The invention relates to the protection of digital information. More particularly, the invention relates to multiple transform utilization and applications for secure digital watermarking.
Increasingly, commercially valuable information is being created and stored in “digital” form. For example, music, photographs and video can all be stored and transmitted as a series of numbers, such as 1's and 0's. Digital techniques let the original information be recreated in a very accurate manner. Unfortunately, digital techniques also let the information be easily copied without the owner's permission.
Digital watermarks exist at a convergence point where creators and publishers of digitized multimedia content demand local, secure identification and authentication of content. Because piracy discourages the distribution of valuable digital information, establishing responsibility for copies and derivative copies of such works is important. The goal of a digital watermark system is to insert a given information signal or signals in such a manner as to leave little or no artifacts, with one standard being perceptibility, in the underlying content signal, while maximizing its encoding level and “location sensitivity” in the signal to force damage to the content signal when removal is attempted. In considering the various forms of multimedia content, whether “master,” stereo, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) video, audio tape or compact disc, tolerance of quality will vary with individuals and affect the underlying commercial and aesthetic value of the content. It is desirable to tie copyrights, ownership rights, purchaser information or some combination of these and related data into the content in such a manner that the content undergoes damage, and therefore reduction of its value, with subsequent unauthorized distribution, commercial or otherwise. Digital watermarks address many of these concerns and research in the field has provided a rich basis for extremely robust and secure implementations.
Of particular concern is the balance between the value of a digitized “piece” of content and the cost of providing worthwhile “protection” of that content. In a parallel to real world economic behavior, the perceived security of a commercial bank does not cause people to immediately deposit cash because of the expense and time required to perform a bank deposit. For most individuals, possession of a US$100 bill does not require any protection beyond putting it into a wallet. The existence of the World Wide Web, or “Web,” does not implicitly indicate that value has been created for media which can be digitized, such as audio, still images and other media. The Web is simply a medium for information exchange, not a determinant for the commercial value of content. The Web's use to exchange media does, however, provide information that helps determine this value, which is why responsibility over digitized content is desirable. Note that digital watermarks are a tool in this process, but they no not replace other mechanisms for establishing more public issues of ownership, such as copyrights. Digital watermarks, for example, do not replace the “historical average” approach to value content. That is, a market of individuals willing to make a purchase based solely on the perceived value of the content. By way of example, a picture distributed over the Internet, or any other electronic exchange, does not necessarily increase the underlying value of the picture, but the opportunity to reach a greater audience by this form of “broadcast” may be a desirable mechanism to create “potentially” greater market-based valuations. That decision rests solely with the rights holder in question.
Indeed, in many cases, depending on the time value of the content, value may actually be reduced if access is not properly controlled. With a magazine sold on a monthly basis, it is difficult to assess the value of pictures in the magazine beyond the time the magazine is sold. Compact disc valuations similarly have time-based variables, as well as tangible variables such as packaging versus the package-less electronic exchange of the digitized audio signals. The Internet only provides a means to more quickly reach consumers and does not replace the otherwise “market-based” value. Digital watermarks, properly implemented, add a necessary layer of ownership determination which will greatly assist in determining and assessing value when they are “provably secure.” The present invention improves digital watermarking technology while offering a means to properly “tamper proof” digitized content in a manner analogous to methods for establishing authenticity of real world goods.
A general weakness in digital watermark technology relates directly to the way watermarks are implemented. Too many approaches leave detection and decode control with the implementing party of the digital watermark, not the creator of the work to be protected. This fundamental aspect of various watermark technologies removes proper economic incentives for improvement of the technology when third parties successfully exploit the implementation. One specific form of exploitation obscures subsequent watermark detection. Others regard successful over encoding using the same watermarking process at a subsequent time.
A set of secure digital watermark implementations address this fundamental control issue, forming the basis of “key-based” approaches. These are covered by the following patents and pending applications, the entire disclosures of which are hereby incorporated by reference: U.S. Pat. No. 5,613,004 entitled “Steganographic Method and Device” and its derivative U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/775,216 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,687,236 on Nov. 11, 1997), U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/587,944 entitled “Human Assisted Random Key Generation and Application for Digital Watermark System,” (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,432 on Oct. 13, 1998);
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/587,943 entitled “Method for Stega-Cipher Protection of Computer Code,” (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,745,569 on Apr. 28, 1997); U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/677,435 entitled “Optimization Methods for the Insertion, Protection, and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digitized Data,” (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,889,868 on Mar. 30, 1999). and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/772,222 entitled “Z-Transform Implementation of Digital Watermarks,” (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,078,664). Public key crypto-systems are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,200,770, 4,218,582, 4,405,829 and 4,424,414, the entire disclosures of which are also hereby incorporated by reference.
By way of improving these digital watermark security methods, utilization of multiple transforms, manipulation of signal characteristics and the requisite relationship to the mask set or “key” used for encoding and decoding operations are envisioned, as are optimized combinations of these methods. While encoding a watermark may ultimately differ only slightly in terms of the transforms used in the encoding algorithm, the greater issues of an open, distributed architecture requires more robust approaches to survive attempts at erasure, or even means for making detection of the watermark impossible. These “attacks,” when computationally compared, may be diametrically related. For instance, cropping and scaling differ in signal processing orientation, and can result in the weakening of a particular watermarking approach but not all watermarking approaches.
Currently available approaches that encode using either a block-based or entire data set transform necessarily encode data in either the spatial or frequency domains, but never both domains. A simultaneous crop and scale affects the spatial and frequency domains enough to obscure most available watermark systems. The ability to survive multiple manipulations is an obvious benefit to those seeking to ensure the security of their watermarked media. The present invention seeks to improve on key-based approaches to watermarking previously disclosed, while offering greater control of the subsequently watermarked content to rights owners and content creators.
Many currently available still image watermarking applications are fundamentally different from the key-based implementations. Such products include products offered by Digimarc and Signum, which seek to provide a robust watermark by encoding watermark messages that rely entirely on comparisons with the original image for decode operations. The subsequent result of the transform, a discrete cosine transform performed in blocks, is digital signed. The embedded watermarks lack any relationship to the perceptual qualities of the image, making inverse application of the publicly available decoders a very good first line of attack. Similarly, the encoding process may be applied by third parties, as demonstrated by some robustness tests, using one process to encode over the result of an image watermarked with another process. Nonrepudiation of the watermark is not possible, because Digimarc and Signum act as the repository of all registrations of the image's ownership.
Another line of attack is a low pass filter that removes some of the high frequency noise that has been added, making error-free detection difficult or impossible. Finally, many tests of a simple JPEG transform indicate the watermarks may not survive as JPEG is based on the same transforms as the encoding transforms used by the watermarking process. Other notable implementations, such as that offered by Signafy (developed by NEC researchers), appear to encode watermark messages by performing a transform of the entire image. The goal of this process is to more consistently identify “candidate” watermark bits or regions of the image to encode in perceptually significant regions of the signal. Even so, Signafy relies on the original unwatermarked image to accomplish decoding.
All of these methods still rely on the original unwatermarked image to ensure relatively error-free detection of the watermarks. The steganographic method seeks to provide watermark security without an original unwatermarked copy of the media for decode operations, as well as providing users cryptographic security with ciphered symmetric keys. That is, the same key is used for encode and decode operations. Public key pairs, where each user has a public/private key pair to perform asymmetric encode and decode operations, can also be used. Discussions of public key encryption and the benefits related to encryption are well documented. The growing availability of a public key infrastructure also indicates recognition of provable security. With such key-based implementations of watermarking, security can be off-loaded to the key, providing for a layered approach to security and authentication of the watermark message as well as the watermarked content.
