1. Field of the Invention
In general, the systems and methods of this invention relate to documents having associated rights. In particular, the systems and methods of this invention relate to documents having a hierarchical right structure and a system and method of assigning those rights.
2. Description of Related Art
Digital rights management (DRM) describes a process of attaching usage rights to a digital work, such as eContent, as well as managing and enforcing the same rights. In general, these digital works and eContent can include any type of content, such as music, books, multimedia presentations, eBooks, video information, or the like. In general, any information that is capable of being stored can be protected through the use of digital rights management. For example, a digital book could be accompanied by a license establishing conditions, such as viewing, printing, borrowing, or the like, governing the book's usage. These rights could then be controlled by, for example, an associated reader's software, and the allowable transactions, such as buying, printing, or the like, authorized by, for example, a clearinghouse.
One of the most important issues impeding the widespread distribution of digital works as documents via electronic means, such as the internet, is the lack of protection of intellectual property rights of content owners during the distribution, dissemination and use of those digital documents. Efforts to overcome this problem have been termed “intellectual property rights management” (IPRM), “digital property rights management” (DPRM), “intellectual property management” (IPM), “rights management” (RM) and “electronic copyright management” (ECM), which can be collectively referred to as Digital Rights Management (DRM). There are a number of issues in Digital Rights Management including authentication, authorization, accounting, payment and financial clearing, rights specifications, rights verification, rights enforcement, document protection, and the like.
In the world of printed documents, a work created by an author is typically provided to a publisher, which formats and prints numerous copies of the work. The copies are then distributed to bookstores or other retail outlets, from which the copies are purchased by end users. While the low quality of physical copying, and the high cost of distributing printed material have served as deterrents to unauthorized copying of most printed documents, digital documents allow easy copying, modification, and redistribution if they are unprotected. Accordingly, digital rights management allows the protecting of digital documents to, for example, complicate copying, modifying and redistributing.
Similarly, it has been widely recognized that it is difficult to prevent, or even deter, individuals from making unauthorized distributions of electronic documents within current general-purpose computer and communication systems such as personal computers, workstations, and other devices connected via a distributed network, such as a local area network, an intranet and the Internet. Many attempts to provide hardware-based solutions to prevent unauthorized copying have proven to be unsuccessful. Furthermore, the proliferation of broadband communications technologies and the development of the “national information infrastructure” (NII) will likely make it even more convenient to distribute large documents electronically, thus removing most deterrents to any unauthorized distribution of documents. Therefore, digital rights management technologies provide one method of protecting digital documents distributed electronically.
Two basic schemes have been employed to attempt to solve the document protection problem. In particular, the two basic schemes are secure containers and trusted systems. A secure container, or simply an encrypted document, offers one method of keeping document contents encrypted until a set of authorization parameters are satisfied. After the various parameters are verified, for example, by the document provider, the document can be released to a user. Commercial products such as IBM's Cryptolopes® and InterTrusts Digiboxes® fall into this category. While the secure container approach provides a solution to protect the document during delivery over unsecure channels, it does not provide any mechanism to prevent legitimate users from obtaining the unencrypted document, and then, for example, using and redistributing the unprotected document without authorization.
In the trusted system approach, the entire system that handles, for example, the distribution and viewing of a document, is responsible for preventing unauthorized use. Building such a trusted system usually entails introducing new hardware such as a secure processor, a secure storage, and secure rendering devices. The trusted system also requires that all software applications that run on the system be certificate to be trusted.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,530,235, 5,634,012, 5,715,403, 5,638,443 and 5,629,980, which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety, generally discuss digital rights management. In general, an author creates a document and forwards it to a distributor for distribution. Typically, the author is the creator of the content, however, the author can be any one of the creator, the owner, the editor, or any other entity controlling a portion of content, or an agent of one of those entities. The author may distribute documents directly, without involving a secondary party such as a distributor. Therefore, the author and the distributor may be the same entity. A distributor can distribute documents to one or more users, for example, upon request. In a typical electronic distribution model, the content can be distributed as a document in encrypted form. For example, a distributor can encrypt the content with a random key, having encrypted the random key with a public key corresponding to one or more users. Thus, the encrypted document can be customized solely for a particular user. The user is then able to use the private key to unencrypt the public key and use the public key to unencrypt and view the document.
Payment for the document can be passed from a user to a distributor by way of a clearinghouse which can collect requests from one or more users who wish to view a particular document. The clearinghouse can also collect payment information, such as debit transactions, credit transactions, credit card transactions, or other known electronic payment schemes and forward the collected payments to a distributor. Furthermore, the clearinghouse may retain a share of the payment as a fee for these services. The distributor may also retain a portion of the payment from the clearinghouse to cover, for example, distribution services and royalties due an author.
Each time the user requests a document, an accounting message can be sent to an accounting server that can, for example, ensure that each request by the user matches a document sent by the distributor. Additionally, the accounting information can be received by an accounting server and distributor to reconcile any inconsistencies.
Expanding on the above concepts, it may be beneficial to have hierarchical rights assigned to one or more digital works. For example, a first user can be granted the right to use a document which may, for example, involve a fee, and in addition, the user has the right to transfer the same or different rights to a second user. Expanding further, the second user may also have the right to assign specified rights to a third user. In general, the hierarchical rights can be distributed in steps similar to a pyramid scheme or tree structure, and the assigned rights in each branch of the structure could be the same or different from those in any other branch. In general, the closer the user would be to the document author, the higher the authority and more rights the user would have access to. However, depending on the particular implementation, the content owner may want to deviate from the general rule by limiting the power or rights of one or more of the nodes near the root. For example, a publisher may want a distributor to distribute a book and grant the rights to read the book to an end user for a fee. However, the publisher may not want to provide the distributor with the right to read the book, unless, for example, the distributor also pays for a view right comparable to the end user. This hierarchical rights scheme can be used in the distribution chain from content owners to distributors, to secondary distributors, to end users, or the like. In general, hierarchical rights can be associated with any information by anyone or any entity.
