Streaming Patent Buoys RealNetworks

rishimathew writes writes to tell us The New York Times is reporting that RealNetworks recently received a patent for a specific way to stream multimedia content over the internet. From the article: "The patent, which is described as being for a 'multimedia communications system and method for providing audio on demand to subscribers' (No. 6,985,932), describes the idea of permitting a PC user to play back audio, video and other information on a PC. RealNetworks executives said the technology was distinguished from other similar systems by the fact that it permitted "intelligent" streaming of data in potentially congested networks."

Comments

Vague?

[pembo13]

Are such vague terms as 'intelligent' really allowed in Patent Lawyer speak?

Re:Vague?

[Metabolife]

The intelligent refers to the "Buffering" statement.

Re:Vague?

[servoled]

They do, but you actually have to read the patent and the claim to figure out what they are talking about instead of relying on a short summary from slashdot.

Re:Vague?

[NitsujTPU]

Intelligent actually means something, the problem is, it's overused.

IE, your clock radio syncing up to GMT is not "intelligent," your clock radio figuring out where your hand will be when you try to hit the snooze alarm, and walking out of the way so you don't hit it, is intelligent.

Re:Vague?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are such vague terms as 'intelligent' really allowed in Patent Lawyer speak?

My legal writing professor just gone done talking about how engineers will write "there's no way we can get around patent XYZ" to each other, then the emails get subpoenaed as non-privileged communications, and the company loses millions of dollars. Let's not be so quick to judge.

Re:Vague?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are such vague terms as 'intelligent' really allowed in Patent Lawyer speak?

not sure about 'intelligent' but 'common sense' has already been registered and it's not allowed anymore.

Re:Vague?

[PrescriptionWarning]

I guess an alarm clock that runs away from you while beeping will be certain to wake you up precisely when you set the alarm. Or you could be like my old roommate and just sleep through the beeps too. :(

Re:Vague?

[NitsujTPU]

Maybe you could make it unintelligent enough that it still runs into a wall eventually, shattering itself.

Also, make it very expensive, so the owner feels compelled to catch it before it self destructs.

Re:Vague?

[pembo13]

Sounds like a patent to me. Go for it.

Patents stink

[LiquidCoooled]

How the hell can the patent office survive for so much longer?

This Real patent is just stupid "Click to stream", I'm actually wondering whether its announcement comes on the back of the changes Microsoft made to force people to click to activate?

They should be bouyed up by the yellow stream coming out of every web developers *censored* as they piss all over them with newer improved methods for getting the data across.

On that score, does anyone know which sites use Helix so I can blacklist them? (hosts format would be nice ;))

The article also mentions that Real shouldn't even have it anyway:

The new patent is known as a continuation patent, with additional claims based on an original filing in November 1994. One of the challenges that will confront RealNetworks in enforcing the patent is an earlier one owned by Apple Computer. Apple applied for a patent related to its QuickTime technology for streaming media in May 1994, before RealNetworks' first filing. The Apple patent, No. 5,561,670, for "method and apparatus for operating a multicast system on an unreliable network," was issued in October 1996. It appears the patent office examiners did not consider it in their evaluation of the RealNetworks patent.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Re:Patents stink

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, RealNetworks has given a lot to the industry and have used their streaming technol

Buffering...

Re:Patents stink

[Psykosys]

The article's point wasn't that the patent shouldn't necessarily have been granted, just that the Patent Office should have considered prior art as a factor in its decision. Real's actual patent application seems to be fairly specific, pointing to the format's inclusion of metadata, and, more importantly, lossless audio sent out simultaneously to the lossy, to be used only when enough has been buffered. I don't think Quicktime adopted the same solution.

Re:Patents stink

[lachlan76]

So you're saying that not stripping the ID3 tags makes it different?

Re:Patents stink

[Psykosys]

Umm:

and, more importantly, lossless audio sent out simultaneously to the lossy, to be used only when enough has been buffered. I don't think Quicktime adopted the same solution.

Re:Patents stink

[suv4x4]

This Real patent is just stupid "Click to stream", I'm actually wondering whether its announcement comes on the back of the changes Microsoft made to force people to click to activate?

Don't worry if Real comes after Microsoft, they can just make IE "double click to stream".

Re:Patents stink

[mpe]

The article's point wasn't that the patent shouldn't necessarily have been granted, just that the Patent Office should have considered prior art as a factor in its decision.

The US Patent Office appears to have a specific method for finding "prior art". Which whilst it often results in false negatives, AFAIK, never results in false positives.

Re:Patents stink

[dpille]

It appears the patent office examiners did not consider it in their evaluation of the RealNetworks patent.

That's because they can't, and they shouldn't. We don't do first-to-file here, we do first-to-invent. It's not a Patent Office examiner's job to work out who first reduced an invention to practice, who conceived it first, or who was dillegent in working on it, nor should it be. That takes a jury.

I just don't think it's reasonable to have expected the Patent Office (in 1994) to be able to even fully search, let alone determine the similarity of, internet/computing patent applications. Man, in 1994, we still sent in drawn drawings.

OOH OOH!

[TheJediGeek]

Does this mean that I can patent other common internet technologies by saying that mine does it "intelligently"?

I think I'll patent instant messaging by saying that my technology "intelligently" transfers text back and forth...

Re:OOH OOH!

[wanchai]

humbleness may help... I'd describe my whatever development as 'unintelligent' to get away from these greedy patent owners.

Re:OOH OOH!