It is known that attacks on the survivability of other implementations are readily available. Interesting network-based attacks on the watermark message are also known which fool the central registration server into assuming an image is owned by someone other than the registered owner. This also substantiates the concern that centralized watermarking technologies are not robust enough to provide proper assurances as to the ownership of a given digitized copy of an multimedia work.
Because the computational requirements of performing multiple transforms may not be prohibitive for certain media types, such as still images and audio, the present invention seeks to provide a means to securely watermark media without the need for an original unwatermarked copy to perform decoding. These transforms may be performed in a manner not plainly evident to observers or the owner of the content, who may assume the watermark is still detectable. Additionally, where a particular media type is commonly compressed (JPEG, MPEG, etc.), multiple transforms may be used to properly set the mask sets, prior to the watermarking process, to alert a user to survivability prior to the release of a watermarked, and thus perceived, “safe” copy to unknown parties. The result of the present invention is a more realistic approach to watermarking taking the media type, as well as the provable security of the keys into consideration. A more trusted model for electronic commerce is therefore possible.
The creation of an optimized “envelope” for insertion of watermarks to establish secured responsibility for digitally-sampled content provides the basis of much watermark security but is also a complementary goal of the present invention. The predetermined or random key that is generated is not only an essential map to access the hidden information signal, but is also the a subset of the original signal making direct comparisons with the original signal unnecessary. This increases the overall security of the digital watermark.
Survival of simultaneous cropping and scaling is a difficult task with image and audio watermarking, where such transformations are common with the inadvertent use of images and audio, and with intentional attacks on the watermark. The corresponding effects in audio are far more obvious, although watermarks which are strictly “frequency-based,” such as variations of spread spectrum, suffer from alignment issues in audio samples which have been “cropped,” or clipped from the original length of the piece. Scaling is far more noticeable to the human auditory system, though slight changes may affect frequency-only-type watermarks while not being apparent to a consumer. The far greater threat to available audio watermark applications, most of which are variations of frequency-based embedded signaling, are generally time-based transformations, including time-based compression and expansion of the audio signal. Signafy is an example of spread spectrum-based watermarking, as are applications by Solana Technology, CRL, BBN, MIT, etc. “Spatial domain” approaches are more appropriate designations for the technologies deployed by Digimarc, Signum, ARIS, Arbitron, etc. Interestingly, a time-based approached when considered for images is basically a “spatial-based” approach. The pixels are “convolutional.” The difference being that the “spread spectrum-ed” area of the frequencies is “too” well-defined and thus susceptible to over-encoding of random noise at the same sub-bands as that of the embedded signal.
Giovanni uses a block-based approach for the actual watermark. However, it is accompanied by image-recognition capable of restoring a scaled image to its original scale. This “de-scaling” is applied before the image is decoded. Other systems used a “differencing” of the original image with the watermarked image to “de-scale.” It is clear that de-scaling is inherently important to the survival of any image, audio or video watermark. What is not clear is that the differencing operation is acceptable from a security standpoint. Moreover, differencing that must be carried out by the watermarking “authority,” instead of the user or creator of the image, causes the rights owner to lose control over the original unwatermarked content. Aside from utilizing the mask set within the encoding/decoding key/key pair, the original signal must be used. The original is necessary to perform detection and decoding, although with the attacks described above it is not possible to clearly establish ownership over the watermarked content.
In view of the foregoing, it can be appreciated that a substantial need exists for multiple transform utilization and applications for secure digital watermarking that solve the problems discussed above.
The disadvantages of the art are alleviated to a great extent by multiple transform utilization and applications for secure digital watermarking. In one embodiment of the present invention, digital blocks in digital information to be protected are transformed into the frequency domain using a fast Fourier transform. A plurality of frequencies and associated amplitudes are identified for each of the transformed digital blocks and a subset of the identified amplitudes is selected for each of the digital blocks using a primary mask from a key. Message information is selected from a message using a transformation table generated with a convolution mask. The chosen message information is encoded into each of the transformed digital blocks by altering the selected amplitudes based on the selected message information.
With these and other advantages and features of the invention that will become hereinafter apparent, the nature of the invention may be more clearly understood by reference to the following detailed description of the invention, the appended claims and to the several drawings attached herein.
In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, multiple transforms are used with respect to secure digital watermarking. There are two approaches to watermarking using frequency-domain or spatial domain transformations: using small blocks or using the entire data-set. For time-based media, such as audio or video, it is only practical to work in small pieces, since the entire file can be many megabytes in size. For still images, however, the files are usually much smaller and can be transformed in a single operation. The two approaches each have their own strengths. Block-based methods are resistant to cropping. Cropping is the cutting out or removal of portions of the signal. Since the data is stored in small pieces, a crop merely means the loss of a few pieces. As long as enough blocks remain to decode a single, complete watermark, the crop does not remove the mark. Block-based systems, however, are susceptible to scaling. Scaling, such as affine scaling or “shrinking,” leads to a loss of the high frequencies of the signal. If the block size is 32 samples and the data is scaled by 200%, the relevant data now covers 64 samples. However, the decoder still thinks that the data is in 32 samples, and therefore only uses half the space necessary to properly read the watermark. Whole-set approaches have the opposite behavior. They are very good at surviving scaling, since they approach the data as a whole, and generally scale the data to a particular size before encoding. Even a small crop, however, can throw off the alignment of the transform and obscure the watermark.
With the present invention, and by incorporation of previously disclosed material, it is now possible to authenticate an image or song or video with the encoding key/key pair, eliminating false positive matches with cryptography and providing for the communication of a copyright through registration with third party authorities, instead of the original unwatermarked copy.
The present invention provides an obvious improvement over the prior art while improving on previous disclosures by offsetting coordinate values of the original signal onto the key, which are then subsequently used to perform decode or detection operations by the user or authorized “key-holder.” This offsetting is necessary with content which may have a watermark “payload,” the amount of data that may successfully be encoded, based on Shannon's noisy channel coding theorem, that prevents enough invisible “saturation” of the signal with watermark messages to afford the owner the ability to detect a single message. An example, it is entirely possible that some images may only have enough of a payload to carry a single 100 bit message, or 12 ASCII characters. In audio implementations tested by the present inventor, 1000 bits per second are inaudibly encoded in a 16 bit 44.1 kHz audio signal. Most electronically available images do not have enough data to afford similar “payload” rates. Thus the premise that simultaneous cropping and scaling survival is more difficult for images than a comparable commercially available audio or video track. The added security benefit is that the more limited randomizer of a watermarking system based on spread spectrum or frequency-only applications, the random value of the watermark data “hopping” over a limited signaling band, is that the key is also an independent source of ciphered or random data used to more effectively encode in a random manner. The key may actually have random values larger than the watermark message itself, measured in bits. The watermark decoder is assured that the image is in its original scale, and can decide whether it has been cropped based on its “de-scaled” dimensions.
The benefits of a system requiring keys for watermarking content and validating the distribution of said content is obvious. Different keys may be used to encode different information while secure one way hash functions, digital signatures, or even one-time pads may be incorporated in the key to secure the embedded signal and afford nonrepudiation and validation of the watermarked image and “its” key/key pair. Subsequently, these same keys may be used to later validate the embedded digital signature only, or fully decode the digital watermark message. Publishers can easily stipulate that content not only be digitally watermarked, but that distributors must check the validity of the watermarks by performing digital signature checks with keys that lack any other functionality.
