A portion of the disclosure of this patent document and its figures contain material subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, but otherwise reserves all copyrights whatsoever.
The present invention generally relates to the measurement of content-access patterns. The present invention more particularly relates creating content related to subscriber content-access patterns and associated behaviors.
Individuals receive information and entertainment content from a wide variety of media sources. These sources include radio, newspapers, the Internet, and television content providers.
To support the creation and distribution of content, providers must derive revenue from the content. For example, television content providers derive substantial revenues from advertising. During the broadcast of a television program, advertisements, in the form of commercials, are inserted at various time intervals. An advertiser pays the broadcaster to insert the advertisement. Other sources of revenue include pay-per-view, subscription, and licensing fees paid by subscribers for specific content or content-related packages. Internet content providers derive revenue in similar ways.
The amount of money that an advertiser pays is related to the number of subscribers watching or accessing a broadcast. Conventionally, for television advertising, advertising revenue equals a rate per thousand viewers multiplied by the number of viewers estimated to be viewing a program. Web site content providers charge advertisers a fixed amount per advertising impression. Also, Pay-per-view, subscriptions, and licensing fees all increase as the number of viewers of content increase. Therefore, the higher the number of viewers or subscribers accessing content, the greater the revenue.
In the case of television programming, if a program is popular, the provider charges a higher advertising rate. In contrast, if a television program cannot produce at least as much revenue as it costs to produce the program, the provider will generally cancel the program. Therefore, television-programming providers are very interested in determining the popularity of specific programs.
Additional factors beyond the popularity of a program may affect the number of viewers who watch it. For example, a program scheduled adjacent to a popular program or between two popular programs may attain higher ratings than it might achieve without such opportune scheduling. A similar effect occurs on web sites. A large number of web site users may read content posted on a popular web site. However the same piece appearing on a less popular site may attract little attention. Therefore, content providers are interested in determining the interrelationships between various combinations of content and content types.
Conventional television programs and programming packages are designed to appeal, to the extent possible, to a large group of individual subscribers. Appealing to a large number of subscribers requires compromises that may lessen the appeal of a particular program or programming package to any one individual subscriber. And the less the appeal of a particular programming package to a subscriber, the less the subscriber will pay for the package. These same compromises are required when an advertiser produces a marketing campaign for use in television or creates a marketing bundle, which combines a programming or advertising package with products and services.
Content providers conventionally utilize various methods to evaluate the popularity of content and to evaluate the interrelationships between content. For example, a television-programming provider may implement a program of voluntary logging of television viewing by a viewer, followed by transmission and human processing to analyze the information contained in the log. In addition, a provider may utilize telephone, mail, or other types of surveys to inquire from random or selected viewers about the viewers' viewing habits and request their recollections regarding their viewing patterns. A provider may also utilize automated monitoring systems that attempt to intercept television channel choices and changes, record these events, and provide the recording to a clearinghouse or other facility for further processing.
The provider may enlist a ratings company to perform the monitoring and processing. For example, Nielsen Media Research (Nielsen Media Research, Inc., New York, N.Y.), Arbitron (Arbitron Inc., New York, N.Y.), and MeasureCast (MeasureCast, Inc., Portland, Oreg.) provide third-party monitoring and processing capability for television, radio, and Internet content.
The Nielsen Media Research (Nielsen) Ratings are perhaps the best known of the various third-party ratings services. Nielsen utilizes a variety of conventional sampling methods to determine the number of viewers watching a particular show. For example, in five thousand homes, Nielsen installs a People Meter. The People Meter records viewing patterns from television sets, cable television set-top boxes, videocassette recorders, satellite television set-top boxes, and other sources of television programming. The People Meter records what content the particular device is providing on an ongoing basis and periodically transmits this information to servers within a Nielsen facility. Nielsen combines the data uploaded from the People Meter with media content data to determine what programming and advertising a device displayed. Nielsen uses the combined data to provide a rating for each program and advertisement. In conjunction with the People Meter, Nielsen also utilizes viewer diaries and surveys to gather information from a broader spectrum of television viewers and to confirm the results generated by the People Meter.
Arbitron Inc. (Arbitron) is well known for providing radio broadcast ratings. Arbitron compiles ratings by utilizing surveys. Arbitron also provides television ratings based on various sampling techniques. In cooperation with Nielsen, Arbitron has developed a Portable People Meter to measure television ratings. The Portable People Meter is a pager-sized device, worn by a participant in a survey. The Portable People Meter records viewing by recording sounds encoded into each broadcast, which identify the program or advertisement. The survey participant periodically plugs the Portable People Meter into a recharger, which also includes a communicator that uploads the data in the Portable People Meter into a remote Arbitron server. The Portable People Meter may be a more accurate method of television ratings than a set-top box, such as the set-top box used by Nielsen. The Portable People Meter offers the advantage of capturing viewing outside of the home and of recognizing when the viewer is not within audible range of a television, and therefore, less likely to be viewing a particular program or advertisement.