[Draconix]

So it automatically bans people who use netspeak? Sweet! Sign me up!

Re:OOH OOH!

[jZnat]

An intelligent filter that gets rid of annoying AOLers? Now that's the first legitly patentable idea I've heard for a long time!

Re:OOH OOH!

[deathy_epl ccs]

An intelligent filter that gets rid of annoying AOLers? Now that's the first legitly patentable idea I've heard for a long time!

Prior art... Smith & Wesson already has this one covered.

Buoys?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that like the company is afloat just because of patent bullying?

Re:Buoys?

[escher]

It's certianly not the quality of their code.

(The one advantage to having worked there: I got to see why OOP in C++ is a Very Bad Idea.)

Re:Buoys?

[TheSpoom]

You think object-oriented programming in C++ is bad? I'm curious now. Please explain.

Re:Buoys?

[escher]

Pure OOP in C++ is one of those things (like operator overloading) that looks great on paper, and even seems to work well for small projects.

When you have to debug a 1.2GB source tree, it gets ugly. Very ugly.

• Confusing and sometimes ambiguous syntax.
  
• Multiple-inheritance nightmares.
  
• A language manual that requires many, many pages. (Compare to a full description of Objective-C)
  
• Requires years of experience to be truely familiar with the language.
  

Granted, some of my most harrowing experiences in C++ were a result of the code design at Real. (If anyone ever asks me to work with a custom-built pure-OOP C++ COM system again, I will run screaming in the other direction.)

Professional coding (7-year veteran, various languages) destroyed my ability to write good code. I'm just now staring to recooperate. I've gone back to straight C to get my brain straightened out and it's a breath of fresh air compared to the madness I'd been immersed in for so long.

I hate to say this, but I even prefer C# w/ the .NET API to C++ and the STL.

The best use for C++ I've seen is Pure-C-With-Smart-Structures.

Re:Buoys?

[jc42]

The best use for C++ I've seen is Pure-C-With-Smart-Structures.

Yup; most of the (rather few) good, readable C++ code I've seen is basically written like that. Most of it compiles fine under a plain C compiler; there are just a few structs that have been written as classes to take advantage of some of the OO capabilities in an elegant fashion.

Mostly, though, the best explanation I've seen for the widespread disastrous nature of C++ projects is the comment that C++ is a "write-only language". Usually nobody other than the original coders can ever modify a chunk of code without introducing all sorts of bizarre, unexpected side effects.

And, as is so often the case, this isn't really a property of the language. It's more a result of the programming culture that has developed, which puts a premium on a highly-obfuscated coding style. Why this happened is a bit of a puzzle, because you'd expect that C++ would be an offshoot of C, but the cultures are radically different. If you want to see a C-like programming culture, you should look at perl or python. The C++ culture is more like Cobol or PL/I, bizarre at that may seem when you just look at the languages.

OTOH, I've seen a few very simple and elegant small C++ programs. So go figure.

Yet More Patent Abuse.

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

"The patent, which is described as being for a 'multimedia communications system and method for providing audio on demand to subscribers' (No. 6,985,932), describes the idea of permitting a PC user to play back audio, video and other information on a PC. RealNetworks executives said the technology was distinguished from other similar systems by the fact that it permitted "intelligent" streaming of data in potentially congested networks."

What do you want to bet that RealNetworks is going to use this patent to sue anyone else who develops an "intelligent" method of streaming data?

Re:Yet More Patent Abuse.

[Ilgaz]

They can of course use it against Microsoft windows media division. A division invented NOTHING (yes, everything you see are licensed/acquired) and tried to drive the real inventors like real networks/apple quicktime out of business using Windows monopoly.

These are my words with bad grammar but they are based on facts found by EU court.

I hope the real reason behind this patent is that. Against "windows media 11 with intellisense technology". "The great invention you can download with 1 click in Vista".

Real is perhaps "evil" but they really did some great stuff. Same goes for Quicktime of Apple. Quicktime is the most "evil" division in Apple but they did amazing things and remember what Ballmer said about it.. Knife the baby etc.

Re:Yet More Patent Abuse.

[ScottLindner]

What do you want to bet that RealNetworks is going to use this patent to sue anyone else who develops an "intelligent" method of streaming data?

It won't bother me, because my patent I'm about to file is about a brilliant method of streaming data. :-)

Cheers,
Scott

Re:Yet More Patent Abuse.

[grumpyman]

No worries, we can just name our method differently like "bonehead data streaming" or "dumbass multimedia packet routing"

Re:Yet More Patent Abuse.

[Amouth]

we will just have to label all our new stuff dumb streaming.. so that it multi casts the packets to the client and to real's servers

if everyone did this they might stop this crap as it eats their servers to peices

I think

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they patented the "fallback" scheme of streaming server/client.

When your network goes havoc the 128kbit realaudio/video falls down to 96kbit first, than 64kbit etc. The trick is it also somehow "senses" the network lag has been fixed and it goes back to the normal level.

That is half of the reason why on movie trailer sites you see multiple stream rates for windows media and one stream link (unified) for real media. The other reason is the "layered" way of doing things in realmedia. A single file can have multiple bitrates.

These are things they invented or not, I don't really care. I don't also like the "patenting" of such things. There should be a way to make it free for opensource community implementing and not to Microsoft.

Helix open source leg can do it?