Some discussion of secure digital watermarking has begun to appear. Leighton describes a means to prevent collusion attacks in digital watermarks in U.S. Pat. No. 5,664,018. Leighton, however, may not actually provide the security described. For example, in particularly instances where the watermarking technique is linear, the “insertion envelope” or “watermarking space” is well-defined and thus susceptible to attacks less sophisticated than collusion by unauthorized parties. Over encoding at the watermarking encoding level is but one simple attack in such linear implementations. Another consideration ignored by Leighton is that commercially-valuable content in many cases may already exist in a unwatermarked form somewhere, easily accessible to potential pirates, gutting the need for any type of collusive activity. Such examples as compact disc or digitally broadcast video abound. Digitally signing the embedded signal with preprocessing of watermark data is more likely to prevent successful collusion. Depending on the media to be watermarked, highly granular watermarking algorithms are far more likely to successfully encode at a level below anything observable given quantization artifacts, common in all digitally-sampled media, than expectations that a baseline watermark has any functionality.
Furthermore, a “baseline” watermark as disclosed is quite subjective. It is simply described elsewhere in the art as the “perceptually significant” regions of a signal: so making a watermarking function less linear or inverting the insertion of watermarks would seem to provide the same benefit without the additional work required to create a “baseline” watermark. Indeed, watermarking algorithms should already be capable of defining a target insertion envelope or region without additional steps. Further, earlier disclosed applications by the present invention's inventor describe watermarking techniques that can be set to encode fewer bits than the available watermarking region's “bit-space” or encoding unrelated random noise in addition to watermark data to confuse possible collusive or other attempts at erasure. The region of “candidate bits” can be defined by any number of compression schemes or transformations, and the need to encode all of the bits is simply unnecessary. What is evident is that Leighton does not allow for initial prevention of attacks on an embedded watermark as the content is visibly or audibly unchanged. Moreover, encoding all of the bits may actually act as a security weakness to those who can replicate the regions with a knowledge of the encoding scheme. Again, security must also be offset outside of the actual watermark message to provide a truly robust and secure watermark implementation.
In contrast, the present invention may be implemented with a variety of cryptographic protocols to increase both confidence and security in the underlying system. A predetermined key is described as a set of masks. These masks may include primary, convolution and message delimiters but may extend into additional domains such as digital signatures of the message. In previous disclosures, the functionality of these masks is defined solely for mapping. Public and private keys may be used as key pairs to further increase the unlikeliness that a key maybe compromised. Prior to encoding, the masks described above are generated by a cryptographically secure random generation process. A block cipher, such as DES, in combination with a sufficiently random seed value emulates a cryptographically secure random bit generator. These keys will be saved along with information matching them to the sample stream in question in a database for use in descrambling and subsequent detection or decode operation.
These same cryptographic protocols can be combined with embodiments of the present invention in administering streamed content that requires authorized keys to correctly display or play said streamed content in an unscrambled manner. As with digital watermarking, symmetric or asymmetric public key pairs may be used in a variety of implementations. Additionally, the need for certification authorities to maintain authentic key-pairs becomes a consideration for greater security beyond symmetric key implementations, where transmission security is a concern.
The following describes a sample embodiment of a system that protects digital information according to the present invention. Referring now in detail to the drawings wherein like parts are designated by like reference numerals throughout, there is illustrated in
Each of the selected amplitudes and frequencies are stored in the key. After all of the image has been processed, a diagonal stripe of pixels is saved in the key. This stripe can, for example, start in the upper left corner and proceed at a 45 degree angle through the image. The original dimensions of the image are also stored in the key.
If a perfect fit is found at step 250, the process concludes. If no perfect fit is found, the process continues up to a crop “radius” set by the user. For example, if the crop radius is 4 the image can be padded up to 4 rows and/or 4 columns. The best fit is chosen and the image is restored to its original dimension, with any cropped area replaced by zeroes.
Once the information has been descaled, it can be decoded according to an embodiment of the present invention shown in
Although various embodiments are specifically illustrated and described herein, it will be appreciated that modifications and variations of the present invention are covered by the above teachings and within the purview of the appended claims without departing from the spirit and intended scope of the invention. Moreover, similar operations have been applied to audio and video content for time-based manipulations of the signal as well as amplitude and pitch operations. The ability to descale or otherwise quickly determine differencing without use of the unwatermarked original is inherently important for secure digital watermarking. It is also necessary to ensure nonrepudiation and third part authentication as digitized content is exchanged over networks.
This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/587,943, filed Jan. 17, 1996, entitled “Method for Stega-Cipher Protection of Computer Code,” (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,745,569 on Apr. 28, 1998); the entire disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference. This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/358,874, filed Feb. 21, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,738,659, issued Jun. 15, 2010, which is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/644,098, filed Aug. 23, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,035,409, issued Apr. 25, 2006, which is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/053,628, filed Apr. 2, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,205,249issued on Mar. 20, 2001. The previously identified patents and/or patent applications are hereby incorporated by reference, in their entireties as if fully stated herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3947825 | Cassada | Mar 1976 | A |
3984624 | Waggener | Oct 1976 | A |
3986624 | Cates, Jr. et al. | Oct 1976 | A |
4038596 | Lee | Jul 1977 | A |
4200770 | Hellman et al. | Apr 1980 | A |
4218582 | Hellman et al. | Aug 1980 | A |
4339134 | Macheel | Jul 1982 | A |
4390898 | Bond et al. | Jun 1983 | A |
4405829 | Rivest et al. | Sep 1983 | A |
4424414 | Hellman et al. | Jan 1984 | A |
4528588 | Lofberg | Jul 1985 | A |
4672605 | Hustig et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4748668 | Shamir et al. | May 1988 | A |
4789928 | Fujisaki | Dec 1988 | A |
4827508 | Shear | May 1989 | A |
4876617 | Best et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4896275 | Jackson | Jan 1990 | A |
4908873 | Philibert et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4939515 | Adelson | Jul 1990 | A |
4969204 | Jones et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
4972471 | Gross et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
4977594 | Shear | Dec 1990 | A |
4979210 | Nagata et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
4980782 | Ginkel | Dec 1990 | A |
5050213 | Shear | Sep 1991 | A |
5073925 | Nagata et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5077665 | Silverman et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5113437 | Best et al. | May 1992 | A |
5136581 | Muehrcke | Aug 1992 | A |
5136646 | Haber et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5136647 | Haber et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5142576 | Nadan | Aug 1992 | A |
5161210 | Druyvesteyn et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5210820 | Kenyon | May 1993 | A |
5243423 | DeJean et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5243515 | Lee | Sep 1993 | A |
5287407 | Holmes | Feb 1994 | A |
5319735 | Preuss et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5341429 | Stringer et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5341477 | Pitkin et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5363448 | Koopman et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5365586 | Indeck et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5369707 | Follendore, III | Nov 1994 | A |
5379345 | Greenberg | Jan 1995 | A |
5394324 | Clearwater | Feb 1995 | A |
5398285 | Borgelt et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5406627 | Thompson et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5408505 | Indeck et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5410598 | Shear | Apr 1995 | A |
5412718 | Narasimhalv et al. | May 1995 | A |
5418713 | Allen | May 1995 | A |
5428606 | Moskowitz | Jun 1995 | A |
5450490 | Jensen et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5469536 | Blank | Nov 1995 | A |
