WO |
-99-03340 | Jan 1999 | WO |
-99-39344 | May 1999 | WO |
-99-45706 | Oct 1999 | WO |
-99-62022 | Dec 1999 | WO |
-00-00969 | Jan 2000 | WO |
-00-13136 | Mar 2000 | WO |
-00-56059 | Sep 2000 | WO |
-01-54035 | Jul 2001 | WO |
0150665 | Jul 2001 | WO |
-01-55889 | Aug 2001 | WO |
0197128 | Dec 2001 | WO |
0219589 | Mar 2002 | WO |
0223883 | Mar 2002 | WO |
0249363 | Jun 2002 | WO |
0295727 | Nov 2002 | WO |
03052598 | Jun 2003 | WO |
03102947 | Dec 2003 | WO |
2005017827 | Feb 2005 | WO |
-05-27501 | Mar 2005 | WO |
2005038778 | Apr 2005 | WO |
2006051043 | May 2006 | WO |
2006116394 | Nov 2006 | WO |
2010073236 | Jul 2010 | WO |
2011116309 | Sep 2011 | WO |
2013067439 | May 2013 | WO |
2013090462 | Jun 2013 | WO |
2013090466 | Jun 2013 | WO |
2013090467 | Jun 2013 | WO |
2014144101 | Sep 2014 | WO |
2014153199 | Sep 2014 | WO |
2014160324 | Oct 2014 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 28, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/066138, filed Nov. 20, 2012 (11 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jan. 4, 2008 for International Application No. PCT/US2006/015615, filed Apr. 25, 2006 (5 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 14, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/069308, filed Dec. 12, 2012 (10 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 18, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/063431, filed Nov. 2, 2012 (10 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 25, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/069302, filed Dec. 12, 2012 (22 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 28, 2012 for International Application No. PCT/US2011/051855, filed Sep. 15, 2011 (8 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 13, 2008 for International Application No. PCT/US2006/025090, filed Jun. 27, 2006 (2 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 19, 2004 for International Application No. PCT/US2003/031816, filed Apr. 29, 2004 (3 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 29, 2008 for International Application No. PCT/US2006/015410, filed Apr. 21, 2006 (6 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 26, 2008 for International Application No. PCT/US2007/016812, filed Jul. 25, 2007 (6 pages). |
Jacobsmeyer, J., et al., “Introduction to error-control coding,” Pericle Communications Company, 2004 (16 pages). |
Kalker, T., et al., “A security risk for publicly available watermark detectors,” Proc. Benelux Info. Theory Symp., Veldhoven, The Netherlands, May 1998 (7 pages). |
Kalker, T., et al., “System issues in digital image and video watermarking for copy protection,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Multimedia Computing and Systems, pp. 562-567, Jun. 1999. |
Kim, T.Y., et al., “An asymmetric watermarking system with many embedding watermarks corresponding to one detection watermark,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 3(11):375-377, Mar. 2004. |
Kirovski, D., et al., “Multimedia content screening using a dual watermarking and fingerprinting system,” Proceedings of the tenth ACM international conference, pp. 372-381, 2002. |
Kirovski, D., et al., “Randomizing the replacement attack,” ICASSP, pp. 381-384, 2004. |
Kirovski, D., et al., “Robust spread-spectrum audio watermarking,” IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 3:1345-1348, 2001. |
Kirovski, D., et al., “Multimedia content; screening using a dual watermarking and fingerprinting system,” Multimedia '02 Proceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on Multimedia, 2002 (11 pages). |
Kocher, P., et al., “Self-Protecting Digital Content: A Technical Report from the CRI Content Security Research Initiative,” Cryptography Research, Inc. (CRI), 2002-2003 (14 pages). |
Kutter, M., et al., “The watermark; copy attack,” Proc. of the SPIE: Security and Watermarking of Multimedia Content II, 3971:1-10, Jan. 2000. |
Kuznetsov, A.V., et al., “An error correcting scheme for defective memory,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 6(4):712-718, Nov. 1978 (7 pages). |
Lacy, J., et al., “Intellectual property protection systems and digital watermarking,” Proceedings: Information Hiding, Second International Workshop, Portland, Oregon, pp. 158-168, 1998. |
Lin, E.T., et al., “Detection of image alterations using semi-fragile watermarks,” Proceedings of the SPIE International Conference on Security and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents II, Jan. 2000 (12 pages). |
Lin, P.L., et al., “Robust transparent image watermarking system with spatial mechanisms,” The Journal of Systems and Software, 50:107-116, Feb. 2000. |