As I got my lesson from last time, posting as AC. Sorry :)

Re:I think

[ScrewMaster]

This is ridiculous. Modems have have had fall back and fall forward for years, by "intelligently" sensing line conditions and adjusting automatically for maximum throughput. This is hardly "novel". Has anyone actually seen a truly novel patent recently? I'd just like to know that people are still filing them.

Re:I think

[caluml]

free for opensource community implementing and not to Microsoft.

GPL v4: Free for Operating Systems that have the source code made publically available to all.

Moglen, Stallman, you listening? I'm available for consulting work. 2000 of your "US dollars" per day. Oh, and a day is 5 of your so-called "Earth hours". And you buy lunch.

Re:I think

[servoled]

These are things they invented or not, I don't really care. I don't also like the "patenting" of such things. There should be a way to make it free for opensource community implementing and not to Microsoft.

Patent it yourself and allow it to the OSS folks but not to Microsoft?
Release it under your own license that says it can only be used for non-commercial activities?

Of course these require you to come up with the idea before someone beats you to it.

Re:I think

[Alkrun]

"There should be a way to make it free for opensource community implementing and not to Microsoft."

There is a way. If the patent holder decides to license their technology for free to OSS then there you go. But it sounds like you're saying "I didn't invent this (I think it'll be argued that neither did Real Networks), but I like Open-Source software so there should be some form of exemption for OSS to ignore patents." Replace OSS with "huge corporate monopolies" and you could be a flack for Microsoft. Is that really the kind of life you want to lead?

I think technology patents in this country are pretty far gone right now, but that just means the system needs overhaul, not that we need to cover every piece of evidence that the system is broken with a gigantic band-aid (and a heavily biased one at that), masking the problem.

Re:I think

[atari2600]

But for modems, once you are connected at 9600bps, you stay connected at 9600bps - the modem doesn't realise that it can reconnect at 28.8K and drop your active connection. THAT would be very very annoying.

Re:I think

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it as a rule of thumb that the only software patents which aren't blindingly obvious are patents on algorithms invented 20-50 years prior by mathematicians. Needless to say, those mathematicians never see a cent.

Re:I think

[Asgard]

Modems have the capability to retrain, which lets them renegotiate the line speed mid-connection in response to line conditions. It doesn't drop carrier, but it does cause a few second pause in traffic.

Re:I think

[ScrewMaster]

No, later generation modems have fall-forward, it will bump the speed up if line conditions improve. That's been the case for a long time, actually.

Re:I think

[RexRhino]

Has anyone actually seen a truly novel patent recently? I'd just like to know that people are still filing them.

My patent for cold fusion is novel... but that was before the oil companies paid me to supress it.

Re:I think

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

When your network goes havoc the 128kbit realaudio/video falls down to 96kbit first, than 64kbit etc. The trick is it also somehow "senses" the network lag has been fixed and it goes back to the normal level.

Anyone familiar with both TCP and media codecs knows that this is trivial.

Re:I think

[Anonymous Coward]

This is ridiculous. Modems have have had fall back and fall forward for years, by "intelligently" sensing line conditions and adjusting automatically for maximum throughput. This is hardly "novel".

So when a modem retrains at a lower bitrate, does the server sending data to that modem magically cut the quality of the file it's sending, so that the download finishes in the same amount of time and the user doesn't notice anything but a drop in the quality of multimedia content?

No, I thought not.

Please get a fucking clue before you spout off. This may be "obvious", although I didn't notice you filing a patent for it in 1994. But it certainly hadn't been implemented before the patent was filed.

Re:I think

[Aceticon]

Aceticon's formula to come up with a patent that gets accepted by the USPTO:
1) Choose one or more data transport related verb: "sending", "receiving", "delivering", "reading", "transmiting"
2) Add a generic data format name (eg, "video", "audio", "text") or if all are taken a more specific one (eg "stock quotes", "tv clips")
3) Add a data transport type name (eg "wireless", "internet")
4) Optionally add a transport timing name (eg "asynchronous", "on request", "real-time")
5) Mix it all up with some patentish wording to come up with a patent ( eg "a method for real-time wireless sending and recieving of audio" )
6) Patent it (eg in our example we just patented mobile telephony)
7) Sit on the patent for a couple of years
8) Squeeze anybody that actually implements a working version of your algorithmic generated patent
9) Profit!!!

bad news for Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

everybody else, party carries on !

Oh, boy.

[phillymjs]

Cue an avalanche of "Buffering..." jokes in 3... 2... 1...

~Philly

Re:Oh, boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant:

Cue an avalanche of "Buffering..." jokes in 3... 2...Buffering... 1...

Re:Oh, boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Already tagged with "Buffering"

Re:Oh, boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

1.. 1.. 1.. 2.. 3.. 5.. 8.. 13.. 28..

Re:Oh, boy.

[R3d M3rcury]

Okay, I'll put it here:

"Gee, I didn't know that you could patent 'Buffering.'"

Thank you providing a place for me.

Re:Oh, boy.

[dangitman]

I couldn't read your comment because of network lag.

Re:Oh, boy.

[kimvette]

No, he configured his RealPlayer to buffer 100% before playing. He's on dialup (or Rogers "broadband"), you see. . .

Re:Oh, boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Cue an avalanche of "Buffering..." jokes in 3... 2... 1..

Bah. This is the one time when it would have been okay to say queue instead of cue.

Thank you. Thank you. Be sure to tip your waiter. I'll be here all [buffering...]

Real or Relevant?

[Eberlin]

By Intelligent streaming, they mean it'll take over your machine and feed you adware AFTER getting the run-around on how to download the free version and signing away your firstborn, that is.