In an exemplary aspect of the invention, there is provided a self-contained device for protecting content, the content having usage rights associated therewith, including a usage rights portion having usage rights that control the use of the content; a rights management module that authorizes a request to access to the content based on the usage rights; a rights assignment module that generates and updates the usage rights based on the content access; and an interface module that allows accessing of the content.
Further aspects of the present invention relate to digital rights management. In particular, an exemplary embodiment of the invention provides for the management of hierarchical digital rights.
A further aspect of the invention provides users the ability to assign hierarchical rights, and the management of information having the associated hierarchical rights.
An additional aspect of the invention relates to determining a user's usage rights based on the hierarchical rights associated with the document.
An additional aspect of the invention relates to information having one or more associated hierarchical rights.
These and other features and advantages of this invention are described in or are apparent from the following detailed description of the embodiments.
The embodiments of the invention will be described in detail, with reference to the following figures wherein:
The assignment of hierarchical rights allows, for example, even greater control by an author over one or more documents. This hierarchical rights assignment further allows for greater control throughout the document distribution chain extending to, for example, distributors, secondary distributors, users, or the like. Therefore, a graphical representation of the rights associated with the document could appear as a series of interconnected nodes each having an associated portion of rights.
An exemplary embodiment of the systems and methods of this invention can also include a rights-on-rights scheme in which, for example, a counter or other system manages the various layers, nodes and branches to regulate, for example, the rights to change, edit, assign, revoke, transfer other rights, or the like, to one or more additional layers. Since rights can be treated as an object class, for example using XML, rights can include themselves and thus refer to itself as, for example, an iteration. For example, a user can transfer the rights-on-rights for a maximum of two layers of the right assignment tree which could, for example, further limit and control the overall distribution of both the rights and the document. Therefore, the rights of the user may be different from the rights a user can assign or transfer in the hierarchical structure.
Additionally, for example, the rights to change, edit, copy, sign, or the like, can be passed on from the owner to the user. Associated with one or more of these rights can be document tracking actions. For example, using a digital signature, a document can manage and record its path of distribution, recording each user's interactivity with the document, including, for example, any assignment and/or distribution action, or any other information that may be relevant. Therefore, it is possible that a document will have associated therewith multiple signatures that represent, for example, a “snapshot” of the document as it was available to that particular user. For example, a second user can add, subtract, modify, edit, or the like, the content of a document which has already been signed by a first user. These modifications by the second user are then “signed,” recording that user's interactions with the document. Both versions of the document then can be stored, for example, in a database, for reference, accounting, profiling, or the like.
Additionally, the right to use a document can be content-based or role-based, as is described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,976,009, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Assigning Conditional or Consequential Rights to Documents and Documents Having Such Rights,” incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. For example, the president of a company may want to be the only one authorized to use a particular document. If the present of the company changes, the new president can automatically become the right holder, assuming the president can verify, for example, their position using, for example, biometrics, a smart card, an identification card, or comparable identification device or scheme. This allows the assignment of rights to be separate from the assignment of the position.
Similarly, the systems and methods of this invention can be used in conjunction with rights editing tools and templates such as those discussed in U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/261,753, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Editing and Specifying the Rights and Conditions Associated with Documents or Digital Contents,” incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. For example, rights can be assigned through the use of templates that can aid in the assignment of rights to one or more classes of users based on, for example, a job position, a geographic location, a profile, an identifier, or the like.
Furthermore, this concept extends itself into the medical field. For example, where medical records are used by a doctor, the medical records can contain usage rights for a certain class or field of individuals. This can, for example, satisfy both the concerns regarding the patient's safety and the patient's privacy by limiting access to one or more documents.
Additionally, for example, the role-based or content-based rights can be used for access to movies with, for example, adult content to restrict a particular class of individuals from viewing the content. An attempt to access the restricted content can be recorded and, for example, reported to the proper party. Furthermore, the parent can be viewed as a node in the hierarchical right assignment structure such that the parent can obtain a template or toolkit for right assignment, right modification and right customization, and then transfer the rights to one or more children. The parent could then update and modify, for example using an age-based right assignment scheme with or without corresponding templates, the child's rights as, for example, the child grows.
While the exemplary embodiment illustrated in
Furthermore, the links 5 can be a wired or wireless link or any other known or later developed element(s) that is capable of supplying and communicating data to and from the connected elements. Additionally, the input devices can include, for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a speech to text converter, a stylus, a mouse, or the like. In general, the input device can be any device capable of communicating information to the document 100. Furthermore, the display device can be a computer monitor, a display on a PDA, an E-Book, or any other device capable of displaying information to one or more users.
In operation, a user, such as a document creator, associates rights with the document 100. In particular, via the interface module 150 and one or more of an input device and display device, a user inputs rights to associate with the document 100. In cooperation with the right management module 110 and the right assignment module 120, the rights are associated with the document 100. In this exemplary embodiment, it is assumed that the content owner, or author, is not responsible for any type of accounting procedure, e.g., crediting or debiting, associated with assigning rights to the document 100. However, it is to be appreciated that for a particular embodiment, it may be desirable to credit or debit a user based on the user associating rights with a document 100. However, as previously discussed, the association and assignment of rights can be performed by, for example, one or more external rights assignment system that associates one or more hierarchical rights with the document 100.
For example, an employee of a newspaper may be hired to write an article on a particular topic. On completion of the article, the journalist could assigned view, edit and distribution rights to the publisher. Then, for example, upon assignment of these rights and distribution of the document to the publisher, the author could be credited for their work.