As the use of the Internet increases, the distribution of programming via Internet channels becomes more important. MeasureCast, Inc. (MeasureCast) provides a ratings system for Internet media streaming. MeasureCast records the number of streams requested from a streaming server and provides reports to programming providers and advertisers detailing the popularity of particular streams. As is the case in traditional broadcast media, the more popular the stream, the higher the advertising rate a broadcaster is able to charge.
Nielsen, Arbitron, and MeasureCast provide direct methods of measuring the popularity of a program. Various indirect methods are also used to determine the popularity of programming and the effectiveness of advertising. For example, advertising effectiveness is often measured in terms of viewer attitudes and subsequent viewer actions, such as purchases, inquiries, behavior changes, and other actions. Method of obtaining these indirect measures include: focus group tests, post-advertising surveys questioning whether an advertisement was viewed, remembered and possible impact, and measures of product purchases or other indirect results that may indicate whether or not an advertising campaign has been successful.
Conventional systems and methods for determining subscriber content-access patterns and preferences are inefficient and poorly suited for the immediate, timely creation of customized content. In addition, conventional systems, such as the Nielsen and Arbitron meters rely on extremely small samples, which may not be representative of the target market for a particular advertiser.
Also, surveys are expensive and highly dependent on identifying individuals that may have been viewing television at the time of the advertisement. And post-advertising results measurements suffer from questions of causality and external influences. Focus groups allow reasonably efficient low-volume viewer analysis, but statistical analysis requires an adequate number of participants and tightly controlled tests, a combination that may be difficult to achieve.
Conventional systems and methods lack simple, effective, and efficient means for determining content genre preferences. Conventional systems and methods also lack simple and efficient means for determining the duration of viewing patterns, especially as those patterns are affected by the genre or type of content, the time-of-day of a broadcast, and the content broadcast simultaneously with or adjacently to the content of interest.
The present invention provides systems and methods for tailoring media content and related offerings to individual subscribers. An embodiment of the present invention includes a subscriber database, a data analyzer electronically connected to the subscriber database, and a distribution server. The data analyzer uses subscriber attributes in the subscriber database to create tailored content and content-related offerings. The tailored content is subsequently distributed by the distribution server.
The subscriber database includes attributes of a subscriber as well as a media-content-access history of the subscriber. Attributes of a subscriber include demographic measures of the subscriber. The media-content-access history of the subscriber may comprise a subscriber content-choice database.
In order to merge content and subscriber actions, an embodiment of the present invention includes a merge processor and national and local content databases. Also, in order to categorize programming and advertising, in an embodiment of the present invention, a category database is electronically linked to the media-content database. The category database may comprise a program category or genre database and/or an advertisement category database. The merge processor operates to assign a category to a media-content detail and create a content choice record by merging a subscriber action detail with the categorized media-content detail. An embodiment of the present invention may comprise a computer-readable medium comprising computer code to implement the process.
In another embodiment of the present invention, the merge processor receives a series of subscriber actions, merges the actions with media-content detail, and then attempts to correlate the actions with one another. The merge processor may also assign a category to the media-content detail and perform a probability analysis on the subscriber content choice information created as a result of the process in order to predict future subscriber actions.
In an embodiment of the present invention, a subscriber action database may contain additional information, including a subscriber identifier and a clickstream database. The media-content database includes programming and/or advertising content. In various embodiments of the present invention, programming and advertising information may be included in a single database or in multiple databases. Each of these databases includes a common key data element.
An embodiment of the present invention provides numerous advantages over conventional systems for using subscriber content-choice information to tailor content-related offerings for individual subscribers or to small groups of subscribers.
It is difficult and inefficient in conventional systems to tailor content-related offerings because the information necessary to tailor the offerings is often unavailable. In an embodiment of the present invention, the necessary subscriber-specific data is made available by merging subscriber content choices with various other subscriber attributes. Content providers are able to tailor content-related offerings and charge a premium for these offerings.
Further details and advantages of the present invention are set forth below.
These and other features, aspects, and advantages of the present invention are better understood when the following Detailed Description is read with reference to the accompanying drawings, wherein:
Embodiments of the present invention provide systems and methods for creating tailored television content-related offerings based on subscriber-specific data. In an embodiment of the present invention, a offering may be tailored based solely on subscriber content choices or based on subscriber content choices in combination with other attributes of the subscriber such as demographics, purchasing history, and/or other relevant attributes.
Various types of offerings may be made available in an embodiment of the present invention. For example, a cable television content provider may create a direct marketing campaign based on subscriber data. In addition, a television content provider may create a programming offering tailored to an individual subscriber's needs and measured preferences. In an embodiment of the present invention, a content provider also determines an individual subscriber's willingness to pay for a programming offering based on subscriber-related information.