Am I bitter? Yeah. Real was fairly innovative in the day and though Media Player had its part in shrinking the marketshare, it wasn't like Real didn't get pushy and lamer after a while. How's that OSS deal they had (was it helixcode?) going nowadays anyway?

In other news, I wouldn't be surprised if the patent actually pertains to a streaming download occasionally interrupted by the word "Buffering" followed by 3 ellipses.

Re:Real or Relevant?

[thelem]

Surely you mean one ellipsis.........

Re:Real or Relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hiyoooo! You are correct, sir! Either that or the guy who applied for the patent had OCD.

Re:Real or Relevant?

[atari2600]

I think it is time to stop bashing a company for mistakes it has made a while ago. They are trying to correct their mistakes. The free version of their player is easily available from their home page now. If you want more information about Real's Helix efforts, go here

. The fact that you continue to be bitter about something that no longer possibly is true is sad. You may go ahead and flame me now.

WTF is streaming exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was me thinking TCP/IP already had flow control and packet prioritization. Let's call a spade a spade here, digital media is just data and traffic shaping has been around for years. What do Real think they have a patent on exactly and can I interest them in a bridge?

Re:WTF is streaming exactly?

[Jerry Coffin]

What do Real think they have a patent on exactly [ ... ]

If you really want to know, why don't you read the patent?

If you do so, you'll have the rare privilege of finding that (for example) the claims that this is about fallback and/or buffering, and complete nonsense! The statements about buffering at least have a minimal defense -- as you'd expect in describing a streaming system, the patent claims do mention the client system having buffers -- though even there it's a bit more restrictive than would necessarily be obvious (e.g. it requires separate buffers for the data stream and the metadata).

In fairness, it's a little bit difficult to quickly summarize what is supposed to be novel and non-obvious about what's patented. In many patents, what's supposedly novel, non-obvious, etc. (novel and non-obvious are not considered synonymous) is usually the combination of elements in the patent, rather than one of the elements by itself.

Doing a bit of reading, they talk about doing things like allowing you to recieve the audio data and the metadata from separate servers. They also talk about something that sounds quite a bit like remote DMA. When you send a request for some audio data, you don't just specify a filename -- you specify the memory location on the remote computer where that data is stored.

Disclaimer: I only took a rather quick glance through the patent claims. While I'm reasonably certain that what I've outlined above is discussed in the claims, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there's more to it as well -- the patent has 40 claims altogether, and to really know what it's talking about you should read the disclosure as well as the claims. I'm also not an attorney, so you certainly shouldn't mistake anything I say for legal advice.

[ ... ] and can I interest them in a bridge?

Can I interest you in learning what the patent covers before you blithely assume it's nonsense?

Re:WTF is streaming exactly?

[DCstewieG]

Offer your bridge to the patent office, not Real. They'll buy anything!

They patented static text?

[thallgren]

So basically they patented a GUI with static text saying "Buffering..."? :-)

Re:They patented static text?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next thing you know they are gonna allow a patent for single mouse clicks.....oh wait

Re:They patented static text?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"So basically they patented a GUI with static text saying "Buffering..."? :-)"

That's more of a trademark than a patent.

Oooo! A bribable patent office! Hurray!

[TheNoxx]

Must be the cheer from all these tech firms. I know I'll get flamed by people working at the patent office, but quite frankly, if anyone works there and is not pissed off over what's going on and/or doesn't have any knowledge about whoever is obviously recieving kickbacks there they obviously qualify as idiots.

Oh well, good thing prior art for this is fucking everywhere.

Before you get into prior art...

[Anonymous Coward]

Note:

The present invention is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/347,582 U.S. Pat. No. 5,793,980, filed on Nov. 30, 1994.

That is the date you are going to have to beat.

New Patent..

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot just filed for a patent for a new invention called Dumb Streaming. Quick summary follows:

"The patent, which is described as being for a 'multimedia communications system and method for providing audio on demand to subscribers' (No. 6,985,933), describes the idea of permitting a PC user to play back audio, video and other information on a PC. Slashdot executives --CowboyNeal & CmdrTaco-- said the technology was distinguished from other similar systems by the fact that it permitted Dumb Streaming of data in potentially congested networks."

So, AYBAB2U ;)

Much ado about nothing

[nodnarb1978]

RealNetworks executives said the technology was distinguished from other similar systems by the fact that it permitted "intelligent" streaming of data in potentially congested networks."

So, the way I read this, and company flacks have made statements that support it, is that as long as you're not using their exact method, which is "intelligent", you're OK.

OSS Coders, Start working on super-ingenious streaming video methods!

Re:Much ado about nothing

[corychristison]

I shall call it, backwards buffer!

"3... 2... 1... Buffered!"

:-)

Re:Much ado about nothing

[monkeyos]

better make sure its not too ingenous, or it might come up with intelligent solutions that tread on patent toes.