Alternatively, a user may receive a document 100 and wish to modify the rights associated with that document. Thus, the right management module 110 determines the available assignable rights associated with the document 100. Then, via the interface module 150, and one or more of the input and display devices, the rights that are to be assigned by the user are received. Next, a determination is made by the right management module 110 as to whether the assignment is allowable. For example, the rights associated with the document 100 can restrict based on, for example, the user, the distribution history, another users' interaction with the document, or the like, whether the current user's request to modify the associated rights is allowable. If the right assignment module 120 determines that the user's request is not allowed, a message can be forwarded to the user indicating the like. However, if the assignment is determined allowable by the right assignment module 120, an optional determination can be made by the accounting module 160 as to whether any accounting functions need be performed. If accounting functions need be performed, the accounting module 160 can perform any necessary crediting and/or debiting as appropriate. For example, the accounting module 160 can contact an accounting system (not shown) which could authorize the user's transaction. Alternatively, for example, the accounting module 160 can interface with a user, for example, via a smart card, a credit card interface, or the like, and correctly debit and/or credit a user's account. However, it is to be appreciated that the accounting module 160 need not perform any function whatsoever if the rights associated with the document so specify, for example, in a document that is available for inspection and comment. Furthermore, it is appreciated that the accounting module 160 need not perform the accounting functions in real time, but can perform them on an as needed basis, in a batch, or the like. For example, if the document 100 is an E-Book, the accounting module 160 could debit every user that views the contents of the E-Book as it is passed around. Then, upon return of the E-Book to, for example, a library, the accounting module 160 can synchronize with, for example, an accounting system that performs any necessary accounting functions.
In general, if the accounting is required and is successful, the rights chosen by the user are associated with the document. However, if, for example, the accounting function is not allowed, a message can be forwarded to a user indicating that there is a problem.
After the association of the updated rights with the document by the document updating module 170, the tracking module 130 can optionally maintain a history, for example, with the use of a digital signature, of the rights updates, or any other updates, such as edits, or the like, made by this particular user. This information can then be associated with the document with the cooperation of the tracking module 130.
In use, a user receives one or more documents 100 for viewing, editing, modifying, updating, distributing, or the like. Upon receipt of the document 100, the right management module 110 determines the rights available to that user. If the user's usage request corresponds to the rights available to that user, the right usage determination module 140, in cooperation with the right management module 110, allows the user's request. Furthermore, based on the user's usage request, the document updating module 170 can allow the user to, for example, edit, update, or otherwise modify the document 110.
However, if the user's usage request does not correspond to the usage rights available to that user, a message can be forwarded to the user requesting, for example, an alternative usage request be entered, or denying access to the document. Optionally, the tracking module 130 can also maintain a log of user access attempts and rights requests for the document.
In this exemplary embodiment, the user 210, based on the delegation rights 244, has the ability to further distribute the rights to one or more additional users. In this example, the user 210 distributes the document 240 to user 220. Therefore, the user 220 will have a version of the document 240 that has associated usage rights 242 and delegation rights 244. These usage rights 242 and delegation rights 244 may be a subset of, or may comprise additional rights not present in the usage rights and/or delegation rights granted to the user 210.
User 230 possesses two documents 250 and 260. The document 250 comprises associated usage rights 252 and delegation rights 254. Likewise, the document 260 comprises usage rights 262 and delegation rights 264. The user 230 then has the ability, based on the available rights, to modify one or more of the usage rights and/or delegation rights and forward them to one or more additional parties. In this manner, a hierarchical structure of usage rights and delegation rights extends from the content owner in a tree-like structure through one or more users.
Document 320 allows user K to have view rights and the right to delegate view rights to one additional layer. Upon granting of these view rights, user W has view rights to the document.
For document 330, the content owner 300 granted user V a print usage right, and no delegation rights. Thus, the document 330 cannot be further delegated and may, for example, become inaccessible after V has exercised the print right.
Document 340 provides user E print rights, and the right to delegate view rights to two additional layers. Upon delegation of these rights, user F has view rights and the right to delegate view rights to two additional users on one further layer. Upon delegation of these rights, users G and H would both be able to view the document 340.
For document 350, the content owner 300 has provided user Z with full rights. Thus, user Z has the ability to assign any delegation and/or usage rights to the document 350. Thus, the document 350 can be further distributed and/or used based on the updated rights based on the rights user Z associates with the document.
Document 360 allows user Q to have distribution rights to unlimited users, and the ability to delegate view rights to each of these users. Thus, user Q can delegate view rights to one or more users X who can view the document, for example, on a pay-per-view basis.
While the exemplary embodiment illustrated in
In step S130, the rights one or more users desire to have associated with the document are received. Next, in step S140, it is determined whether the assignment of these rights is allowable. If the assignment is allowable, control continues to step S160. Otherwise, control jumps to step S150. In step S150, a message can be forwarded to the user indicating the assignment is not available. Control then optionally continues back to step S130.
In step S160, an optional accounting function can be performed. If accounting is necessary, control continues to step S170. Otherwise, control jumps to step S200.
In step S170, any necessary accounting functions are attempted. Then, in step S180, a determination is made whether the accounting, e.g., any crediting and/or debiting, is allowed. If the accounting functions are successful, control jumps to step S200. Otherwise, control continues to step S190 where a message can be forwarded to the user and control returns back to step S130.
In step S200, the right as chosen by the one or more users are associated with the document. Then, in step S210, the document can be updated reflecting, for example, which usage rights were used, the effect of any of these usage rights, a signature of the user and, for example, any modifications to or assignment of delegation rights. Control then continues to step S200 where the control sequence ends.
In step S330, a determination is made whether the user's right request is allowable. If the usage request is not allowable, control continues to step S340. Otherwise, control jumps to step S350.
In step S340, a message can be forwarded to the user indicating the requested usage, i.e., the usage or the delegation request, is not allowable. Control then optionally jumps back to step S320.
In step S350, a determination is made whether an accounting function is to be performed based on, for example, the usage request or the delegation request. If accounting functions are to be performed, control continues to step S360. Otherwise, control jumps to step S390.
In step S360, the accounting functions are attempted. Then, in step S370, a determination is made whether the accounting functions are allowed. If the accounting functions are allowed, control continues to step S380. Otherwise, control jumps to step S390.
In step S380, a message can be forwarded to the user indicating, for example, that the crediting and/or debiting authorization failed. Control then can, for example, jump back to step S320 or, optionally, the user can be prompted for additional accounting information.