Lotspeich, J., “The Advanced Access Content System's Use of Digital Watermarking,” MCPS '06, Oct. 28, 2006, pp. 19-21. |
Lu, C.S., et al., “Oblivious cocktail watermarking by sparse code shrinkage: A regional-and global-based scheme,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 4(2):209-224, Dec. 2000. |
Mason, A. J., et al., “User requirements for watermarking in broadcast applications,” IEEE Conference Publication, International Broadcasting Convention (BC 2000), Amsterdam, Sep. 8-12, 2000 (7 pages). |
Mintzer, F., et al., “If one watermark is good, are more better?,” Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP, 4:2067-2069, Mar. 1999. |
Mobasseri, B.G., et al. “Content authentication and tamper detection in digital video,” Image Processing Proceedings, International Conference, 1:458-461, 2000. |
Moulin, P., et al., “Detection-theoretic analysis of desynchronization attacks in watermarking, ” Technical Report MSR-TR-2002-24, Microsoft Corporation, Mar. 2002. |
Muranoi, R., et al., “Video retrieval method using shotID for copyright protection systems,” Proc. SPIE Multimedia Storage and Archiving Systems III, 3527:245-252, Nov. 1998. |
Nikolaidis, N., et al., “Watermark detection: benchmarking perspectives,” 2002 IEEE Conference on Multimedia and Expo, 2002 (4 pages). |
Office Action dated Jan. 20, 2014 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2013-036990 (6 pages). |
Office Action dated Jul. 21, 2011 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2008-508985 (6 pages). |
Office Action dated Mar. 16, 2012 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2008-508985 (8 pages). |
Office Action dated Mar. 18, 2011 for European Patent Application No. 03774648.4 (6 pages). |
Office Action dated May 1, 2013 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2011-114667 (6 pages). |
Office Action dated Nov. 26, 2012 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2011-114667 (8 pages). |
Office Action dated Nov. 28, 2012 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2011-114666 (8 pages). |
Park, J.H., et al., “Robust and fragile watermarking techniques for documents using bidirectional diagonal profiles,” Information and Communications Security: Third International Conference, Xian, China, Nov. 2001, pp. 483-494. |
Perez-Gonzalez, F., et al., “Approaching the capacity limit in image watermarking a perspective on coding techniques for data hiding applications,” Signal Processing, 6(81):1215-1238 Jun. 2001. |
Petitcolas, F.A.P., et al., “Attacks; on copyright marking systems,” Second Workshop on Information Hiding, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Portland, Oregon, pp. 218-238, Apr. 1998. |
Philips Research Liquid Audio Fraunhofer Institute, “Digital Audio Screening Technology for Phased Rollout,” Version 1.00, May 1999 (38 pages). |
Pytlak, J., “Anti-piracy coding,” http://www.tele.com/pipermail/tig/2003-November/003842.html; Nov. 2003 (2 pages). |
RSA Laboratories, “Frequently asked questions about today's cryptography,” Version 4.1, May 2000 (37 pages). |
Schneier, B., “Applied cryptography, second edition: protocols, algorithms and source code in C,” Oct. 1995 (10 pages). |
Seok, J., et al., “A novel audio watermarking algorithm for copyright protection of digital audio,” ETRI Journal, 24 (3):181-189, Jun. 2002. |
Shih, F.Y., et al., “Combinational, image watermarking in the spatial and frequency domains,” Pattern Recognition, 36:696-975, May 2002. |
Spangler, T., “Social Science,” http://www.multichannel.com/content/social-science, Sep. 2011 (5 pages). |
Steinebach, M., et al., “StirMark benchmark: audio; watermarking attacks,” International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing (ITCC 2001), Las Vegas, Nevada, Apr. 2001 (6 pages). |
Das, et al., “Distributed Priority Queues on Hybercube Architectures,” IEEE, 1996, pp. 620-627. |
Maehara, F., et al., “A proposal of multimedial home education terminal system based on flash-squeak OS,” Technical report of the institute of image information and television engineers, 28(43):21-24, Jul. 2004. |
Office Action dated May 8, 2012 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-522802 (4 pages). |
European Search Report dated Apr. 12, 2012 for European Patent Application No. 07836262.1 filed Jul. 25, 2007 (12 pages). |
“Advanced Access Content System (AACS), Pre-recorded Video Book,” Revision 0.951, Sep. 2009 (86 pages). |
“Civolution's 2nd screen synchronisation solution wins CSI product of the year 2011 award at IBC,” IBC Press Release, Hall 2—Stand C30, Sep. 2011 (2 pages). |