Re:Vague? Only at NYT

[xiando]

"Abstract

An audio-on-demand communication system provides real-time playback of audio data transferred via telephone lines or other communication links. One or more audio servers include memory banks which store compressed audio data. At the request of a user at a subscriber PC, an audio server transmits the compressed audio data over the communication link to the subscriber PC. The subscriber PC receives and decompresses the transmitted audio data in less than real-time using only the processing power of the CPU within the subscriber PC. According to one aspect of the present invention, high quality audio data compressed according to lossless compression techniques is transmitted together with normal quality audio data. According to another aspect of the present invention, metadata, or extra data, such as text, captions, still images, etc., is transmitted with audio data and is simultaneously displayed with corresponding audio data. The audio-on-demand system also provides a table of contents indicating significant divisions in the audio clip to be played and allows the user immediate access to audio data at the listed divisions. According to a further aspect of the present invention, servers and subscriber PCs are dynamically allocated based upon geographic location to provide the highest possible quality in the communication link." http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6985932&O S=6985932&RS=6985932 The term 'intelligent' is no where to be found in the text of the actual patent, that's just the term RealNetworks used to explain how the program which apparently does little but show the fancy text message "Buffering" works.

Real Alternative & Media Player Classic

[citking]

Before I found Real Alternative and its necessary companion Media Player Classic I stayed far, far away from anything that used Real Player. I didn't want messages about Brittney Spears in my system tray, I didn't want to click 4 different links to bypass their premium player, and I certainly shied away from the massive load time.

I found out about it only after Click and Clack switched back to Real Player's format after having temporarily using Windows Media Player. Their reasoning was similar to mine; many older folks were having trouble locating the free Real Player. Despite the fact that Tom and Rau were able to make nice with Real Networks, I was never able to. But, thanks to my friend Sean, I shall never have to go through 4 different option menus to disable a message center again.

Besides, the Real Alternative codec seems better able to stream than Real's own player software. I assume the codec is just the "guts" of the player with no fluff...perhaps all of the extra system resources are being used by, oh, the message center checking on the latest dirt about TomKat or something.

Re:Real Alternative & Media Player Classic

[dangitman]

Besides, the Real Alternative codec seems better able to stream than Real's own player software. I assume the codec is just the "guts" of the player with no fluff..

You are getting confused. A CODEC is not a player. Your software is reading the same CODEC. obviously. The application may be better, but how can it change the CODEC used by sites that deploy Real media stuff?

Re:Real Alternative & Media Player Classic

[Nursie]

Err, you nbeed to update your knowledge. CO-DEC. COder, DECoder. you need one at each end. As long as the data comes to you in a known formate (real) then you can feel free to use whatever codec you like at either end. The Real codec and the Real Alternative codec both DECode the same data when used in a player on a PC, but the Real Alternative is codec is not restricted to use within Real Player, so any media player can use it, like Windows Media Player, Media Player Classic, VLC, mplayer, whatever. It doesn't change which codec is used by the sites, it changes which codec is used at your end. These do no have to be the same thing.

Re:Real Alternative & Media Player Classic

[dangitman]

Err, you nbeed to update your knowledge. CO-DEC. COder, DECoder. you need one at each en

Incorrect. CODEC standa for "Compression/Decompression scheme." And it is decoding the same data, so it will be the efficiency of the application that causes the difference. It can't recode the already compressed data.

Re:Real Alternative & Media Player Classic

[Nursie]

No, it can't recode the data, but it CAN decode it with a different efficiency if it has a different implemenbtation of the decompression side of things. What do you not get?

Re:Real Alternative & Media Player Classic

[dangitman]

What do you not get? The CODEC is the same, but the application decodes it more efficiently.

Re:Real Alternative & Media Player Classic

[Nursie]

NO!!! The input to the codec is the same, the output is hopefully the same as well, but the codec used by the player is a different implementation and thus can have efficiency characteristics associated. Sure the player affects things too, but the codec can provide improvements, which was the OP's statement IIRC.

Number 1.

[Spy der Mann]

(Meanwhile, in the USPTO...)

* Click to search for prior art regarding this patent application.
(Click!)

The following prior arts have been found. Listing 1-10 of approx. 236,772

1. -

buffering...

Why are patents so unpopular?

[BassKadet]

Setting aside the legitimacy of RealNetwork's patent, what is it with the popular feeling on this site and Digg that PATENTS = BAD. Sure, open source software is great and all but if somebody comes up with a great idea why CAN'T they get filthy rich from the concept and continue to milk it for years? I'm hardly the champion of capitalism but absurd extremist "everything-needs-to-be-free" views seen here are frankly disgusting. If you are content with people ripping off your ideas and profiting from them, please move to China or some other shithole where creativity is not encouraged.

Re:Why are patents so unpopular?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes the problem is when someone else can do the same thing BETTER, except they're not allowed to distribute or market the BETTER implementation because the first company already has a patent. Plus, if you already have a patent on it, why improve it or make it better? You're the only one with control over the idea...no one else can rip you off for another 20 years! Bad for innovation.

Re:Why are patents so unpopular?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, sometimes people get patents and don't actually make a product out of it. When someone else figures out a way to actually make the thing, they can't release it to the public because it's patented.

Re:Why are patents so unpopular?

[dangitman]

Sir,

You are infringing on my patent for methods of mentioning Digg on slashdot. Please cease and desist immediately, or you shall be hearing from my lawyer.

Ogg Vorbis Bitrate Peeling

[fossa]

Ogg Vorbis supports bitrate peeling, but it is not currently implemented. Apparently RealNetwork's SureStream encodes a given file at multiple bitrates resulting in a fat file, while bitrate peeling only needs a single encoding. Real's patent appears to be on the streaming logic to actually switch bitrate though, not the storage of bits in a file.

No need to post AC...

[tomcres]

...you were inferring that Real is an evil corporation for patenting something useful, not Apple. Had this been about QuickTime and you said something negative about Apple, your karma would've sunk faster than the Titanic. But according to my reading of the current state of Slashpolitik, Real is a perfectly safe target for criticism. Hammer away! ;)

Dammit....