In step S390, one or more of the usage rights or delegation rights is allowed. Control then continues to step S400, where the control sequence ends.
As illustrated in
Furthermore, the disclosed method may be readily implemented in software using object or object-oriented software development environments that provide portable source code that can be used on a variety of computer or workstation hardware platforms. Alternatively, the disclosed document and right management system may be implemented partially or fully in hardware using standard logic circuits or VLSI design. Whether hardware or software is used to implement the systems and methods in accordance with this invention is dependent on the speed and/or efficiency requirements of the system, the particular function, and a particular software and/or hardware systems or microprocessor or microcomputer systems being utilized. The document and rights management systems illustrated herein, however, can be readily implemented in hardware and/or software using any known or later-developed systems or structures, devices and/or software by those of ordinary skill in the applicable art from the functional description provided herein and with a general basic knowledge of the computer arts.
Moreover, the disclosed methods may be readily implemented as software executed on a programmed general purpose computer, a special purpose computer, a microprocessor or the like. In these instances, the methods and systems of this invention can be implemented as a program embedded in a personal computer, an E-Book, a secure container, or the like, such as a Java® or CGI script, as an XML document, as a resource residing on a server or graphics workstation, as a routine embedded in a dedicated electronic document, an electronic document viewer, or the like. The document and rights management system can also be implemented by physically incorporating the systems and methods into a hardware and/or software system, such as the hardware and software systems of a computer or dedicated electronic document.
It is, therefore, apparent that there has been provided, in accordance with the present invention, systems and methods for managing electronic documents. While this invention has been described in conjunction with a number of embodiments, it is evident that many alternatives, modifications and variations would be or are apparent to those of ordinary skill in the applicable art. Accordingly, applicants intend to embrace all such alternatives, modifications and variations that are within the spirit and scope of this invention.
This application is a divisional application of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/111,853 of Tadayon, et al. filed Apr. 22, 2005, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR HIERARCHICAL ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS TO DOCUMENT AND DOCUMENTS,” now allowed, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/867,748 of Tadayon, et al. filed May 31, 2001, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR HIERARCHICAL ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS TO DOCUMENTS AND DOCUMENTS HAVING SUCH RIGHTS,” now U.S. Pat. No. 6,895,503, which is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/867,746 of Tadayon, et al. filed May 31, 2001, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSFERRING USAGE RIGHTS AND DIGITAL WORK HAVING TRANSFERABLE USAGE RIGHTS,” now allowed; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/867,747 of Tadayon, et al. filed May 31, 2001, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ESTABLISHING USAGE RIGHTS FOR DIGITAL CONTENT TO BE CREATED IN THE FUTURE,” now allowed; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/867,754 of Tadayon, et al. filed May 31, 2001, entitled “DEMARCATED DIGITAL CONTENT AND METHOD FOR CREATING AND PROCESSING DEMARCATED DIGITAL WORKS,” now U.S. Pat. No. 6,973,445; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/867,745 of Tadayon, et al. filed May 31, 2001, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DYNAMICALLY ASSIGNING USAGE RIGHTS TO DIGITAL WORKS,” now U.S. Pat. No. 6,754,642; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/867,749 of Tadayon, et al. filed May 31, 2001, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ASSIGNING CONDITIONAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL RIGHTS TO DOCUMENTS AND DOCUMENTS HAVING SUCH RIGHTS,” now U.S. Pat. No. 6,976,009, the disclosures of all of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3263158 | Janis | Jul 1966 | A |
3609697 | Blevins et al. | Sep 1971 | A |
3790700 | Callais et al. | Feb 1974 | A |
3798605 | Feistel | Mar 1974 | A |
4159468 | Barnes et al. | Jun 1979 | A |
4200700 | Mäder | Apr 1980 | A |
4220991 | Hamano et al. | Sep 1980 | A |
4278837 | Best | Jul 1981 | A |
4323921 | Guillou | Apr 1982 | A |
4361851 | Asip et al. | Nov 1982 | A |
4423287 | Zeidler | Dec 1983 | A |
4429385 | Cichelli et al. | Jan 1984 | A |
4442486 | Mayer | Apr 1984 | A |
4529870 | Chaum | Jul 1985 | A |
4558176 | Arnold et al. | Dec 1985 | A |
4593376 | Volk | Jun 1986 | A |
4614861 | Pavlov et al. | Sep 1986 | A |
4621321 | Boebert et al. | Nov 1986 | A |
4644493 | Chandra et al. | Feb 1987 | A |
4652990 | Pailen et al. | Mar 1987 | A |
4658093 | Hellman | Apr 1987 | A |
4713753 | Boebert et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
4736422 | Mason | Apr 1988 | A |
4740890 | William | Apr 1988 | A |
4796220 | Wolfe | Jan 1989 | A |
4816655 | Musyck et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4817140 | Chandra et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4827508 | Shear | May 1989 | A |
4868376 | Lessin et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4888638 | Bohn | Dec 1989 | A |
4891838 | Faber | Jan 1990 | A |
4924378 | Hershey et al. | May 1990 | A |
4932054 | Chou et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4937863 | Robert et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4949187 | Cohen | Aug 1990 | A |
4953209 | Ryder, Sr. et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
4961142 | Elliott et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4975647 | Downer et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
4977594 | Shear | Dec 1990 | A |