5471533 | Wang et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5478990 | Montanari et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5479210 | Cawley et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5487168 | Geiner et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5493677 | Balogh et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5497419 | Hill | Mar 1996 | A |
5506795 | Yamakawa | Apr 1996 | A |
5513126 | Harkins et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5513261 | Maher | Apr 1996 | A |
5530739 | Okada | Jun 1996 | A |
5530751 | Morris | Jun 1996 | A |
5530759 | Braudaway et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5539735 | Moskowitz | Jul 1996 | A |
5548579 | Lebrun et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5568570 | Rabbani | Oct 1996 | A |
5579124 | Aijala et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5581703 | Baugher et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5583488 | Sala et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5598470 | Cooper et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5606609 | Houser et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5613004 | Cooperman et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5617119 | Briggs et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5625690 | Michel et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5629980 | Stefik et al. | May 1997 | A |
5633932 | Davis et al. | May 1997 | A |
5634040 | Her et al. | May 1997 | A |
5636276 | Brugger | Jun 1997 | A |
5636292 | Rhoads | Jun 1997 | A |
5640569 | Miller et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5646997 | Barton | Jul 1997 | A |
5657461 | Harkins et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5659726 | Sandford, II et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5664018 | Leighton | Sep 1997 | A |
5673316 | Auerbach et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5677952 | Blakley et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5680462 | Miller et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5687236 | Moskowitz et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5689587 | Bender et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5696828 | Koopman, Jr. | Dec 1997 | A |
5719937 | Warren et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5721788 | Powell et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5734752 | Knox | Mar 1998 | A |
5737416 | Cooper et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5737733 | Eller | Apr 1998 | A |
5740244 | Indeck et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745569 | Moskowitz et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5748783 | Rhoads | May 1998 | A |
5751811 | Magnotti et al. | May 1998 | A |
5754697 | Fu et al. | May 1998 | A |
5757923 | Koopman, Jr. | May 1998 | A |
5765152 | Erickson | Jun 1998 | A |
5768396 | Sone | Jun 1998 | A |
5774452 | Wolosewicz | Jun 1998 | A |
5790677 | Fox et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5799083 | Brothers et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5809139 | Grirod et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5809160 | Powell et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5818818 | Soumiya | Oct 1998 | A |
5822432 | Moskowitz et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5828325 | Wolosewicz et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832119 | Rhoads | Nov 1998 | A |
5842213 | Odom | Nov 1998 | A |
5848155 | Cox | Dec 1998 | A |
5850481 | Rhoads | Dec 1998 | A |
5859920 | Daly et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5860099 | Milios et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5862260 | Rhoads | Jan 1999 | A |
5870474 | Wasilewski et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5884033 | Duvall et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5889868 | Moskowitz et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5893067 | Bender et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5894521 | Conley | Apr 1999 | A |
5903721 | Sixtus | May 1999 | A |
5905800 | Moskowitz et al. | May 1999 | A |
5905975 | Ausubel | May 1999 | A |
5912972 | Barton | Jun 1999 | A |
5915027 | Cox et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5917915 | Hirose | Jun 1999 | A |
5918223 | Blum | Jun 1999 | A |
5920900 | Poole et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5923763 | Walker et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5930369 | Cox et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5930377 | Powell et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5940134 | Wirtz | Aug 1999 | A |
5943422 | Van Wie et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5949055 | Fleet | Sep 1999 | A |
5963909 | Warren et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5973731 | Schwab | Oct 1999 | A |
5974141 | Saito | Oct 1999 | A |
5991426 | Cox et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5999217 | Berners-Lee | Dec 1999 | A |
6009176 | Gennaro et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6029126 | Malvar | Feb 2000 | A |
6041316 | Allen | Mar 2000 | A |
6044471 | Colvin | Mar 2000 | A |
6049838 | Miller et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6051029 | Paterson et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6061793 | Tewfik et al. | May 2000 | A |
6067622 | Moore | May 2000 | A |
6069914 | Cox | May 2000 | A |
6078664 | Moskowitz et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6081251 | Sakai et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6081587 | Reyes et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6081597 | Hoffstein | Jun 2000 | A |
6088455 | Logan et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6131162 | Yoshiura et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6141753 | Zhao et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6141754 | Choy | Oct 2000 | A |
6148333 | Guedalia | Nov 2000 | A |
6154571 | Cox et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6192138 | Yamadaji | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199058 | Wong et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6205249 | Moskowitz | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6208745 | Florenio et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6226618 | Downs | May 2001 | B1 |
6230268 | Miwa et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233347 | Chen et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233684 | Stefik et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6240121 | Senoh | May 2001 | B1 |
6263313 | Milstead et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272634 | Tewfik et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6275988 | Nagashima et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6278780 | Shimada | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6278791 | Honsinger et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282300 | Bloom et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282650 | Davis | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6285775 | Wu et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6301663 | Kato et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6310962 | Chung et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6330335 | Rhoads | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6330672 | Shur | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6345100 | Levine | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6351765 | Pietropaolo et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6363483 | Keshav | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6373892 | Ichien et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6373960 | Conover et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6374036 | Ryan et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6377625 | Kim | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381618 | Jones et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381747 | Wonfor et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385324 | Koppen | May 2002 | B1 |
6385329 | Sharma et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6385596 | Wiser | May 2002 | B1 |
6389538 | Gruse et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6405203 | Collart | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6415041 | Oami et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6418421 | Hurtado | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6425081 | Iwamura | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430301 | Petrovic | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6430302 | Rhoads | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6442283 | Tewfik et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6446211 | Colvin | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6453252 | Laroche | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6457058 | Ullum et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6463468 | Buch et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6484264 | Colvin | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6493457 | Quackenbush | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6502195 | Colvin | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6522767 | Moskowitz et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6522769 | Rhoads et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6523113 | Wehrenberg | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6530021 | Epstein et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6532284 | Walker et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6539475 | Cox et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6557103 | Boncelet, Jr. et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6584125 | Katto | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6587837 | Spagna et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6590996 | Reed | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6598162 | Moskowitz | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6606393 | Xie et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6611599 | Natarajan | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6647424 | Pearson et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6658010 | Enns et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6665489 | Collart | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6668246 | Yeung et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6668325 | Collberg et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6674858 | Kimura | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6687683 | Harada et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6725372 | Lewis et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6754822 | Zhao | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6775772 | Binding et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6784354 | Lu et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785815 | Serret-Avila et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785825 | Colvin | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6792548 | Colvin | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6792549 | Colvin | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6795925 | Colvin | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6799277 | Colvin | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6813717 | Colvin | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6813718 | Colvin | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6823455 | Macy et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6834308 | Ikezoye et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6842862 | Chow et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6853726 | Moskowitz et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6857078 | Colvin | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6865747 | Mercier | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6931534 | Jandel et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6957330 | Hughes | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6966002 | Torrubia-Saez | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6968337 | Wold | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6977894 | Achilles et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6978370 | Kocher | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6986063 | Colvin | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6990453 | Wang | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7007166 | Moskowitz et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7020285 | Kirovski et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7035049 | Yamamoto | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7035409 | Moskowitz | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7043050 | Yuval | May 2006 | B2 |
7046808 | Metois et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7050396 | Cohen et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7051208 | Venkatesan et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7058570 | Yu et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7093295 | Saito | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7095874 | Moskowitz et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7103184 | Jian | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7107451 | Moskowitz | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7123718 | Moskowitz et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7127615 | Moskowitz | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7150003 | Naumovich et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7152162 | Moskowitz et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7159116 | Moskowitz | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7162642 | Schumann et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7177429 | Moskowitz et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7177430 | Kim | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7206649 | Kirovski et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7231524 | Burns | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7233669 | Candelore | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7240210 | Michak et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7266697 | Kirovski et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7286451 | Wirtz | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7287275 | Moskowitz | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7289643 | Brunk et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7343492 | Moskowitz et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7346472 | Moskowitz et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7362775 | Moskowitz | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7363278 | Schmelzer et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7409073 | Moskowitz et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7457962 | Moskowitz | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7460994 | Herre et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7475246 | Moskowitz | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7530102 | Moskowitz | May 2009 | B2 |
7532725 | Moskowitz et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7568100 | Moskowitz et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7647502 | Moskowitz | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7647503 | Moskowitz | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7664263 | Moskowitz | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7743001 | Vermeulen | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7761712 | Moskowitz | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7779261 | Moskowitz | Aug 2010 | B2 |
20010010078 | Moskowitz | Jul 2001 | A1 |
20010029580 | Moskowitz | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010043594 | Ogawa et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020009208 | Alattar | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020010684 | Moskowitz | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020026343 | Duenke | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020056041 | Moskowitz | May 2002 | A1 |
20020071556 | Moskowitz et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020073043 | Herman et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020097873 | Petrovic | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103883 | Haverstock et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020161741 | Wang et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030002862 | Rodriguez | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030126445 | Wehrenberg | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030133702 | Collart | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030200439 | Moskowitz | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030219143 | Moskowitz et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040028222 | Sewell et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040037449 | Davis et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040049695 | Choi et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040059918 | Xu | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040083369 | Erlingsson et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040086119 | Moskowitz | May 2004 | A1 |
20040093521 | Hamadeh et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040117628 | Colvin | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117664 | Colvin | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040125983 | Reed et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040128514 | Rhoads | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040225894 | Colvin | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243540 | Moskowitz et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050135615 | Moskowitz et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050160271 | Brundage et al. | Jul 2005 | A9 |
20050177727 | Moskowitz et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050246554 | Batson | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060005029 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060013395 | Brundage et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060013451 | Haitsma | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060041753 | Haitsma | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060101269 | Moskowitz et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060140403 | Moskowitz | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060251291 | Rhoads | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060285722 | Moskowitz et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070011458 | Moskowitz | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070028113 | Moskowitz | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070064940 | Moskowitz et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070079131 | Moskowitz et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070083467 | Lindahl et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070110240 | Moskowitz et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070113094 | Moskowitz et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070127717 | Herre et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070226506 | Moskowitz | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070253594 | Lu et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070294536 | Moskowitz et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070300072 | Moskowitz | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070300073 | Moskowitz | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080005571 | Moskowitz | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080005572 | Moskowitz | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080016365 | Moskowitz | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080022113 | Moskowitz | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080022114 | Moskowitz | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080028222 | Moskowitz | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080046742 | Moskowitz | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080075277 | Moskowitz et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080109417 | Moskowitz | May 2008 | A1 |