[shr3k]

"RealNetworks executives said the technology was distinguished from other similar systems by the fact that it permitted 'intelligent' streaming of data in potentially congested networks."

Dammit! I just got finished patenting all the stupid ways of doing it...

(yawn) snake protocol

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like a snake protocol to me.

Buffering..

[saboola]

"The patent, which is described as being for a 'multimedia communications Buffering... Buffering... Buffering... system and method for providing audio on demand to subscribers' (No. 6,985,932), describes Buffering... Buffering...

Streaming of patent description closed due to network congestion. Please try to file your patent again later.

Real gets streaming patent, includes with FOSS Lic

[kforeman]

Great news for Linux and open source developers. Today Real announced it has added a fundamental patent for certain streaming media technology to its portfolio of patented innovations in digital media AND is automatically licensing the patented technology via its OSI-certified open source license for Helix DNA software, as Real has done with its other digital media patents embodied within Helix DNA Software. The recently-issued "Click-to-Stream" patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,985,932) covers the core methods used when a user selects a link to stream audio-visual content. The patent covers Real's groundbreaking technology innovations dating back to November 1994, four months before the introduction of RealAudio, which forever changed the Web by bringing streaming audio to the Internet for the first time. Real is indeed serious about open source software.

Click-to-Stream joins the portfolio of over 35 patents related to digital media, many that are available to Helix DNA Software licensees. As many of you know, over 50 commercial and open source companies, including Nokia, Linspire, Motorola, Novell, Real, Red Hat, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Sun Microsystems, Trolltech and Xandros, have licensed Helix DNA software and its patented technology to build media-enabled products.

So what about the GPL license you ask? Yes, the Helix DNA Client (the FOSS media framework which supports any format and any operating system) is licensed under the GPL license. And what about patents under the GPL? As you may know, the proposed draft 3.0 of GPL contains an express patent license, whereas the current version of GPL being used by Real (version 2.0) does not contain a patent license. There is broad and public discussion about whether and to what extent an implicit patent license is or is not granted under the GPL, and if so, what the scope of such a license would be. Real's concerns regarding the uncertain nature of such an implied license has led Real to expressly disclaim any implied patent license under its GPL license grant, and to encourage Open Source developers who desire an express patent license from Real to take a license from Real under the RealNetworks Public Source License. For those who nevertheless prefer to use the code under the GPL, we assure you that Real has no plans to pursue any abiding GPL licensee of the Helix DNA Client software - We fully encourage open source software innovation and the collaboration among our licensees.

Here is the actual announcement: http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/releases

Here is the licensing FAQ https://helixcommunity.org/content/faq-licenses

Kevin Foreman,
GM, Real

On the other hand ...

[Infernal Device]

This is great and all for them, but it doesn't change the fact that they still suck on quality. Windows Media Player may be produced by the Evil Empire, but it's still head and shoulders above Real.

Re:On the other hand ...

[fader]

Windows Media Player may be produced by the Evil Empire, but it's still head and shoulders above Real.

The fact that you're about the zillionth person I've heard say this makes me finally break down and say "Wuhhh?"

I've never had anything but terrible experiences with WMV. Skipping in a local file entails ~30 seconds of waiting for the video to catch back up while I look at a still frame of pr0n -- it's instant in Real. Skipping streaming video, as far as I can tell, isn't even possible with WMV. The controls are either disabled or just nonfunctional.

Admittedly, I haven't used WMV on Windows. (Ever.) I'd ascribe it to Microsoft's shitty Mac support if it were just OSX that I saw this in, but even in all the flavors of Linux I've ever used, using the codec DLLs from Windows, it's the same story.

While Real used to make it a real bitch to find their free player, once I got it I've never had a bad experience with it. No spyware or popups or any annoyances at all. (Again, I haven't used it on Windows since about 1998, the last time I had a Windows machine for personal use.)

So honestly, not trolling or flamebaiting... does WMV actually work on Windows?

I can patent too.

[Alcimedes]

I need to patent a system whereby I collect money from people intelligently. If they have more money than I do, I'll intellegently collect it from them. They can even stream me money directly to my bank account!

Big bucks here I come!

Re:I can patent too.

[CottonEyedJoe]

Great, now all you need to do is figure out how to convince or compel people with more money than you to give you theirs and you'll have a business, protection racket or government!

Re:I can patent too.

[zippthorne]

What's the difference between the last two?

Re:I can patent too.

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

>"[...]you'll have a business, protection racket or government!"
What's the difference between the last two?

Really, the question is more one of what's the difference between ANY of those three?

And the answer is simply that, in the order they are listed, they go from "least dishonest" to "most dishonest"...

Re:I can patent too.

[zippthorne]

Oh, c'mon. Businesses usually give you something in return for your money, be it service or product.

Oh please.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're just getting desperate. I've been using video codecs since the 90s and back then RealMedia was a good thing, but, since then it has slowly sunk down into being a mediocre codec which forces the users to have to deal with a horribly bloated player which has been known in the past to have spyware.

If they want to save RealNetworks, they need to make the basics, such as the video codecs, actually USEABLE. As it is, they'll have to count on the type of users who use services such as AOL, and I needn't point out that AOL has such a high turnover rate for good reason. (At least AOL tries to improve, albiet in all the wrong ways. RealNetworks does not.)

My opinion

[iamdrscience]

This patent is a streaming pile of crap.