4999806 | Chernow et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
5010571 | Katznelson | Apr 1991 | A |
5014234 | Edwards, Jr. | May 1991 | A |
5023907 | Johnson et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
5047928 | Wiedemer | Sep 1991 | A |
5050213 | Shear | Sep 1991 | A |
5052040 | Preston et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5058162 | Santon et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5058164 | Elmer et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5103476 | Waite et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
5113519 | Johnson et al. | May 1992 | A |
5129083 | Cutler et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5136643 | Fischer | Aug 1992 | A |
5138712 | Corbin | Aug 1992 | A |
5146499 | Geffrotin | Sep 1992 | A |
5148481 | Abraham et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5159182 | Eisele | Oct 1992 | A |
5174641 | Lim | Dec 1992 | A |
5183404 | Aldous et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5191193 | Le Roux | Mar 1993 | A |
5204897 | Wyman | Apr 1993 | A |
5222134 | Waite et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5235642 | Wobber et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5247575 | Sprague et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5255106 | Castro | Oct 1993 | A |
5260999 | Wyman | Nov 1993 | A |
5263157 | Janis | Nov 1993 | A |
5263158 | Janis | Nov 1993 | A |
5276444 | McNair | Jan 1994 | A |
5276735 | Boebert et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5287408 | Samson | Feb 1994 | A |
5291596 | Mita | Mar 1994 | A |
5293422 | Loiacono | Mar 1994 | A |
5301231 | Abraham et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5311591 | Fischer | May 1994 | A |
5319705 | Halter et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5335275 | Millar et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5337357 | Chou et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5339091 | Yamazaki et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5341429 | Stringer et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5347579 | Blandford | Sep 1994 | A |
5381526 | Ellson | Jan 1995 | A |
5386369 | Christiano | Jan 1995 | A |
5390297 | Barber et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5394469 | Nagel et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5410598 | Shear | Apr 1995 | A |
5412717 | Fischer | May 1995 | A |
5414852 | Kramer et al. | May 1995 | A |
5428606 | Moskowitz | Jun 1995 | A |
5432849 | Johnson et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5438508 | Wyman | Aug 1995 | A |
5444779 | Daniele | Aug 1995 | A |
5453601 | Rosen | Sep 1995 | A |
5455953 | Russell | Oct 1995 | A |
5457746 | Dolphin | Oct 1995 | A |
5473687 | Lipscomb et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5473692 | Davis | Dec 1995 | A |
5485577 | Eyer et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5499298 | Narasimhalu et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5502766 | Boebert et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5504814 | Miyahara | Apr 1996 | A |
5504816 | Hamilton et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5504818 | Okano | Apr 1996 | A |
5504837 | Griffeth et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5509070 | Schull | Apr 1996 | A |
5530235 | Stefik et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5532920 | Hartrick et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5534975 | Stefik et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5535276 | Ganesan | Jul 1996 | A |
5539735 | Moskowitz | Jul 1996 | A |
5553143 | Ross et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5557678 | Ganesan | Sep 1996 | A |
5563946 | Cooper et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5564038 | Grantz et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5568552 | Davis | Oct 1996 | A |
5619570 | Tsutsui | Apr 1997 | A |
5621797 | Rosen | Apr 1997 | A |
5625690 | Michel et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5629980 | Stefik et al. | May 1997 | A |
5633932 | Davis et al. | May 1997 | A |
5634012 | Stefik et al. | May 1997 | A |
5636346 | Saxe | Jun 1997 | A |
5638443 | Stefik et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5638513 | Ananda | Jun 1997 | A |
5646992 | Subler et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5649013 | Stuckey et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5655077 | Jones et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5708709 | Rose | Jan 1998 | A |
5708717 | Alasia | Jan 1998 | A |
5715403 | Stefik | Feb 1998 | A |
5734823 | Saigh et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5734891 | Saigh | Mar 1998 | A |
5737413 | Akiyama et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5737416 | Cooper et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745569 | Moskowitz et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745879 | Wyman | Apr 1998 | A |
5748783 | Rhoads | May 1998 | A |
5757907 | Cooper et al. | May 1998 | A |
5761686 | Bloomberg | Jun 1998 | A |
5764807 | Pearlman et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5765152 | Erickson | Jun 1998 | A |
5768426 | Rhoads | Jun 1998 | A |
5787172 | Arnold | Jul 1998 | A |
5790677 | Fox et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5812664 | Bernobich et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5825876 | Peterson | Oct 1998 | A |
5825879 | Davis | Oct 1998 | A |
5825892 | Braudaway et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5838792 | Ganesan | Nov 1998 | A |
5848154 | Nishio et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5848378 | Shelton et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5850443 | Van Oorschot et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5892900 | Ginter et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5910987 | Ginter et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5915019 | Ginter et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5917912 | Ginter et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5920861 | Hall et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933498 | Schneck et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940504 | Griswold | Aug 1999 | A |