In another embodiment of the present invention, a television content provider utilizes information in a subscriber database to develop incentives, which are made available to viewers evidencing “desirable viewer patterns.” Such special incentives would be of value to advertisers as well as to television program providers. In addition, a content provider may use the information available in an embodiment of the present invention to bundle programming offerings with other products and services.
In an embodiment of the present invention, a subscriber's television viewing patterns are combined with programming and advertising media-content detail to determine the subscriber's content choices. These content choices are categorized so that the data may be analyzed at various levels and from various perspectives. In another embodiment, a subscriber's content choice is correlated with preceding and succeeding content choices to determine how various combinations of advertising and programming content affect a subscriber's content choices.
The local-content database 106 includes information from the advertising 108 and programming 110 databases. The advertising database 108 includes information related to local advertising produced and/or provided by the cable operator or other local source. Likewise, the programming database 110 includes information related to locally produced and/or provided programming. The advertising database 108 includes attributes of advertisements, such as the advertiser, producer, brand, product type, length of the content, and other descriptive information. The programming database 110 includes similar information related to programming, including the producer, type of programming, length, rating, and other descriptive information. The local-content 106, programming 108, and advertising 110 databases include a date-time identifier, which indicates when a program or advertisement has been provided. The date-time indicator provides a key value for merging various databases with one another.
In the embodiment of the present invention shown in
The cable operator head-end 102 also includes a subscriber-action database 112. The subscriber-action database 112 includes the actions taken by subscribers while viewing television sets. For example, in the embodiment shown in
The subscriber-action database may include a clickstream database. A clickstream database is common in Internet monitoring applications. Each time a web-browser user clicks on a link in a web page, a record of that click is stored in a conventional clickstream database. A database that includes similar information for television viewers is disclosed in a patent application filed on May 25, 2000 by Edward R. Grauch, et. al., Ser. No. 09/496,92, entitled “Method and System for Tracking Network Use,” which is hereby incorporated by reference. In the database described, each action taken by a television subscriber 123, such as “channel up” and “channel down” are stored in a database with a date-time stamp to allow tracking of the television subscriber's actions.
In the embodiment shown in
In another embodiment of the present invention, subscriber content-choice database 128 includes merged information for a period of time and for a plurality of subscribers. For example, a program provider may wish to track the popularity of a program for several thousand subscribers for an entire month. Another provider may be interested in analyzing the seasonal differences in subscriber viewing behaviors.
The embodiment shown in
An analyzer 131 accesses the information in the subscriber database 130. The analyzer 131 provides tools to an analyst or other person associated with a content provider to discern patterns in the subscriber database 130 for which specific programming or advertising packages are developed. The analyzer 131 may include simple query tools or may include complex online analytical processing tools, such as a multidimensional database or data mining application.
An embodiment of the present invention also includes a content distribution server 132. Once a content provider has created content tailored to individual subscribers, the content provider places the content on the content distribution server 132. A content distribution server 132 may include, for example, a digital video storage and broadcast server. The content distribution server 132 distributes the tailored content to a subscriber's set-top box 124 via cable network 120.
Although in the embodiment shown in
Although in the embodiment shown, the various databases and merge processor 104 are located in the head-end facility 102, in other embodiments, the databases and merge processor 104 exist as software within the set-top box 124 or as software residing within a television network's facility (not shown). The data may be captured and analyzed by programming and advertising producers or distributors or may be utilized within a subscriber's set-top box 124 to provide advanced services tailored to the subscriber 123.
Referring to
The merge processor (104) also receives data from the national-content database (114) 204. National-content data includes data describing media, such as programming and media, supplied by national providers. The merge processor (104) next assigns a category or genre to the national-content data 206. A genre is a specific type of category used in relation to artistic compositions, and genre and category are used interchangeably herein. The merge processor (104) assigns categories to content based on attributes of the content. For example, a program has a name and a creation date. The name of the program is “Wake Forest University vs. Duke University Basketball Game,” and a creation date equal to the current date. The merge processor (104) uses logic in a computer program to determine that the program should be categorized as a “Live Sporting Event.” The merge processor (104) may assign multiple categories to a single program, such as “Basketball,” “Sports,” “College-Related Programming,” or some other broad descriptive term.
The merge processor also receives data from the local-content database (106) 208. The merge processor (104) then assigns a category to the local-content data 210 in a manner similar to the process of assigning a category to national-content data.
Once the merge processor has assigned a category to data in each of the content databases, the merge processor merges the categorized content data, national and local, with data from the subscriber-action database (112) 212 and creates records with the combined data in the subscriber content-choice database (128) 214. Since the content data was categorized prior to the merge process, the data in the subscriber content-choice database 214 retains the assigned categories. Therefore, data in the subscriber content-choice database 214 can be sorted, filtered, reported, and used for various other processes, which utilize groupings of the data.