Re:Real gets streaming patent, includes with FOSS

[Anonymous Coward]

why is it that the patent makes no mention of 'video', but purely an 'audio control center' - unless real applied for a continuation-in-part for the re-classification of 'metadata' beyond just a baseball game scores and stats..

this method does not include provisions for multi-stream delivery, which is critical to proper delivery of video.

Re:Real gets streaming patent, includes with FOSS

[slashflood]

Wow! Thanks!

Um...

[alerante]

Am I the only one that read "Streaming Patent Buys RealNetworks" and thought, Yeah, I think the patent system needs some serious reform?

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not the only one

In the US RealNetworks buys streaming patent, but

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, streaming patent buoys RealNetworks!

*Something* is wrong with the Patent Office

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a third possibility, though distant. Perhaps there are people who actually *can* see what's going on, and are trying to sabotage it internally. If the NYT can find an earlier patent on what appears to be the same thing, surely the Patent Office can do the same thing, and so can any patent lawyer attempting to invalidate it. If there are enough ridiculous patents that are discarded (RIM and NTP, I'm looking at you), patents given for ridiculous things like variable rate, variable server downloads of data (but it's video data! OMG! That's different!), and generally stupid shit (Real applied for this patent *12* years ago), then a few congresscritters might actually try to reform something.
With any luck, in a few years the patent office will be patenting water or something.

We should all be so "desperate" as Real Networks

[westlake]

They're just getting desperate.

Real Networks stock is up 38% since February. Rhapsody's subscription and download service is doing quite well, thank you very much, in a market dominated by iTunes.

Results for the first quarter of 2006 will be released next week, but right now, things are looking pretty damn good for Real.

RealNetworks Benefiting From Video Offerings

Re:Real gets streaming patent, includes with FOSS

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, the only post from somebody who actually knows something instead of the traditional "patents are stupid" rants gets a score of 4. Somebody mod it up please.

Re:Real gets streaming patent, includes with FOSS

[mikiN]

The patent covers Real's groundbreaking technology innovations dating back to November 1994, four months before the introduction of RealAudio, which forever changed the Web by bringing streaming audio to the Internet for the first time.

Not to be rude, as you may fool some younger Slashdotters, but not me. Fact is, there were streaming audio solutions on the Internet well before 1994. How do I know? Well, I took part in the development of one of them, and helped with the porting effort of several others.

I'll keep the list of examples short and sweet, others may add as they please.

AudioFile
The Network Audio System (NAS)

Note: These systems, as were several others, were OSS right from the start.

More Patent Abuse. Yay!!!

[crovira]

They'll drive more people to podcasting. Yay!

They'll also try to squeeze the telcos who are trying to keep us on their 'sit the fuck down spot on seven and watch what ever crap we can scare up cheap to feed you' schedule.

Podcasting, RSS and podcatching are like TiVO on steroids with some feed back ability to boot.

They say 'screw you' to the telcos who are trying to get everybody to pay extra for what is now 'dark fiber' buried under the ground.

Remember GlobalCrossing?

What happened to all the fibre they laid?

Right...

The telcos bought it all up at the bankruptcy sale and they're going to try to make you pay for it all over again, at a premium price.

But podcasting/podcatching doesn't need synchronous delivery.

Good ol' TCP/IP is plenty good enough.

Screw their special 'guaranteed speed' charges.

Media is dying and their greed is just bleeding it faster.

possible prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

The vat/vic audio/video conferencing projects at Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Labs during the 1990s led by Steve McCanne et. al., used adaptive compression schemes for real time conferencing over IP multicast networks (the MBone).

Here's a 1996 paper.

Re:Real gets streaming patent, includes with FOSS

[hotdiggitydawg]

Good point. From the NAS Documentation:

In a client/server architecture, network transfer delays can cometimes make the arrival of data less predictable than if it were coming from a physical device. This can result in underruns (data not arriving in time) or overruns (more data arriving than there is room for) if the delays are sufficiently large. If an underrun or overrun occurs, the affected element is "Paused" until more data or space becomes available. To avoid pauses, applications can control the amount of data that is kept for each input and output element and can request notices whenever an input begins to run out of data or an output has to buffer up too much data.

How does that fail to qualify as prior art?

Obligatory image

[Anonymous Coward]

As topic:

http://unix.rulez.org.nyud.net:8090/~calver/pictur es/real-buffering.jpg

Re:Vague? Only at NYT

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any explanation here or anywhere how this is an invention? I assume they locked the patent examiner in a time machine and forced them to evaluate the "technology" based on the standards of circa 1993 or earlier, right? (Good thing they didn't patent the time machine.)

Reaction?

[suv4x4]

When the public reaction to "entity X was awarded a patent" is "oh shit...", isn't it about time something is friggin done about it?

We're sitting here discussing how bad it really is, but the politicians in charge of it do nothing... Something's really broken in the process isn't it.

F'ing great

[dspisak]

Now RealNetwork's owns a patent on the "Buffering...." nonsense.

I can just imagine folks the world over will be beating on their door to license such wonderfully working software!

Or people could just do MPEG-4 or Quicktime streaming and never have to deal with the unending stream of "BUffering...." seen in almost any Real Networks product.

Re:F'ing great

[AlgorithMan]

Quicktime is the same thing - just like wmv3...

Re:F'ing great

[dspisak]

Yes but the buffering in Quicktime actually works! Whereas in any product from Real all too often you'd see that damn "Buffering..." message forever with no video starting up or worse it would start for a few seconds and then go right back to "Buffering"!