5943422 | Van Wie et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5949876 | Ginter et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5978484 | Apperson et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5982891 | Ginter et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5987134 | Shin et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991877 | Luckenbaugh | Nov 1999 | A |
5999624 | Hopkins | Dec 1999 | A |
5999949 | Crandall | Dec 1999 | A |
6006332 | Rabne et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6009401 | Horstmann | Dec 1999 | A |
6020882 | Kinghorn et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6047067 | Rosen | Apr 2000 | A |
6073234 | Kigo et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6091777 | Guetz et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6112181 | Shear et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6112239 | Kenner et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6115471 | Oki et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6134659 | Sprong et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6135646 | Kahn et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6138119 | Hall et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6141754 | Choy | Oct 2000 | A |
6157719 | Wasilewski et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6157721 | Shear et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6169976 | Colosso | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185683 | Ginter et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6189037 | Adams et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6189146 | Misra et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6209092 | Linnartz | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6216112 | Fuller et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6219652 | Carter et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226618 | Downs et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233684 | Stefik et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6236971 | Stefik et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6237786 | Ginter et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6240185 | Van Wie et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6253193 | Ginter et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6282653 | Berstis et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6292569 | Shear et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6301660 | Benson | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6307939 | Vigarie | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6327652 | England et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6330670 | England et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6345256 | Milsted et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6353888 | Kakehi et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363488 | Ginter et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6389402 | Ginter et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6397333 | Söhne et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6401211 | Brezak, Jr. et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6405369 | Tsuria | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6424717 | Pinder et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424947 | Tsuria et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6487659 | Kigo et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6516052 | Voudouris | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6516413 | Aratani et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6523745 | Tamori | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6796555 | Blahut | Sep 2004 | B1 |
20010000541 | Schreiber et al. | Apr 2001 | A1 |
20010009026 | Terao et al. | Jul 2001 | A1 |
20010011276 | Durst, Jr. et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010014206 | Artigalas et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010037467 | O'Toole, Jr. et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010039659 | Simmons et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020001387 | Dillon | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020007454 | Tarpenning et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020035618 | Mendez et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020044658 | Wasilewski et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020056118 | Hunter et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020069282 | Reisman | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020077985 | Kobata et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020099948 | Kocher et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020127423 | Kayanakis | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030097567 | Terao et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20040052370 | Katznelson | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040172552 | Boyles et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
9810967 | Oct 2001 | BR |
0 067 556 | Dec 1982 | EP |
0 084 441 | Jul 1983 | EP |
0 180 460 | May 1986 | EP |
0 257 585 | Mar 1988 | EP |
0 262 025 | Mar 1988 | EP |
0 332 304 | Sep 1989 | EP |
0 332 707 | Sep 1989 | EP |
0 393 806 | Oct 1990 | EP |
0 450 841 | Oct 1991 | EP |
0 529 261 | Mar 1993 | EP |
0 613 073 | Aug 1994 | EP |
0 651 554 | May 1995 | EP |
0 668 695 | Aug 1995 | EP |
0 678 836 | Oct 1995 | EP |
0 679 977 | Nov 1995 | EP |
0 715 243 | Jun 1996 | EP |
0 715 244 | Jun 1996 | EP |
0 715 245 | Jun 1996 | EP |
0 725 376 | Aug 1996 | EP |
0 731 404 | Sep 1996 | EP |
0 763 936 | Mar 1997 | EP |
0 818 748 | Jan 1998 | EP |
0 840 194 | May 1998 | EP |
0 892 521 | Jan 1999 | EP |
0 934 765 | Aug 1999 | EP |
0 946 022 | Sep 1999 | EP |
0 964 572 | Dec 1999 | EP |
1 103 922 | May 2001 | EP |
1 191 422 | Mar 2002 | EP |
1483282 | Aug 1977 | GB |
2022969 | Dec 1979 | GB |
2 136 175 | Sep 1984 | GB |
2 236 604 | Apr 1991 | GB |
2236604 | Apr 1991 | GB |
2309364 | Jul 1997 | GB |
2316503 | Feb 1998 | GB |
2354102 | Mar 2001 | GB |
62-241061 | Oct 1987 | JP |
64-068835 | Mar 1989 | JP |
3-063717 | Mar 1991 | JP |
H4-180451 | Jun 1992 | JP |
14-369068 | Dec 1992 | JP |
5-100939 | Apr 1993 | JP |
5168039 | Jul 1993 | JP |
05-268415 | Oct 1993 | JP |
6-131371 | May 1994 | JP |