“Content Protection—Self Protecting Digital Content,” http://www.cryptography.com/technology/spdc/index.html, May 2010 (1 page). |
“Microsoft response to CfP for technology solutions to screen digital audio content for LCM acceptance,” Microsoft Corporation, May 23, 1999 (9 pages). |
“Red Bee and Civolution develop companion app for FX UK,” http://www.digitaltveurope.net/19981/red-bee-and-civolution-develop-companion-app-for-fx-uk, Jan. 2012 (2 pages). |
“Task AC122-copy protection for distribution services,” Http://acad.bg/WISE/english/rd/partners/acts/areal/ac122-t.html, Jul. 1, 1997 (2 pages). |
Adelsbach, A., et al., “Proving Ownership of Digital Content,” Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Information Hiding, 1768:117-133, Sep. 1999. |
Aggarwal, A., et al., “Multi-Layer Grid Embeddings,” Foundations of Computer Science, 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 85:186-196, Oct. 1985. |
Aris Technologies, Inc. “Audio Watermarking System to Screen Digital Audio Content for LCM Acceptance,” May 1999 (17 pages). |
Bangaleea, R., et al., “Performance improvement of spread spectrum spatial-domain watermarking scheme through diversity and attack characterisation,” IEEE Africon, pp. 293-298, 2002. |
Barreto, P.S.L.M., et al. “Toward Secure Public-Key Blockwise Fragile Authentication Watermarking,” IEEE Proceedings Vision, Image, and Signal Processing, 149(2):57-62, Apr. 2002. |
Boney, L., et al., “Digital Watermarks for Audio Signals,” Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Minnesota, Mar. 1996 (4 pages). |
Cappellini, V., et al. “Robust Frame-based Watermarking for Digital Video,” Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, Sep. 2001 (5 pages). |
Caronni, G., “Assuring Ownership Rights for Digital; Images,” Proceedings of reliable IT systems VIS 95, Vieweg Publishing Company, Germany, 1995 (10 pages). |
Chou, J., et al., “A Robust Blind Watermarking Scheme based on Distributed Source Coding Principles,” Multimedial 2000 Proceedings of the eighth ACM international conference on multimedia, Los Angeles, California, 2000 (8 pages). |
Chou, J., et al., “A Robust Optimization Solution to the Data Hiding Problem using Distributed Source Coding Principles,” Pro. SPIE, 3971, San Jose, California, Jan. 2000 (10 pages). |
Cinea, Inc., “Forensic watermarking deterring video piracy,” 2004, (9 pages).; [http://www.cinea.com/whitepapers/forensic—watermarking.pdf]. |
Costa, M., “Writing on Dirty Paper,” IEEE Trans. on Info. Theory, 29(3):439-441, May 1983. |
Cox, I. J., et al., “Some general methods for tampering with watermarks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 16(4): 587-593, May 1998. |
Coxford, A., et al., “Advanced Mathematics: A Preparation for Calculus, Second Edition,” Harcourt Brace Jovanovish, Inc., 1978 (14 pages). |
Davidson, M.F., “Music File Filter,” Sony Music, New York, May 23, 1999 (2 pages). |
Digimarc Corporation, “Digimarc Watermarking Guide,” 1999 (22 pages). |
Dittmann, J., “Combining digital watermarks and collusion secure fingerprints for customer copy monitoring,” Proc. IEEE Seminar on Secure Images and Image Authentication, Apr. 2000 (6 pages). |
Dittmann, J., et al., “Combining digital watermarks and collusion secure fingerprints for digital images,” Proc. SPIE 3657:171-182, Jan. 1999 (12 pages). |
Epp, L.W., et al., “Generalized scattering matrices for unit cell characterization of grid amplifiers and device de-embedding,” IEEE, 2:1288-1291, Jun. 1995. |
European Search Report dated Jul. 3, 2012 for European Patent Application No. 12150742.0, filed Oct. 7, 2003 (5 pages). |
European Search Report dated Nov. 10, 2010 for European Patent Application No. 03774648.4, filed Oct. 7, 2003 (5 pages). |
European Search Report dated Nov. 8, 2012 for European Patent Application No. 06785709.4, filed Jun. 27, 2006 (5 pages). |
European Search Report dated Oct. 24, 2012 for European Patent Application No. 06758537.2, filed Apr. 21, 2006 (6 pages). |
European Search Report dated Oct. 31, 2012 for European Patent Application No. 06758577.8, filed Apr. 25, 2006 (6 pages). |
Furon, T., et al., “An asymmetric watermarking; method,” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, 4(51):981-995, Apr. 2003. |
Guth, H.J., et al., “Error-and collusion-secure fingerprinting for digital data,” Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Information Hiding, LNCS 1768:134-145, Sep./Oct. 1999. |
Hartung, F., et al., “Digital watermarking of MPEG-2 coded video in the bitstream domain,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 4:2621-2624, Apr. 1997. |