The subscriber content-choice database 128 may be implemented in various ways. For example, the database 128 may simply be a number of tables in a relational database. To simplify the process of querying the data, the database may include an online analytical processing tool, such as a multidimensional database.
As shown in
In an embodiment of the present invention, a computer program executing on merge processor (104) processes the potentially viewable data sources as a hierarchy. The program first determines, using information in the subscriber-action database (112) whether the subscriber (123) was viewing another video source, such as a VCR or DVD 402. If so, the program inserts data describing the other video source 404 into the subscriber content-choice database (128), and the process ends 416.
If the subscriber (123) was not viewing an alternate source of video and was tuned to a particular channel, then the subscriber (123) was viewing the content provided by the cable operator on that channel. To determine what content was provided by the cable provider, the program executing on the merge processor (104) determines whether the cable provider was providing local programming or advertising during the period of time 406 by accessing the local-content database (106). If so, the program inserts data describing the local programming or advertising 408 into the subscriber content-choice database (128), and the process ends. If the cable provider was not providing local programming or advertising, the program determines whether or not the provider was providing national programming or advertising 410 by accessing the national-content database (114). If so, the program inserts data describing the national programming or advertising 412 into the subscriber content-choice database (128), and the process ends 416.
If the program determines that the subscriber 123 was not viewing another video source and the provider was providing no content, the program either inserts a record in the subscriber content-choice database 128 indicating that no content was available during the specific period of time or inserts no data at all 416. For example, if TV 126 is left on after a broadcaster ends broadcasting for the rest of the day, no content is available after the broadcaster ceases broadcasting, so either a record indicating the lack of content is inserted, or no data is inserted.
It is important to note that in an embodiment of the present invention, the process illustrated in
In the embodiment shown in
As shown in
According to
According to
And according to
In an embodiment of the present invention, an analyst evaluates the data shown in
By categorizing content using multiple category types and multiple levels, the analyst is able to provide an abundance of information to programming and advertising producers, and providers, as well as to the product owners and manufacturers who pay to have the ads produced and distributed. Categorization in this manner also provides the analyst with multiple perspectives from which to analyze the data.
In addition, in an embodiment of the present invention, the analyst may look for patterns or correlations between multiple programs and advertisements or between categories of multiple programs and advertisements. In correlating data, the analyst is seeking causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relations between various occurrences of data. For example, in the embodiment shown in
Although only a brief period of time is shown in the Figures, the subscriber content-choice database includes data recorded continually over many days. By analyzing various days and time periods, an analyst can determine a subscribers time-of-day viewing patterns as well as the subscriber's patterns of viewing duration. For example, an analyst may determine whether the subscriber 123 tends to view the entirety of a program or of an advertisement.
Determining the duration of viewing of advertisements is important to advertisers. If a subscriber 123 initially views an entire advertisement but subsequently, views only a small portion of the advertisement, then the advertiser may need to reschedule the advertisement so that it runs less frequently, or replace the advertisement altogether. Also, if subscribers viewing a particular category of programming generally view ads in their entirety, but other viewers do not, the advertiser may want to focus resources on presenting the advertisement to these viewers.
Beyond analyzing ads in general, advertisers may also desire information related to specific ads or even of a competitor's ads. Using the information, the advertiser may be able to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of the advertisers own strategy versus a competitor's strategy.
In an embodiment of the present invention, various indirect methods are also used to determine the popularity of programming and the effectiveness of advertising. For example, advertising effectiveness is often measured in terms of viewer attitudes and subsequent viewer actions, such as purchases, inquiries, behavior changes, and other actions. Method of obtaining these indirect measures include: focus group tests, post-advertising surveys questioning whether an advertisement was viewed, remembered and possible impact, and measures of product purchases or other indirect results that may indicate whether or not an advertising campaign has been successful. In an embodiment of the present invention, additional databases store the data derived through these indirect methods. The merge processor 104 combines this data with the data in the subscriber content-choice database 128 to provide additional information to analysts and content providers.
The embodiment shown in
Referring again to
Once the content provider has identified what is needed, the content provider determines whether or not an existing offering would fulfill the unmet demand 604. If the content provider has an offering meeting the unmet need, the subscriber determines how to direct the identified subscribers to the offering 605. For example, the cable operator may already offer an all-football-all-the-time channel. However, few subscribers are aware of the channel. The cable operator may direct advertising to the football fans, informing them that the all-football-all-the-time channel exists.
If an offering meeting the unmet demand does not already exist, the content provider develops a new offering 606. For example, if the cable operator does not have an all-football-all-the-time channel, the subscriber may create one by combining various national and local programming.