06-175794 | Jun 1994 | JP |
06-215010 | Aug 1994 | JP |
7-36768 | Feb 1995 | JP |
07-084852 | Mar 1995 | JP |
07-200317 | Aug 1995 | JP |
07-244639 | Sep 1995 | JP |
0 715 241 | Jun 1996 | JP |
11031130 | Feb 1999 | JP |
11032037 | Feb 1999 | JP |
11-164132 | Jun 1999 | JP |
11205306 | Jul 1999 | JP |
11215121 | Aug 1999 | JP |
2000503154 | Mar 2000 | JP |
2000215165 | Aug 2000 | JP |
2005218143 | Aug 2005 | JP |
2005253109 | Sep 2005 | JP |
2006180562 | Jul 2006 | JP |
WO 8304461 | Dec 1983 | WO |
WO 9220022 | Nov 1992 | WO |
WO 9220022 | Nov 1992 | WO |
WO 9301550 | Jan 1993 | WO |
WO 9301550 | Jan 1993 | WO |
WO 9311480 | Jun 1993 | WO |
WO 9401821 | Jan 1994 | WO |
WO 9403003 | Feb 1994 | WO |
WO 9613814 | May 1996 | WO |
WO 9624092 | Aug 1996 | WO |
WO 9624092 | Aug 1996 | WO |
WO 9627155 | Sep 1996 | WO |
WO 9725800 | Jul 1997 | WO |
WO 9737492 | Oct 1997 | WO |
WO 9741661 | Nov 1997 | WO |
WO 9743761 | Nov 1997 | WO |
WO 9748203 | Dec 1997 | WO |
WO 9809209 | Mar 1998 | WO |
WO 9810381 | Mar 1998 | WO |
WO 9810561 | Mar 1998 | WO |
WO 9811690 | Mar 1998 | WO |
WO 9811690 | Mar 1998 | WO |
WO 9819431 | May 1998 | WO |
WO 9842098 | Sep 1998 | WO |
WO 9843426 | Oct 1998 | WO |
WO 9845768 | Oct 1998 | WO |
WO 9924928 | May 1999 | WO |
WO 9934553 | Jul 1999 | WO |
WO 9935782 | Jul 1999 | WO |
WO 9948296 | Sep 1999 | WO |
WO 9949615 | Sep 1999 | WO |
WO 9960461 | Nov 1999 | WO |
WO 9960750 | Nov 1999 | WO |
WO 0004727 | Jan 2000 | WO |
WO 0005898 | Feb 2000 | WO |
WO 0046994 | Aug 2000 | WO |
WO 0059152 | Oct 2000 | WO |
WO 0062260 | Oct 2000 | WO |
WO 0072118 | Nov 2000 | WO |
WO 0073922 | Dec 2000 | WO |
WO 0103044 | Jan 2001 | WO |
WO 0137209 | May 2001 | WO |
WO 0163528 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO 2004034223 | Apr 2004 | WO |
WO 2004103843 | Dec 2004 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“National Semiconductor and EPR Partner for Information Metering/Data Security Cards” Mar. 4, 1994, Press Release from Electronic Publishing Resources, Inc. |
Weber, R., “Digital Rights Management Technology” Oct. 1995. |
Flasche, U. et al., “Decentralized Processing of Documents”, pp. 119-131, 1986, Comput. & Graphics, vol. 10, No. 2. |
Mori, R. et al., “Superdistribution: The Concept and the Architecture”, pp. 1133-1146, 1990. The Transactions of the IEICE, Vo. E 73, No. 7, Tokyo, JP. |
Weber, R., “Metering Technologies for Digital Intellectual Property”, pp. 1-29, Oct. 1994, A Report to the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organizations. |
Clark, P.C. et al., “Bits: A Smartcard protected Operating System”, pp. 66-70 and 94, Nov. 1994, Communications of the ACM, vol. 37, No. 11. |
Ross, P.E., “Data Guard”, pp. 101, Jun. 6, 1994, Forbes. |
Saigh, W.K., “Knowledge is Sacred”, 1992, Video Pocket/Page Reader Systems, Ltd. |
Kahn, R.E., “Deposit, Registration and Recordation in an Electronic Copyright Management System”, pp. 1-19, Aug. 1992, Corporation for National Research Initiatives, Virginia. |
Hilts, P. et al., “Books While U Wait”, pp. 48-50, Jan. 3, 1994, Publishers Weekly. |
Strattner, A, “Cash Register on a Chip may Revolutionaize Software Pricing and Distribution; Wave Systems Corp.”, pp. 1-3, Apr. 1994, Computer Shopper, vol. 14, No. 4, ISSN 0886-0556. |
O'Conner, M., “New Distribution Option for Electronic Publishers; iOpener Data Encryption and Metering System for CD-ROM use; Column”, pp. 1-6, Mar. 1994, CD-ROM Professional, vol. 7, No. 2, ISSN: 1409-0833. |
Willett, S., “Metered PCs: Is Your System Watching You? Wave System beta tests new technology”, pp. 84, May 2, 1994, InfoWorld. |
Linn, R., “Copyright and Information Services in the Context of the National Research and Education Network”, pp. 9-20, Jan. 1994, IMA Intellectual Property Project Proceedings, vol. 1, Issue 1. |
Perrit, Jr., H., “Permission Headers and Contract Law”, pp. 27-48, Jan. 1994, IMA Intellectual Property Project Proceedings, vol. 1, Issue 1. |
Upthegrove, L., “Intellectual Property Header Descriptors: A Dynamic Approach”, pp. 63-66, Jan. 1994, IMA Intellectual Property Proceedings, vol. 1, Issue 1. |
Sirbu, M., “Internet Billing Service Design and prototype Implementation”, pp. 67-80, Jan. 1994, IMA Intellectual Property Project Proceedings, vol. 1, Issue 1. |
Simmell, S. et al., “Metering and Licensing of Resources: Kala's General Purpose Approach”, pp. 81-110, Jan. 1994, IMA Intellectual Property Project Proceedings, vol. 1, Issue 1. |
Kahn, R., “Deposit, Registration and Recordation in an Electronic Copyright Management System”, pp. 111-120, Jan. 1994, IMA Intellectual Property Project Proceedings, vol. 1, Issue 1. |
Tygar, J. et al., “Dyad: A System for Using Physically Secure Coprocessors”, pp. 121-152, Jan. 1994, IMA Intellectual Property Project Proceedings, vol. 1, Issue 1. |
Griswold, G., “A Method for Protecting Copyright on Networks”, pp. 169-178, Jan. 1994, IMA Intellectual Property Project Proceedings, vol. 1, Issue 1. |
Nelson, T., “A Publishing and Royalty Model for Networked Documents”, pp. 257-259, Jan. 1994, IMA Intellectual Property Project Proceedings, vol. 1, Issue 1. |
Robinson, E., “Redefining Mobile Computing”, pp. 238-240, 247-248 and 252, Jul. 1993, PC Computing. |
Abadi, M. et al., “Authentication and Delegation with Smart-cards”, pp. 1-24, 1990, Research Report DEC Systems Research Center. |
Mark Stefik, “Letting Loose the Light: Igniting Commerce in Electronic Publication”, pp. 219-253, 1996, Internet Dreams: Archetypes, Myths, and Metaphors, IDSN 0-262-19373-6. |
Mark Stefik, “Letting Loose the Light: Igniting Commerce in Electronic Publication”, pp. 2-35, Feb. 8, 1995, Internet Dreams: Archetypes, Myths and Metaphors. |
Henry H. Perritt, Jr., “Technological Strategies for Protecting Intellectual Property in the Networked Multimedia Environment”, Apr. 2-3, 1993, Knowbots, Permissions Headers & Contract Law. |
International Search Report Date Mar. 6, 2003, for PCT/US02/14752. |
Johnson et al., “A Secure Distributed Capability Based System,” Proceedings of the 1985 ACM Annual Conference on the Range of Computing: Mid-80's Perspective: Mid-80's Perspective Association for Computing Machinery pp. 392-402 (1985). |
Delaigle, “Digital Watermarking,” Spie Conference in Optical Security and Counterfeit Deterrence Techniques, San Jose, CA (Feb. 1996). |