Hartung, F., et al., “Watermarking of MPEG-2 encoded video without decoding and re-coding,” Proc. SPIE Multimedia Computing and Networking 97, 3020:264-274, Feb. 1997. |
Hartung, F., et al., “Watermarking of uncompressed and compressed video,” Signal Processing, 3(66):283-301, May 1998. |
Heegard, C., et al., “On the capacity of computer memory with defects,” IEEE Trans. Info. Theory, 5(IT-29):731-739, Sep. 1983. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 12, 2014 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/035474, filed Apr. 25, 2014 (17 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 15, 2014 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/035539, filed Apr. 25, 2014 (16 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 24, 2012 for International Application No. PCT/US2011/051857, filed Sep. 15, 2011 (9 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 8, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/069306, filed Dec. 12, 2012 (12 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 14, 1998 for International Application No. PCT/US1998/009587, filed May 12, 1998 (3 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 25, 2014 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/029564, filed Mar. 14, 2014 (10 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 22, 2007 for International Application No. PCT/US2006/031267, filed Aug. 9, 2006 (2 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 25, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/026322, filed Aug. 25, 2014 (12 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 8, 2014 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/028372, filed Mar. 14, 2014 (18 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 14, 2002 for International Application No. PCT/US2001/026505, filed Aug. 27, 2001 (2 pages). |
Tanaka, K., et al., “Secret transmission method of character data in motion picture communication,” SPIE Visual Communications and Image Processing '91, 1605:646-649, 1991. |
Tsai, M.J., et al., “Wavelet packet and adaptive spatial transformation of watermark for digital image authentication,” IEEE Image Processing, 2000 International Conference, 1:450-453, 2000 (4 pages). |
Verance Corporation, “Confirmedia,” PowerPoint presentation made to National Association of Broadcasters, Apr. 24, 2001 (40 pages). |
Wang, X, et al., “Robust correlation of encrypted attack traffic through stepping stones by manipulation of interpacket delays,” Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on computer communications security, Oct. 27-30, 2003, Washington D.C., USA. |
Wolfgang, R., et al., “Perceptual watermarks for digital images and video,” Proceedings of the IEEE, 87 (7):1108-1126, Jul. 1999. |
Xu, C., et al., “Applications of digital watermarking technology in audio signals,” Journal of Audio Eng. Soc., 10 (47):805-812, Oct. 1999. |
Yeung, M. M., et al., “An invisible watermarking technique for image verification,” Image Processing, International Conference Proceedings, 2:680-683, Oct. 26-29, 1997. |
Zhao, J., “A WWW service to embed and prove digital copyright watermarks,” Proc. European Conf. on Multimedia Applications, Services and Techniques (ECMAST'96), May 1996 (15 pages). |
Zhao, J., “Applying digital watermarking techniques to online multimedia commerce,” Proc. Int. Conf. on Imaging Science, Systems and Applications (CISSA'97), Jun./Jul. 1997 (7 pages). |
Chen, B. et al., “Quantization index modulation: a class of provably good methods for digital watermarking and information embedding,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 47(4):1423-1443, May 2001. |
Kang, X., et al., “A DWT-DFT composite watermarking scheme robust to both affine transform and JPEG compression,” IEEE Transactions On Circuits and Systems For Video Technology, 8(13):776-786, Aug. 2003. |
Petitcolas, F., et al., “The blind pattern matching attack on watermark systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, Apr. 2003 (4 pages). |
Solanki, K., et al., “Robust image-adaptive data hiding: modeling, source coding and channel coding”, 41st Allerton Conference on Communications, Control and Computing, Oct. 2003 (10 pages). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140029786 A1 | Jan 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60696146 | Jul 2005 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13220526 | Aug 2011 | US |
Child | 14038621 | US | |
Parent | 11479958 | Jun 2006 | US |
Child | 13220526 | US |