The content provider next sets the pricing for the existing or new offering 608. If the content provider has created a new offering, the price will likely be set higher than it would be for an existing offering because the cost in time and resources to develop the offering must be recouped. Also, the smaller the group for which a offering is tailored, the higher the price is likely to be because the cost of producing the offering is spread out among a small group of subscribers. For example, if the cable operator has an existing all-football-all-the-time channel, the cost of direct advertising to the football fans may be minimal compared to the increases in ratings and therefore advertising revenue derived from the advertising. However, if the cable operator purchases additional broadcasting rights in order to create the all-football-all-the-time channel, the cost will likely be passed on to subscribers who opt to subscribe to the channel.
Once the pricing is set, the provider delivers the content offering 610. The content provider may determine what an offering includes in various ways, including, for example, writing various options on paper or using a simple computer application, such as a spreadsheet. The offering may be created using a computer. For example, in one embodiment of the present invention, a computer program on analyzer 131 is able to analyze subscriber content-access histories to determine unfulfilled needs and creates content offerings specifically targeted to those needs.
At some point, the program must be made available to actual subscribers. For example, in the embodiment shown in
In an embodiment of the present invention, a similar process may be implemented to bundle combinations of various content offerings or bundles that include content offerings and products and/or services. For example, a cable operator offering the all-football-all-the-time channel may partner with a travel agency to offer a bundle including travel to and accommodations in the city hosting the Super Bowl. The price for the bundle is set in a manner similar to the process used to price a simple content offering: a new bundle or a bundle directed to a small number of subscribers carries a higher price than an existing bundle or a bundle targeted at a large group of subscribers. For example, very few football fans are likely to attend the Super Bowl, to the price of the bundle is discounted only slightly from the normal cost of accessing the channel and traveling to the Super Bowl host city.
An embodiment of the present invention provides great value to content providers. As a result, content providers are willing to pay for the outputs derived from the various reports and analysis. The content providers may be billed a flat subscription-type rate for access to all information collected or they may pay for each report and/or analysis that they request.
An embodiment of the present invention includes a computer-readable medium, having computer-readable instructions for analyzing subscriber-specific data to develop subscriber-specific content offerings. A computer-readable medium includes an electronic, optical, magnetic, or other storage or transmission device capable of providing a processor, such as the processor in a web server, with computer-readable instructions. Examples of such media include, but are not limited to, a floppy disk, CD-ROM, magnetic disk, memory chip, or any other medium from which a computer processor can read. Also, various other forms of computer-readable media may transmit or carry instructions to a computer, including a router, private or public network, or other transmission device or channel.
The foregoing description of the preferred embodiments of the invention has been presented only for the purpose of illustration and description and is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. Numerous modifications and adaptations thereof will be apparent to those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/533,025, filed Jul. 31, 2009, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,224,662, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/017,630, filed Dec. 14, 2001, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,587,323, with both applications incorporated herein by reference in their entireties. This application relates to U.S. application Ser. No. 10/017,742, filed Dec. 14, 2001, and incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. This application also relates to U.S. application Ser. No. 09/496,825, filed Feb. 1, 2000 and now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,983,478, and incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3798610 | Bliss et al. | Mar 1974 | A |
3886302 | Kosco | May 1975 | A |
3924187 | Dormans | Dec 1975 | A |
4130833 | Chomet | Dec 1978 | A |
4258386 | Cheung | Mar 1981 | A |
4361851 | Asip et al. | Nov 1982 | A |
4488179 | Kruger et al. | Dec 1984 | A |
4566030 | Nickerson et al. | Jan 1986 | A |
4567591 | Gray et al. | Jan 1986 | A |
4598288 | Yarbrough et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
4602279 | Freeman | Jul 1986 | A |
4688248 | Tomizawa | Aug 1987 | A |
4689661 | Barbieri et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
4697209 | Kiewitt et al. | Sep 1987 | A |
4698670 | Matty | Oct 1987 | A |
4720873 | Goodman et al. | Jan 1988 | A |
4816904 | McKenna et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4885632 | Mabey et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
4890322 | Russell, Jr. | Dec 1989 | A |
4912552 | Allison | Mar 1990 | A |
5010585 | Garcia | Apr 1991 | A |
5038211 | Hallenbeck | Aug 1991 | A |
5046090 | Walker et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5046092 | Walker et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5055924 | Skutta | Oct 1991 | A |
5173900 | Miller et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5191645 | Carlucci et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
5208665 | McCalley et al. | May 1993 | A |
5247347 | Litteral et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5249044 | VonKohorn | Sep 1993 | A |
5251324 | McMullan, Jr. | Oct 1993 | A |
5287181 | Holman | Feb 1994 | A |
5335277 | Harvey et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5339315 | Maeda et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5343240 | Yu | Aug 1994 | A |
5357276 | Banker et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5374951 | Welsh | Dec 1994 | A |
5382970 | Kiefl | Jan 1995 | A |
5389964 | Oberle | Feb 1995 | A |
5404393 | Remillard | Apr 1995 | A |
5410326 | Goldstein | Apr 1995 | A |
5410344 | Graves | Apr 1995 | A |
5436653 | Ellis et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5440334 | Walters et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5444499 | Saitoh | Aug 1995 | A |
5446490 | Blahut et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5446919 | Wilkins | Aug 1995 | A |
5481294 | Thomas et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5497185 | Dufresne et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5500681 | Jones | Mar 1996 | A |
5504519 | Remillard | Apr 1996 | A |
5532732 | Yuen et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5532735 | Blahut et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5534911 | Levitan | Jul 1996 | A |
5537143 | Steingold et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5559548 | Davis | Sep 1996 | A |