Perritt, “Technologies Strategies for Protecting Intellectual Property in the Networked Multimedia Environment,” Knowbots, Permissions Headers and Contract Law (Apr. 2-3, 1993). |
Blaze et al, “Divertible Protocols and Atomic Proxy Cryptography” 1998 Advances in Cryptography—Euro Crypt International Conference on the Theory and Application of Crypto Techniques, Springer Verlag, DE. |
Blaze et al, “Atomic Proxy Cryptography” Draft (Online) (Nov. 2, 1997) XP002239619 Retrieved from the Internet. |
No Author, “Capability- and Object-Based Systems Concepts,” Capability-Based Computer Systems, pp. 1-19 (no date). |
Cox, “Superdistribution” Wired Magazine (Sep. 1994) XP002233405 URL:http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.09/superdis—pr.html>. |
Dunlop et al, Telecommunications Engineering, pp. 346-352 (1984). |
Elgamal, “A Public Key Cryptosystem and a Signature Scheme Based on Discrete Logarithms,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory IT-31(4):469-472 (Jul. 1985). |
Gheorghiu et al., “Authorization for Metacomputing Applications” (No date). |
Iannella, ed., Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL), pp. 1-31 (Nov. 21, 2000). |
Kahle, wais.concepts.txt, Wide Area Information Server Concepts, Thinking Machines Version 4, Draft, pp. 1-18 (Nov. 3, 1989). |
Kahn, “Deposit, Registration and Recordation in an Electronic Copyright Management System,” Technical Report, Corporation for National Research Initiatives, Reston, Virginia (Aug. 1992) URL:http://www.cni.org/docs/ima.ip-workshop/kahn.html. |
Kahn et al, “The Digital Library Project, Volume 1: The World of Knowbots (Draft), An Open Architecture for a Digital Library System and a Plan for its Development,” Corporation for National Research Initiatives, pp. 1-48 (Mar. 1988). |
Kohl et al, Network Working Group Request for Comments: 1510, pp. 1-112 (Sep. 1993). |
Lee et al, CDMA Systems Engineering Handbook (1998) [excerpts but not all pages numbered]. |
Mambo et al, “Protection of Data and Delegated Keys in Digital Distribution,” Information Security and Privacy. Second Australian Conference, ACISP '97 Proceedings, pp. 271-282 (Sydney, NSW, Australia, Jul. 7-9, 1997, 1997 Berlin, Germany, Springer-Verlag, Germany), XP008016393 ISBN:3-540-63232-8. |
Mambo et al, “Proxy Cryptosystems: Delegation of the Power to Decrypt Ciphertexts,”, IEICE Trans. Fundamentals vol. E80-A, No. 1:54-63 (Jan. 1997) XP00742245 ISSN: 0916-8508. |
Microsoft Word, Users Guide, Version 6.0 pp. 487-489, 549-555, 560-564, 572-575, 599-613, 616-631 (1993). |
Ojanpera and Prasad, eds., Wideband CDMA for Third Generation Mobile Communications (1998) [excerpts but not all pages numbered]. |
Perritt, “Knowbots, Permissions Headers and Contract Law,” Paper for the Conference on Technological Strategies for Protecting Intellectual Property in the Networked Multimedia Environment, pp. 1-22 (Apr. 2-3, 1993 with revisions of Apr. 30, 1993). |
Raggett, (Hewlett Packard), “HTML+(Hypertext markup language),” pp. 1-31 (Jul. 12, 1993) URL:http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/correct/340709. |
Samuelson et al, “Intellectual Property Rights for Digital Library and Hypertext Publishing Systems: An Analysis of Xanadu,” Hypertext '91 Proceedings, pp. 39-50 (Dec. 1991). |
No Author, “Softlock Services Introduces . . . Softlock Services” Press Release (Jan. 28, 1994). |
No Author, “Appendix III—Compatibility with HTML,” No Title, pp. 30-31 (no date). |
No Editor, No Title, Dictionary pages, pp. 469-472, 593-594 (no date). |
Benoit, Digital Television MPEG-1, MPEG-2 and Principles of the DVB System, pp. 75-80, 116-121 (no date). |
Benoit, Digital Television MPEG-1, MPEG-2 and Principles of the DVB System, 2nd edition, pp. 74-80 (no date). |
Ah Digital Audio and Video Series, “DTV Receivers and Measurements,” Understanding Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting, pp. 159-164 (no date). |
O'Driscoll, The Essential Guide to Digital Set-Top Boxes and Interactive TV, pp. 6-24 (no date). |
IUS Mentis, “The ElGamal Public Key System,” pp. 1-2 (Oct. 1, 2005) online at http://www.iusmentis.com/technology/encyrption/elgamal/. |
Schneier, “Crypto Bibliography,” Index of Crypto Papers Available Online, pp. 1-2 (online) (no date). |
No Author, No Title, pp. 344-355 (no date). |
No Author, “Part Four Networks,” No Title, pp. 639-714 (no date). |
Microsoft Word User's Guide, pp. 773-774, 315-316, 487-489, 561-564, 744, 624-633 (1993). |
No Author, “What is the ElGamal Cryptosystem,” p. 1 (Nov. 27, 2006) online at http://www.x5.net/faqs/crypto/q29.html. |
Johnson et al., “A Secure Distributed Capability Based System,” ACM, pp. 392-402 (1985). |
Wikipedia, “EL Gamal Encyption,” pp. 1-3 (last modified Nov. 2, 2006) online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElGamal—encryption. |
Blaze, “Atomic Proxy Cryptography,” p. 1 Abstract (Oct. 20, 1998). |
Blaze, “Matt Blaze's Technical Papers,” pp. 1-6 (last updated Aug. 6, 2006). |
Online Search Results for “inverted file”, “inverted index” from www.techweb.com, www.cryer.co.uk, computing-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com, www.nist.gov, en.wikipedia.org, www.cni.org, www.tiscali.co.uk (Jul. 15-16, 2006). |
Corporation for National Research Initiatives, “Digital Object Architecture Project”, http://www.nnri.reston.va.us/doa.html (updated Nov. 28, 2006). |
Stefik, Summary and Analysis of A13 (Kahn, Robert E and Vinton G Cerf, “The Digital Library Project, Volume 1: The World of Knowbots (Draft), An Open Architecture for a Digital Library System and a Plan for its Development,” Corporation for National Research Initiatives (Mar. 1988)), pp. 1-25 (May 30, 2007). |
PDF Reference (Second Edition), Adobe Portable Document Format, Version 1.3, Adobe Systems Incorporated, 1985-2000, Addison-Wesley. |
Adobe Acrobat 2.0, Information Products Group, Adobe Systems Incorporated, 1994. |
Lampson et al., Authentication in Distributed Systems: Theory and Practice, ACM, 1992, pp. 1-47. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20070038859 A1 | Feb 2007 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11111853 | Apr 2005 | US |
Child | 11584590 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09867748 | May 2001 | US |
Child | 11111853 | US |