20080133927 | Moskowitz et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080151934 | Moskowitz et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20090037740 | Moskowitz | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090089427 | Moskowitz et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090190754 | Moskowitz et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090210711 | Moskowitz | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090220074 | Moskowitz et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20100002904 | Moskowitz | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100005308 | Moskowitz | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100064140 | Moskowitz | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100077219 | Moskowitz | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100077220 | Moskowitz | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100098251 | Moskowitz | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100106736 | Moskowitz | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100153734 | Moskowitz | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100182570 | Matsumoto et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100202607 | Moskowitz | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100220861 | Moskowitz | Sep 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0372601 | Jun 1990 | EP |
0565947 | Oct 1993 | EP |
0581317 | Feb 1994 | EP |
0581317 | Feb 1994 | EP |
0649261 | Apr 1995 | EP |
0651554 | May 1995 | EP |
0872073 | Jul 1996 | EP |
1547337 | Mar 2006 | EP |
1354276 | Dec 2007 | EP |
1005523 | Sep 1998 | NL |
WO 9514289 | May 1995 | WO |
WO9701892 | Jun 1995 | WO |
WO 9629795 | Sep 1996 | WO |
WO 9642151 | Dec 1996 | WO |
WO9726733 | Jan 1997 | WO |
WO 9724833 | Jul 1997 | WO |
WO9726732 | Jul 1997 | WO |
WO9802864 | Jul 1997 | WO |
WO 9744736 | Nov 1997 | WO |
WO9802864 | Jan 1998 | WO |
WO9837513 | Aug 1998 | WO |
WO 9952271 | Oct 1999 | WO |
WO 9962044 | Dec 1999 | WO |
WO 9963443 | Dec 1999 | WO |
WO 0057643 | Sep 2000 | WO |
WO0118628 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO0143026 | Jun 2001 | WO |
WO0203385 | Jan 2002 | WO |
WO0203385 | Oct 2002 | WO |
Entry |
---|
US. Appl. No. 08/999,766, filed Jul. 23, 1997, entitled “Steganographic Method and Device”, published as 7568100 Jul. 28, 2009. |
EPO Application No. 96919405.9, entitled “Steganographic Method and Device”; published as EP0872073 (A2), Oct. 21, 1998. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/050,779, filed Feb. 7, 2005, entitled “Steganographic Method and Device”, published as 20050177727 A1 Aug. 11, 2005. |
U.S. Appl. No. 08/674,726, filed Jul. 2, 1996, entitled “Exchange Mechanisms for Digital Information Packages with Bandwidth Securitization, Multichannel Digital Watermarks, and Key Management”, published as 7362775 Apr. 22, 2008. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/545,589, filed Apr. 7, 2000, entitled “Method and System for Digital Watermarking”, published as 7007166 Feb. 28, 2006. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/244,213, filed Oct. 5, 2005, entitled “Method and System for Digital Watermarking”, published as 2006-0101269 A1 May 11, 2006. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/649,026, filed Jan. 3, 2007, entitled “Method and System for Digital Watermarking”, published as 2007-0113094 A1 May 17, 2007. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/046,627, filed Mar. 24, 1998, entitled “Method for Combining Transfer Function with Predetermined Key Creation”, published as 6,598,162 Jul. 22, 2003. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/602,777, filed Jun. 25, 2003, entitled “Method for Combining Transfer Function with Predetermined Key Creation”, published as 2004-0086119 A1 May 6, 2004. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/053,628, filed Apr. 2, 1998, entitled “Multiple Transform Utilization and Application for Secure Digital Watermarking”, 6,205,249 Mar. 20, 2001. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/644,098, filed Aug. 23, 2000, entitled “Multiple Transform Utilization and Application for Secure Digital Watermarking”, published as 7,035,409 Apr. 25, 2006. |
Jap. App. No. 2000-542907, entitled “Multiple Transform Utilization and Application for Secure Digital Watermarking”; which is a JP national stage of PCT/US1999/007262, published as WO/1999/052271, Oct. 14, 1999. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/767,733, filed Jan. 24, 2001 entitled “Multiple Transform Utilization and Application for Secure Digital Watermarking”, published as 2001-0010078 A1 Jul. 26, 2001. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/358,874, filed Feb. 21, 2006, entitled “Multiple Transform Utilization and Application for Secure Digital Watermarking”, published as 2006-0140403 A1 Jun. 29, 2006. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/417,231, filed Apr. 17, 2003, entitled “Methods, Systems and Devices for Packet Watermarking and Efficient Provisioning of Bandwidth”, published as 2003-0200439 A1 Oct. 23, 2003. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/789,711, filed Feb. 22, 2001, entitled “Optimization Methods for the Insertion, Protection, and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digital Data”, published as 2001-0029580 A1 Oct. 11, 2001. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/497,822, filed Aug. 2, 2006, entitled “Optimization Methods for the Insertion, Protection, and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digital Data”, published as 2007-0011458 A1 Jan. 11, 2007. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/599,964, filed Nov. 15, 2006, entitled “Optimization Methods for the Insertion, Protection, and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digital Data”, published as 2008-0046742 A1 Feb. 21, 2008. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/599,838, filed Nov. 15, 2006, entitled “Optimization Methods for the Insertion, Protection, and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digital Data”, published as 2007-0226506 A1 Sep. 27, 2007. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/369,344, filed Feb. 18, 2003, entitled “Optimization Methods for the Insertion, Protection, and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digitized Data”, published as 2003-0219143 A1 Nov. 27, 2003. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/482,654, filed Jul. 7, 2006, entitled “Optimization Methods for the Insertion, Protection, and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digitized Data”, published as 2006-0285722 A1 Dec. 21, 2006. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/594,719, filed Jun. 16, 2000, entitled “Utilizing Data Reduction in Steganographic and Cryptographic Systems”, published as 7,123,718 Oct. 17, 2006. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/519,467, filed Sep. 12, 2006, entitled “Utilizing Data Reduction in Steganographic and Cryptographic Systems”, published as 2007-0064940 A1 Mar. 22, 2007. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/731,040, filed Dec. 7, 2000, entitled “Systems, Methods and Devices for Trusted Transactions”, 2002-0010684 A1 Jan. 24, 2002. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/512,701, filed Aug. 29, 2006, entitled “Systems, Methods and Devices for Trusted Transactions”, published as 2007-0028113 A1 Feb. 1, 2007. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/049,101, filed Feb. 8, 2002, entitled “A Secure Personal Content Server”, published as 7,475,246 Jan. 6, 2009. |
PCT Application No. PCT/US00/21189, filed Aug. 4, 2000, entitled, “A Secure Personal Content Server”, Pub. No. WO/2001/018628 ; Publication Date: Mar. 15, 2001. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/657,181, filed Sep. 7, 2000, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals”, published as 7,346,472 Mar. 18, 2008. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/805,484, filed Mar. 22, 2004, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals”, published as 2004-0243540 A1 Dec. 2, 2004. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/956,262, filed Sep. 20, 2001, entitled “Improved Security Based on Subliminal and Supraliminal Channels for Data Objects”, published as 2002-0056041 A1 May 9, 2002. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/518,806, filed Sep. 11, 2006, entitled “Improved Security Based on Subliminal and Supraliminal Channels for Data Objects”, 2008-0028222 A1 Jan. 31, 2008. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/026,234, filed Dec. 30, 2004, entitled “Z-Transform Implementation of Digital Watermarks” , published as 2005-0135615 A1 Jun. 23, 2005. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/592,079, filed Nov. 2, 2006, entitled “Linear Predictive Coding Implementation of Digital Watermarks”, published as 2007-0079131 A1 Apr. 5, 2007. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/731,039, filed Dec. 7, 2000, entitled “System and Methods for Permitting Open Access to Data Objects and for Securing Data within the Data Objects”, published as 2002-0071556 A1 Jun. 13, 2002. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/647,861, filed Dec. 29, 2006, entitled “System and Methods for Permitting Open Access to Data Objects and for Securing Data within the Data Objects”, published as 2007-0110240 A1 May 17, 2007. |