Streaming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else read this as "Steaming Patent...."?

what is so horrible about xvid?

[AlgorithMan]

if hollywood didn't publish it's movie trailers in the quicktime and real formats then these formats were dead... but why do they do that? because they are just n00bs that have no clue how to save them in different formats on their mac?

I don't think so...
but why do they force people to use these properitary software players? (I just say "you want fullscreen? that costs 30$" thank you, apple) first of all this does NOT prevent the trailers from being downloaded, but I guess thats what they think...
but what's the point in that? uh, people might have your trailers on their hard disks, they can watch them multiple times without stressing your servers and their bandwidth - they might show them to their friends and make them interested in your movies...

I can't even come up with a funny or ridiculous example of a reason for forbidding the trailer-download...

Re:what is so horrible about xvid?

[mvdw]

I've usually been able to download any trailer, by following this method:

Go to the site the trailer lives on, view source, and do a search on "mov". The filename usually won't be the first term (since it'll usually have the word "movie" on the site in several places).

Then, once you've found the URL, go to a console window (either a shell in Linux or a cygwin shell in Windows), and type in "wget [URL]" - you can copy and paste the URL in to the text window (middle click on X, right click on cygwin).

Once you've downloaded the file, play it using mplayer. Doesn't cost anything, and can play mov's fullscreen,

all formats include metadata

[Anonymous Coward]

pointing to the format's inclusion of metadata

the very word "format", as applied in computer science, refers to the layout of included metadata. what the hell does everyong think they are talking about?

RTP/RTCP do this

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet standard RTP/RTCP protocols do this kind of feedback-loop.

If a receiver of a stream is finding that it is having trouble, perhaps because of lost packets due to congestion, it can make that fact known to the senders via the RTCP Receiver Report packet.

The sender would then consider whether to change its method of transmission (in a multicast environment one bad receiver among many might not warrant a change) or alter the codec being used (e.g. substitute a RAT type redundant encoding), etc.

This RTP/RTCP stuff pre-dated, I believe, the founding of Real Networks.

Red herring. The codecs are still restricted

[Bj�rn Stenberg]

So what about the GPL license you ask? Yes, the Helix DNA Client (the FOSS media framework which supports any format and any operating system) is licensed under the GPL license.

Sure it is, but none of the codecs are. So it's 100% worthless.

There are zillions of "frameworks" avalailable already. It's the codecs we need, and Real still requires their commercial license for those.

You show up a point, however

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your solution is that your process needs only be similar enough to the patented method for them to have an argument that you've used their patent. Whether you have or not, you'll have to prove in court or pay up.

And similar enough is what is put in the abstract: streaming media that down/upgrades quality.

The litigant should have to prove the patent is infringed.

GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

The more royalties *BUFFERING* they charge to to do *BUFFERING*buffering, the less likely it is for *BUFFERING* other players to do it!

Point proven

[tomcres]

See how quickly that was modded flamebait? The moderator proved my point. Apple is untouchable on Slashdot. If you thought Linux users on /. had a cult-like mentality, you haven't dared speak the ineffable name of the holy fruit!

Re:Vague? Only at NYT

[Fred_A]

I no longer work in that area but I remember seing some very similar stuff back around 1998 (multiple data qualities in the same stream, although it was for adio *and* video at the time)... I didn't see anything new in what's described above.

Without any extra details, I'll assume that as usual the patent was awarded without any consideration for prior art.

A case of copyrighting basic concepts again

[unity100]

the concept of 'intelligence' can not be bundled together with various other stuff and be grounds for a copyright. Real has to define clear methods that has never been used or copyrighted before. They are putting forward vague concepts to get a copyright to create an income from streaming. Another bad joke made to people of the net.

Re:Real gets streaming patent, includes with FOSS

[bobbutts]

sounds good, but over 10 years of realnetworks has taught me to know you guys are bullshit. You have inferior products that define nagware and a malicious team of lawyers.

Does anyone else remember the opt in list of crapware with real player where the list of checkbox options scrolls.. All of the options in view are unchecked, but if you scroll down the rest are all checked, so users just click next and "opt in" to install a ton of crapware. Everything they ever do reeks of stuff like this.

Real will always sell the end user out for an extra $.01 of revenue.

Re:Real gets streaming patent, includes with FOSS

[replicant108]

For those who nevertheless prefer to use the code under the GPL, we assure you that Real has no plans to pursue any abiding GPL licensee of the Helix DNA Client software

Why should the community trust the good intentions of Real?

The point is that independent software developers should not be subject to the "goodwill" of predatory corporations.

Do people really still not get this? Or are these bland assurances as deceitful as they appear?

In case you're still not getting it...

What happens when Real decides it doesn't want to play nice any more?

It's mine!

[zenwarrior]

Control-Alt-Delete is mine! I patented it just yesterday. (Bless you, Patent Office.)

Now, everyone who has ever used it, pay up! (Oh, and that would be a payment--10 cents US)--for each individual time it was used.)

No.

[ickypoo]

Wrong. RealMedia encoding allows for multiple targetted audiences/bitrates in the same file. Loading up the RTSP stream informs the streaming server what your "ideal" bitrate is, and the server delivers the appropriate content to you. That's it. There is no dynamic recompression, no dynamic lag compensation, nothing. In fact, the "ideal bitrate" that the streaming server 'determines' is actually just something the user sets in the client preferences.

Don't think of Real's streaming model as anything more than "crap".