5579124 | Aijala et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5585838 | Lawler et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5585865 | Amano | Dec 1996 | A |
5589892 | Knee et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5596994 | Bro | Jan 1997 | A |
5600364 | Hendricks | Feb 1997 | A |
5600366 | Schulman | Feb 1997 | A |
5606359 | Youden et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5606602 | Johnson et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5608448 | Smoral et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5619247 | Russo | Apr 1997 | A |
5630119 | Aristides | May 1997 | A |
5649200 | Leblang et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5659350 | Hendricks | Aug 1997 | A |
5661516 | Carles | Aug 1997 | A |
5710815 | Ming et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5721827 | Logan | Feb 1998 | A |
5724521 | Dedrick | Mar 1998 | A |
5724525 | Beyers, II et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5724607 | Brandt | Mar 1998 | A |
5740549 | Reilly et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5752159 | Faust et al. | May 1998 | A |
5754775 | Adamson et al. | May 1998 | A |
5754939 | Herz | May 1998 | A |
5758257 | Herz | May 1998 | A |
5758259 | Lawler | May 1998 | A |
5774170 | Hite et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5777614 | Ando et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5778182 | Cathey et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5794210 | Goldhaber et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5796952 | Davis et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5798785 | Hendricks et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5809481 | Baron et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5818438 | Howe | Oct 1998 | A |
5838314 | Neel | Nov 1998 | A |
5848396 | Gerace | Dec 1998 | A |
5848397 | Marsh et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5850249 | Massetti et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5850447 | Peyret | Dec 1998 | A |
5854897 | Radziewicz et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5861906 | Dunn et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5867226 | Wehmeyer et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5872588 | Aras et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5872834 | Teitelbaum et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5883942 | Lim et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5892508 | Howe | Apr 1999 | A |
5892536 | Logan | Apr 1999 | A |
5901209 | Tannhenbaum et al. | May 1999 | A |
5917481 | Rzeszewski | Jun 1999 | A |
5931908 | Gerba et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5945988 | Williams et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5946636 | Uyeno et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5948061 | Merriman et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5973683 | Cragun | Oct 1999 | A |
5983227 | Nazem | Nov 1999 | A |
5991735 | Gerace | Nov 1999 | A |
5991799 | Yen et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6002393 | Hite | Dec 1999 | A |
6005597 | Barrett | Dec 1999 | A |
6026368 | Brown et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6029045 | Picco et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6029195 | Herz | Feb 2000 | A |
6076094 | Cohen | Jun 2000 | A |
6081840 | Zhao | Jun 2000 | A |
6100916 | August | Aug 2000 | A |
6119098 | Guyot et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6128009 | Ohkura et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6134531 | Trewitt et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6134532 | Lazarus | Oct 2000 | A |
6160570 | Sitnik | Dec 2000 | A |
6163644 | Owashi et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6172674 | Ethridge | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6177931 | Alexander et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
D437879 | Weinandt | Feb 2001 | S |
6185614 | Cuomo | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199076 | Logan et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6202210 | Judtke | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6226618 | Downs et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6236975 | Boe et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6252586 | Freeman et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253189 | Feezell et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6279157 | Takasu | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282713 | Kitsukawa | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6286042 | Hasselberg et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292549 | Lung et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6304644 | Karnowski | Oct 2001 | B2 |
6310943 | Kowlaski | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6314568 | Ochiai | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6314577 | Pocock | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6317488 | DePond et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324271 | Sawyer et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327574 | Kramer et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6332021 | Latter et al. | Dec 2001 | B2 |
6338043 | Miller | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6339639 | Henderson | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6341161 | Latter et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6345187 | Berthoud et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6345256 | Milsted et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6351637 | Lee | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6353929 | Houston | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6366772 | Arnson | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6397057 | Malackowski et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6400408 | Berger | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6408437 | Hendricks et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6427003 | Corbett | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6434747 | Khoo et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6438216 | Aktas | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442262 | Moss et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442263 | Beaton et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6445781 | Heinmiller et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6446261 | Rosser | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6457010 | Eldering | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6463468 | Bush | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6463585 | Hendricks et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477704 | Cremia | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6480589 | Lee et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487538 | Gupta et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6493439 | Lung et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6496569 | Pelletier et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6496571 | Wilson | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6496818 | Ponte | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6498841 | Bull et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6505348 | Knowles | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6507839 | Ponte | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6510417 | Woods | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6529591 | Dosani et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6530082 | DelSesto et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6542583 | Taylor | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6542591 | Amro et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6546092 | Corbett et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6553110 | Peng | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6553178 | Abecassis | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6560317 | Quagliana | May 2003 | B1 |