Schneier, Bruce, Applied Cryptography, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, pp. 9-10, 1996. |
Menezes, Alfred J., Handbook of Applied Cryptography, CRC Press, p. 46, 1997. |
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., Merriam Webster, Inc., p. 207. |
Brealy, et al., Principles of Corporate Finance, “Appendix A—Using Option Valuation Models”, 1984, pp. 448-449. |
Copeland, et al., Real Options: A Practitioner's Guide, 2001 pp. 106-107, 201-202, 204-208. |
Sarkar, M. “An Assessment of Pricing Mechanisms for the Internet-A Regulatory Imperative”, presented MIT Workshop on Internet Economics, Mar. 1995 http://www.press.vmich.edu/iep/works/SarkAsses.html on. |
Crawford, D.W. “Pricing Network Usage: A Market for Bandwidth of Market Communication?” presented MIT Workshop on Internet Economics, Mar. 1995 http://www.press.vmich.edu/iep/works/CrawMarket.html on Mar. |
Low, S.H., “Equilibrium Allocation and Pricing of Variable Resources Among User-Suppliers”, 1988. http://www.citesear.nj.nec.com/366503.html. |
Caronni, Germano, “Assuring Ownership Rights for Digital Images”, published proceeds of reliable IT systems, v15 '95, H.H. Bruggemann and W. Gerhardt-Hackel (Ed) Viewing Publishing Company Germany 1995. |
Zhao, Jian. “A WWW Service to Embed and Prove Digital Copyright Watermarks”, Proc. of the European conf. on Multimedia Applications, Services & Techniques Louvain-La-Nevve Belgium May 1996. |
Gruhl, Daniel et al., Echo Hiding. In Proceeding of the Workshop on Information Hiding. No. 1174 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Cambridge, England (May/Jun. 1996). |
Oomen, A.W.J. et al., A Variable Bit Rate Buried Data Channel for Compact Disc, J.AudioEng. Sc., vol. 43, No. 1/2, pp. 23-28 (1995). |
Ten Kate, W. et al., A New Surround-Stereo-Surround Coding Techniques, J. Audio Eng.Soc., vol. 40,No. 5,pp. 376-383 (1992). |
Gerzon, Michael et al., A High Rate Buried Data Channel for Audio CD, presentation notes, Audio Engineering Soc. 94th Convention (1993). |
Sklar, Bernard, Digital Communications, pp. 601-603 (1988). |
Jayant, N.S. et al., Digital Coding of Waveforms, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 486-509 (1984). |
Bender, Walter R. et al., Techniques for Data Hiding, SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng., vol. 2420, pp. 164-173, 1995. |
Zhao, Jian et al., Embedding Robust Labels into Images for Copyright Protection, (xp 000571976), pp. 242-251, 1995. |
Menezes, Alfred J., Handbook of Applied Cryptography, CRC Press, p. 175, 1997. |
Schneier, Bruce, Applied Cryptography, 1st Ed., pp. 67-68, 1994. |
Ten Kate, W. et al., “Digital Audio Carrying Extra Information”, IEEE, CH 2847-2/90/0000-1097, (1990). |
Van Schyndel, et al., “A digital Watermark,” IEEE Int'l Computer Processing Conference, Austin,TX, Nov. 13-16, 1994, pp. 86-90. |
Smith, et al. “Modulation and Information Hiding in Images”, Springer Verlag, 1st Int'l Workshop, Cambridge, UK, May 30-Jun. 1, 1996, pp. 207-227. |
Kutter, Martin et al., “Digital Signature of Color Images Using Amplitude Modulation”, SPIE-E197, vol. 3022, pp. 518-527. |
Puate, Joan et al., “Using Fractal Compression Scheme to Embed a Digital Signature into an Image”, SPIE-96 Proceedings, vol. 2915, Mar. 1997, pp. 108-118. |
Swanson, Mitchell D.,et al., “Transparent Robust Image Watermarking”, Proc. of the 1996 IEEE Int'l Conf. on Image Processing, vol. 111, 1996 , pp. 211-214. |
Swanson, Mitchell D., et al. “Robust Data Hiding for Images”, 7th IEEE Digital Signal Processing Workshop, Leon, Norway. Sep. 1-4, 1996, pp. 37-40. |
Zhao, Jian et al., “Embedding Robust Labels into Images for Copyright Protection”, Proceeding of the Know Right '95 Conference, pp. 242-251. |
Koch, E., et al., “Towards Robust and Hidden Image Copyright Labeling”, 1995 IEEE Workshop on Nonlinear Signal and Image Processing, Jun. 1995 Neos Marmaras pp. 4. |
Van Schyandel, et al., “Towards a Robust Digital Watermark”, Second Asain Image Processing Conference, Dec. 6-8, 1995, Singapore, vol. 2, pp. 504-508. |
Tirkel,A.Z., “A Two-Dimensional Digital Watermark”, DICTA '95, Univ. of Queensland, Brisbane, Dec. 5-8, 1995, pp. 7. |
Tirkel,A.Z., “Image Watermarking—A Spread Spectrum Application”, ISSSTA '96, Sep. 1996, Mainz, German, pp. 6. |
O'Ruanaidh, et al. “Watermarking Digital Images for Copyright Protection”, IEEE Proceedings, vol. 143, No. 4, Aug. 1996, pp. 250-256. |
Cox, et al., Secure Spread Spectrum Watermarking for Multimedia, NEC Research Institude, Techinal Report 95-10, pp. 33. |
Kahn, D., “The Code Breakers”, The MacMillan Company, 1969, pp. xIII, 81-83, 513, 515, 522-526, 863. |
Boney, et al., Digital Watermarks for Audio Signals, EVSIPCO, 96, pp. 473-480 (Mar. 14, 1997). |
Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Del Ft University of Technology, Del ft The Netherlands, Cr.C. Langelaar et al.,“Copy Protection for Multimedia Data based on Labeling Techniques”, Jul. 1996 9 pp. |
F. Hartung, et al., “Digital Watermarking of Raw and Compressed Video”, SPIE vol. 2952, pp. 205-213. |
Craver, et al., “Can Invisible Watermarks Resolve Rightful Ownerships?”, IBM Research Report, RC 20509 (Jul. 25, 1996) 21 pp. |
Press, et al., “Numerical Recipes in C”, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988, pp. 398-417. |
Pohlmann, Ken C., “Principles of Digital Audio”, 3rd Ed., 1995, pp. 32-37, 40-48:138, 147-149, 332, 333, 364, 499-501, 508-509, 564-571. |
Pohlmann, Ken C., “Principles of Digital Audio”, 2nd Ed., 1991, pp. 1-9, 19-25, 30-33, 41-48, 54-57, 86-107, 375-387. |
Schneier, Bruce, Applied Cryptography, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1994, pp. 68, 69, 387-392, 1-57, 273-275, 321-324. |
Boney, et al., Digital Watermarks for Audio Signals, Proceedings of the International Conf. on Multimedia Computing and Systems, Jun. 17-23, 1996 Hiroshima, Japan, 0-8186-7436-9196, pp. 473-480. |
Johnson, et al., “Transform Permuted Watermarking for Copyright Protection of Digital Video”, IEEE Globecom 1998, Nov. 8-12, 1998, New York New York vol. 2 1998 pp. 684-689 (ISBN 0-7803-4985-7). |
Rivest, et al., “Pay Word and Micromint: Two Simple Micropayment Schemes,” MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, Cambridge, MA, May 7, 1996 pp. 1-18. |
Bender, et al., “Techniques for Data Hiding”, IBM Systems Journal, (1996) vol. 35, Nos. 3 & 4,1996, pp. 313-336. |
Moskowitz, “Bandwith as Currency”, IEEE Multimedia, Jan.-Mar. 2003, pp. 14-21. |
Moskowitz, Multimedia Security Technologies for Digital Rights Management, 2006, Academic Press, “Introduction—Digital Rights Management” pp. 3-22. |
Rivest, et al., “PayWord and Micromint: Two Simple Micropayment Schemes,” MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, Cambridge, MA, Apr. 27, 2001, pp. 1-18. |
Tomsich, et al., “Towards a secure and de-centralized digital watermarking infrastructure for the protection of Intellectual Property”, in Electronic Commerce and Web Technologies, Proceedings (ECWEB)(2000). |
Moskowitz, “What is Acceptable Quality in the Application of Digital Watermarking: Trade-offs of Security; Robustness and Quality”, IEEE Computer Society Proceedings of ITCC 2002 Apr. 10, 2002 pp. 80-84. |
Lemma, et al. “Secure Watermark Embedding through Partial Encryption”, International Workshop on Digital Watermarking (“IWDW” 2006). Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2006 (to appear) 13. |
Kocher, et al., “Self Protecting Digital Content”, Technical Report from the CRI Content Security Research Initiative, Cryptography Research, Inc. 2002-2003 14 pages. |
Sirbu, M. et al., “Net Bill: An Internet Commerce System Optimized for Network Delivered Services”, Digest of Papers of the Computer Society Computer Conference (Spring) Mar. 5, 1995 pp. 20-25 vol. CONF40. |
Schunter, M. et al., “A Status Report on the SEMPER framework for Secure Electronic Commerce”, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Sep. 30, 1998, pp. 1501-1510 vol. 30 No. 16-18 NL North Holland. |
Konrad, K. et al., “Trust and Electronic Commerce—more than a technical problem,” Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems Oct. 19-22, 1999, pp. 360-365 Lausanne. |
Kini, et al., “Trust in Electronic Commerce: Definition and Theoretical Considerations”, Proceedings of the 31st Hawaii Int'l Conf on System Sciences (Cat. No. 98TB100216). Jan. 6-9, 1998. pp. 51-61. Los. |
Steinauer D. D., et al., “Trust and Traceability in Electronic Commerce”, Standard View, Sep. 1997, pp. 118-124, vol. 5 No. 3, ACM, USA. |
Hartung, et al. “Multimedia Watermarking Techniques”, Proceedings of the IEEE, Special Issue, Identification & Protection of Multimedia Information, pp. 1079-1107 Jul. 1999 vol. 87 No. 7 IEEE. |
European Search Report & European Search Opinion in EP07112420. |
STAIND (The Singles 1996-2006), Warner Music—Atlantic, Pre-Release CD image, 2006, 1 page. |
Duplicate of L-97, Deleted by Nov. 16, 2010 by RAN. |
Radiohead (“Hail to the Thief”), EMI Music Group—Capitol, Pre-Release CD image, 2003, 1 page. |
Duplicate of L-4, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 18, 2010. RAN. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/169,274, filed Dec. 7, 1999, entitled “Systems, Methods and Devices for Trusted Transactions”. |
Duplicate of L-22, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-27, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/234,199, filed Sep. 20, 2000, “Improved Security Based on Subliminal and Supraliminal Channels for Data Objects”. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/671,739, filed Sep. 29, 2000, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals”. |