6560327 | McConnell | May 2003 | B1 |
6570971 | Latter et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6571344 | Sitnik | May 2003 | B1 |
6574319 | Latter et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6584490 | Schuster et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6631181 | Bates et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6631360 | Cook | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6639979 | Kim | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6647548 | Lu et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6650743 | Heinmiller et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6675383 | Wheeler et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6698020 | Zigmond et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6714992 | Kanojia et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6718021 | Crockett et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6718551 | Swix et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6728355 | Kowalski | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6731727 | Corbett et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6738978 | Hendricks et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6748058 | Bell et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6748068 | Walsh et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757691 | Welsh et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6766003 | Moss et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6766524 | Matheny et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
D494953 | Leung | Aug 2004 | S |
6771754 | Pelletier et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6771755 | Simpson | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6772209 | Chernock | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785301 | Chapman et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785368 | Eason et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6798879 | Beham | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6807267 | Moss et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6810115 | Fukuda | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6810527 | Conrad et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6816481 | Adams et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6826271 | Kanabar et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6831974 | Watson et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6845151 | Peng | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6845396 | Kanojia | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6845398 | Galensky | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6850988 | Reed | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6950804 | Strietzel | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6970641 | Pierre | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6976268 | Courtney | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6983478 | Grauch et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6985882 | Del Sesto | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7000245 | Pierre | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7010492 | Bassett et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7020336 | Cohen-Solal | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7020652 | Matz | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7039599 | Merriman | May 2006 | B2 |
7039932 | Eldering | May 2006 | B2 |
7086075 | Swix | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7100183 | Kunkel et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7212979 | Matz et al | May 2007 | B1 |
7260823 | Schlack et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7269835 | Swix | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7343354 | Hennessey | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7441260 | Kurapati | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7444658 | Matz | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7587323 | Matz | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7587732 | Wright et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7593858 | Matz | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7617508 | Gray | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7661118 | Matz | Feb 2010 | B2 |
20010004733 | Eldering | Jun 2001 | A1 |
20020004382 | Cox et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020009184 | Shnier | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020013757 | Bykowsky | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020016748 | Emodi et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020016964 | Aratani et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020032906 | Grossman | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035600 | Ullman et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020046099 | Frengut et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020049631 | Williams | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020049967 | Haseltine et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020056109 | Tomsen | May 2002 | A1 |
20020056118 | Hunter et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020078443 | Gadkari et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083441 | Flickinger et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087573 | Reuning et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020090933 | Rouse et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020092017 | Klosterman et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020092019 | Marcus | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020100064 | Ward et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020122401 | Xiang et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020123928 | Eldering et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133817 | Markel | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143647 | Headings | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020157108 | Kitsukawa et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020157109 | Nakano et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020169709 | Kitayama | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020183098 | Lee et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020191755 | Lew et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020199197 | Winter | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030003990 | Von Kohorn | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030028432 | Troyansky et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030028873 | Lemmons | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030049967 | Narumo et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030050100 | Dent | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030067554 | Klarfeld | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030092384 | Ross, III | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093792 | Labeeb et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030095650 | Mize | May 2003 | A1 |
20030108184 | Brown et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030110489 | Gudorf et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030110497 | Yassin et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115597 | Yassin et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030148758 | McMullin | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030149975 | Eldering et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030172374 | Vinson et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040125929 | Pope | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040128682 | Liga et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040133467 | Siler | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040163101 | Swix | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040193483 | Wolan | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193488 | Khoo et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040194131 | Ellis et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040248560 | Bedingfield et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040261127 | Freeman et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050060759 | Rowe et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071863 | Matz | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050084084 | Cook et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050132419 | Gray | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050137958 | Huber et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050235318 | Grauch | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050251820 | Stefanik | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050278741 | Robarts et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283401 | Swix | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283792 | Swix | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060031882 | Swix | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060075456 | Gray | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060106710 | Meek et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060161952 | Herz et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060168616 | Candelore | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060253884 | Gray | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271438 | Shotland et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271552 | McChesney et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060288367 | Swix | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070038514 | Patterson et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070083885 | Harding | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070226761 | Zalewski et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070250846 | Swix | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070255622 | Swix | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080004962 | Muthukrishnan et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080104634 | Gajdos et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080147497 | Tischer | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080148311 | Tischer | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080167943 | O'Neil | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080263586 | Thomas | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090292703 | Matz | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100083298 | Gray | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100088725 | Swix | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100191601 | Matz | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100257037 | Matz | Oct 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0 424 648 | Feb 1991 | EP |
1 162 840 | Dec 2001 | EP |
WO 9222983 | Dec 1992 | WO |
WO 94 17609 | Aug 1994 | WO |
WO 96 07270 | Mar 1996 | WO |
WO 98 31114 | Jul 1998 | WO |
WO 99 04561 | Jan 1999 | WO |
WO 99 45702 | Oct 1999 | WO |
WO 99 52285 | Oct 1999 | WO |
WO 0147156 | Jun 2001 | WO |
WO 03 052551 | Jun 2003 | WO |
Entry |
---|
U.S. Appl. No. 08/779,306, Grauch. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/039,062, Matz. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/020,779, Swix. |
www.actv.com, Screen Print, Oct. 8, 2000. |
“ACTV, Inc. Offers Exclusive Preview of ‘Individualized Television’ at Official All-Star Café,” Business Wire, Sep. 16, 1998. |
“ACTV's HyperTV & ‘Individualized Television’ to be Powered by Sun Microsystems' JavaTV Technology,” Business Wire, Apr. 21, 1999. |
Whitaker, Jerry, “Interactive TV: Killer Ap or Technical Curiosity?”, Broadcast Engineering, Dec. 1999. |
Dickson, Glen, “Digital TV gets specifically directed,” Broadcasting & Cable, Jun. 5, 2000. |
Reed, David, “The future is digital,” Precision Marketing, v. 13, n.51, p. 27, Sep. 21, 2001. |
Wasserman, Todd, “Mining Everyone's Business.” Brandweek, Feb. 28, 2000. 19 pages. |
Cauley, Leslie, “Microsoft, Baby Bell Form Video Alliance,” The Wall Street Journal, Sep. 26, 1994. |
“allNetDevices:—Report: Interactive TV Soon to Become Direct Marketing Tool,” allNetDevices, www.devices.internet.com/com—cgi/print/print.cgi?url=http://devices.../report—interactive.html, (Nov. 16, 2001) pp. 1-2. |
“Liberate Technologies—Solutions,” Digital Cable Two-Way, www.solutions.liberate.com/architecture/dc2.html, (Nov. 16, 2001) p. 1 of 1. |
“Liberate Technologies—Solutions,” Digital Broadband Telco, www.solutions.liberate.com/architecture/db.html, (Nov. 16, 2001) p. 1 of 1. |
“Liberate Technologies—Solutions,” Liberate Connect Suite, www.solutions.liberate.com/products/connect—suite.html, (Nov. 16, 2001) pp. 1-2. |
“Liberate Technologies—Solutions,” Liberate imprint Server™, www.solutions.liberate.com/products/imprint—server.html, (Nov. 16, 2001) p. 1 of 1. |
“Liberate Technologies—Solutions,” Liberate Mediacast Server™, www.solutions.liberate.com/products/mediacast—server.html, (Nov. 16, 2001) pp. 1-2. |
“Spike High Performance Server Array,” Mixed Signals Technologies, Inc., www.mixedsignals.com, itvinfo@mixedsignals.com (2000) p. 1. |
“power, flexibility, and control,” RespondTV, www.respondtv.com/whyrespond.html (Nov. 16, 2001) pp. 1-2. |
“It just clicks!,” RespondTV, www.respondtv.com/inaction.html, (Nov. 16, 2001) pp. 1-2. |
“The Wink System,” Wink System Diagram, www.wink.com/contents/tech—diagram.html, (Nov. 16, 2001) p. 1 of 1. |
“What is Wink?,” www.wink.com/contents/whatiswink.html, (Nov. 16, 2001) p. 1 of 1. |
“How Wink Works,” What is Wink: How wink works, www.wink.com/contents/howitworks.html, (Nov. 16, 2001) p . 1 of 1. |
“What is Wink: Examples,” What is Wink—Examples, www.wink.com/contents/examples.html, (Nov. 16, 2001) pp. 1-2. |
“Nielsen Media Research—Who We Are & What We Do,” www.nielsenmedia.com/whoweare.html, (Oct. 11, 2001) pp. 1-4. |
Aggarwal et al (“A Framework for the Optimizing of WWW Advertising” Proceedings of the International IFIP/GI Working Conference Trends in Distributed Systems for Electronic Commerce, pp. 1-10, Year of Publication: 1998). |
Ehrmantraut et al., “The Personal Electronic Program Guide—Towards the Pre-selection of Individual TV Programs”, pp. 1-8, 1996. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120260279 A1 | Oct 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12533025 | Jul 2009 | US |
Child | 13523916 | US | |
Parent | 10017630 | Dec 2001 | US |
Child | 12533025 | US |