Duplicate of L-34, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-24, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-57, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-58, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-59, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-61, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-62, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-63, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-65, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Tirkel, A.Z., “A Two-Dimensional Digital Watermark”, Scientific Technology, 686, 14, date unknown. (citation revised upon review on Nov. 16, 2010 by RAN.) . |
Duplicate of L-68, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-69, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-70, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-71, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-72, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-73, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-74, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-75, Deleted by RN Upon Review on Nov. 16, 2010. RAN. |
Duplicate of L-076, Removed. RN. Nov. 16, 2010. |
Duplicate of L-77, Removed. RN. Nov. 16, 2010. |
Duplicate of L-78, Removed. RN. Nov. 16, 2010. |
Duplicate of L-79, Removed. RN. Nov. 16, 2010. |
EP0581317A2, Moved to Foreign Patent Pubs as F-028. |
Duplicate of L-52, Removed. RN. Nov. 16, 2010. |
Duplicate of L-36, Removed. RN. Nov. 16, 2010. |
Duplicate of L-38, Removed. RN. Nov. 16, 2010. |
Duplicate of L-37, Removed. RN. Nov. 16, 2010. |
Duplicate of L-63, Removed. RN. Nov. 16, 2010. |
Duplicate of L-54, Removed. RN. Nov. 16, 2010. |
Duplicate of L-55, Removed. RN. Nov. 16, 2010. |
Duplicate of L-80, Removed. RN. Nov. 16, 2010. |
PCT International Search Report in PCT/US95/08159. |
PCT International Search Report in PCT/US96/10257. |
Supplementary European Search Report in EP 96919405. |
PCT International Search Report in PCT/US97/00651. |
PCT International Search Report in PCT/US97/00652. |
PCT International Search Report in PCT/US97/11455. |
PCT International Search Report in PCT/US99/07262. |
PCT International Search Report in PCT/US00/06522. |
Supplementary European Search Report in EP00919398. |
PCT International Search Report in PCT/US00/18411. |
PCT International Search Report in PCT/US00/33126. |
PCT International Search Report in PCT/US00/21189. |
Delaigle, J.-F., et al. “Digital Watermarking,” Proceedings of the SPIE, vol. 2659, Feb. 1, 1996, pp. 99-110. |
Schneider, M., et al. “A Robust Content Based Digital Signature for Image Authentication,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing (IC. Lausanne) Sep. 16-19, 1996, pp. 227-230, IEEE ISBN. |
Cox, I. J., et al. “Secure Spread Spectrum Watermarking for Multimedia,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 6 No. 12, Dec. 1, 1997, pp. 1673-1686. |
Wong, Ping Wah. “A Public Key Watermark for Image Verification and Authentication,” IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, vol. 1 Oct. 4-7, 1998, pp. 455-459. |
Fabien A.P. Petitcolas, Ross J. Anderson and Markkus G. Kuhn, “Attacks on Copyright Marking Systems,” LNCS, vol. 1525, Apr. 14-17, 1998, pp. 218-238 ISBN: 3-540-65386-4. |
Ross Anderson, “Stretching the Limits of Steganography,” LNCS, vol. 1174, May/Jun. 1996, 10 pages, ISBN: 3-540-61996-8. |
Joseph J.K. O'Ruanaidh and Thierry Pun, “Rotation, Scale and Translation Invariant Digital Image Watermarking”, pre-publication, Summer 1997 4 pages. |
Joseph J.K. O'Ruanaidh and Thierry Pun, “Rotation, Scale and Translation Invariant Digital Image Watermarking”, Submitted to Signal Processing Aug. 21, 1997, 19 pages. |
OASIS (Dig Out Your Soul), Big Brother Recordings Ltd, Promotional CD image, 2008, 1 page. |
Rivest, R. “Chaffing and Winnowing: Confidentiality without Encryption”, MIT Lab for Computer Science, http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Chaffing.txt Apr. 24, 1998, 9 pp. |
PortalPlayer, PP502 digital media management system-on-chip, May 1, 2003, 4 pp. |
VeriDisc, “The Search for a Rational Solution to Digital Rights Management (DRM)”, http://64.244.235.240/news/whitepaper,/docs/veridisc.sub.--white.sub.--paper.pdf, 2001, 15 pp. |
Cayre, et al., “Kerckhoffs-Based Embedding Security Classes for WOA Data Hiding”, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 3 No. 1, Mar. 2008, 15 pp. |
Wayback Machine, dated Jan. 17, 1999, http://web.archive.org/web/19990117020420/http://www.netzero.com/, accessed on Feb. 19, 2008. |
Namgoong, H., “An Integrated Approach to Legacy Data for Multimedia Applications”, Proceedings of the 23rd EUROMICRO Conference, vol., Issue 1-4, Sep. 1997, pp. 387-391. |
Wayback Machine, dated Aug. 26, 2007, http://web.archive,org/web/20070826151732/http://www.screenplaysmag.com/t-abid/96/articleType/ArticleVew/articleId/495/Default.aspx/. |
“YouTube Copyright Policy: Video Identification tool—YouTube Help”, accessed Jun. 4, 2009, http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?h1=en&answer=83766, 3 pp. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/665,002, filed Dec. 22, 2009, entitled “Method for Combining Transfer Function with Predetermined Key Creation”, published as 20100182570 A1 Jul. 22, 2010, p. 76. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/592,331, filed Nov. 23, 2009, entitled “Optimization Methods for the Insertion, Protection, and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digital Data”, published as 20100077220 A1 Mar. 25, 2010, p. 77. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/590,553, filed Nov. 10, 2009, entitled “Optimization Methods for the Insertion, Protection, and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digital Data”, published as 20100077219 A1 Mar. 25, 2010, p. 78. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/590,681, filed Nov. 12, 2009, entitled “Optimization Methods for the Insertion, Protection, and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digital Data”, published as 20100064140 A1 Mar. 11, 2010, p. 79. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/655,036, filed Dec. 22, 2009, entitled “Utilizing Data Reduction in Steganographic and Cryptographic Systems”, published as 20100153734 A1 Jun. 17, 2010, p. 80. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/655,357, filed Dec. 22, 2009, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals”, published as 20100106736 A1 Apr. 29, 2010, p. 81. |
PCT Application No. PCT/US95/08159, filed Jun. 26, 1995, entitled, “Digital Information Commodities Exchange with Virtual Menuing”, published as WO/1997/001892; Publication Date: Jan. 16, 1997, F24. |
PCT Application No. PCT/US96/10257, filed Jun. 7, 1996, entitled “Steganographic Method and Device”—corresponding to—EPO Application No. 96919405.9, entitled “Steganographic Method and Device”, published as WO/1996/042151; Publication Date: Dec. 27, 1996; F19. |
PCT Application No. PCT/US97/00651, filed Jan. 16, 1997, entitled, “Method for Stega-Cipher Protection of Computer Code”, published as WO/1997/026732; Publication Date: Jul. 24, 1997. |
PCT Application No. PCT/US97/00652, filed Jan. 17, 1997, entitled, “Method for an Encrypted Digital Watermark”, published as WO/1997/026733; Publication Date: Jul. 24, 1997. |
PCT Application No. PCT/US97/11455, filed Jul. 2, 1997, entitled, “Optimization Methods for the Insertion, Protection and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digitized Data”, published as WO/1998/002864; Publication Date: Jan. 22, 1998. |
PCT Application No. PCT/US99/07262, filed Apr. 2, 1999, entitled, “Multiple Transform Utilization and Applications for Secure Digital Watermarking”, published as WO/1999/052271; Publication Date: Oct. 14, 1999. |
PCT Application No. PCT/US00/06522, filed Mar. 14, 2000, entitled, “Utilizing Data Reduction in Steganographic and Cryptographic Systems”, published as WO/2000/057643; Publication Date: Sep. 28, 2000. |
PCT Application No. PCT/US00/18411, filed Jul. 5, 2000, entitled, “Copy Protection of Digital Data Combining Steganographic and Cryptographic Techniques”. |
PCT Application No. PCT/US00/33126, filed Dec. 7, 2000, entitled “Systems, Methods and Devices for Trusted Transactions”, published as WO/2001/043026; Publication Date: Jun. 14, 2001. |
EPO Divisional Patent Application No. 07112420.0, entitled “Steganographic Method and Device” corresponding to PCT Application No. PCT/US96/10257, published as WO/1996/042151, Dec. 27, 1996. |
Provisional U.S. Appl. No. 60/222,023, filed Jul. 31, 2007 entitled “Method and apparatus for recognizing sound and signals in high noise and distortion”. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/458,639, filed Jul. 19, 2006 entitled “Methods and Systems for Inserting Watermarks in Digital Signals”, published as 20060251291 A1 Nov. 9, 2006, p. 82. |
“Techniques for Data Hiding in Audio Files,” by Morimoto, 1995. |
Howe, Dennis Jul. 13, 1998 http://foldoc..org//steganography. |
CSG, Computer Support Group and CSGNetwork.com 1973 http://www.csgnetwork.com/glossarys.html. |
QuinStreet Inc. 2010 What is steganography?—A word definition from the Webopedia Computer Dictionary http://www.webopedia.com/terms/steganography.html. |
Graham, Robert Aug. 21, 2000 “Hacking Lexicon” http://robertgraham.com/pubs/hacking-dict.html. |
Farkex, Inc 2010 “Steganography definition of steganography in the Free Online Encyclopedia” http://encyclopedia2.Thefreedictionary.com/steganography. |
Horowitz, et al., The Art of Eletronics. 2nd Ed., 1989, pp. 7. |
Jimmy eat world (“futures”), Interscope Records, Pre-Release CD image, 2004, 1 page. |
Aerosmith (“Just Push Play”), Pre-Release CD image, 2001, 1 page. |
Phil Collins(Testify) Atlantic, Pre-Release CD image, 2002, 1 page. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100220861 A1 | Sep 2010 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09053628 | Apr 1998 | US |
Child | 09644098 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11358874 | Feb 2006 | US |
Child | 12799894 | US | |
Parent | 09644098 | Aug 2000 | US |
Child | 11358874 | US |