Cisco Patents the Triple Play

Aditi.Tuteja writes, "Cisco was recently granted a patent on a 'system and method for providing integrated voice, video and data to customer premises over a single network.' Sound a lot like 'triple play?' Yes it is. The patent, which was filed back in 2000, describes a system that would allow consumers to receive all of their home services through one service provider instead of two or three. The patent's wording seems broad enough to cover nearly all existing implementations of triple play, and some are worried that Cisco will try to wield the newly granted patent against such providers as AT&T and Comcast. If such a thing were to happen, progress on AT&T's Project Lightspeed could slow even more."

Comments

Prior art...

[TheSHAD0W]

Anyone? Anyone?
Bueller?

Re:Prior art...

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to recall having the "triple play" from Knology back in AL or GA before 2000.... Guess folks should start hoping that all those pack-rat geeks kept their cable bills....

Re:Prior art...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Central America, long ago a local cable TV company called Amnet has had the motto: "One world, one cable" (Un solo mundo, un solo cable)

Long ago they have offered TV and internet. Nobody has to "think" that it will work for phone, but the local state telco monopoly forbids that.

Ivan

Re:Prior art...

[isaac]

RCN has provided "triple-play" voice, data, and cable tv service in a handful of big US cities since, what, 1997?

Whether this is prior art certainly depends on the claims actually in the patent and the details of RCN's implementation, but I know they were around well before 2000.

-Isaac

Re:Prior art...

[smilindog2000]

I don't think this patent would be covered by typical prior-art triple-play services. Nor do I think it will slow implementation of triple-play.

I think the claims are fairly narrow. In particular, as part of the system, an operator must use "interdiction" to keep customers from having access to paid channels such as HBO. The body of the patent implies that interdiction is done in the routers themselves. In other words, Cisco is building routers that can block channels based on an up-stream subscription database. "Encryption" is mentioned as another technique, which is probably the one other providers have used. With encryption, TV channels are broadcast to everyone, but only subscribers receive the keys to decrypt them. So, Cisco has a method that reduces broadcast bandwidth a small amount. Whoop-de-dooo.

Routers with "interdiction" might be patentable by itself, but the claims are further narrowed: the patent only applies if you are offering triple-play service. I guess someone else invented routers with "interdiction" before. Don't get confused when you see all that triple-play wording in the claims. It narrows the claims, rather than broadening them.

Not in a million years

[TubeSteak]

Will Cisco try to use the patent to stymie AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc.

What Cisco will do is force them to pay an arm and a leg in licensing costs, because Cisco rightly figured out (in advance) that the 'triple play' is where things are heading.

Cisco deserves a retroactive +1 Insightful mod

Re:Not in a million years

[Anonymous Coward]

BUT, for customers (e.g. AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon) who use Cisco equipment, the licensing fees will be waived...

Re:Not in a million years

[Spasmodeus]

Insightful?

Who *didn't* think we were going to get all our services over one wire once digital bandwidth became great enough?

It's all just data. They might as well have patented a "novel method" for sending HTTP, FTP and SMTP data over the same wire.

Re:Not in a million years

[cgenman]

Generally speaking, in business when you figure out in advance where the market is heading, you get a head start on all of your competitors putting yourself in a much better position to take advantage of the change. You do not, however, generally get to tax all transactions. I knew that online purchasing was going to take off years ago. Does that mean that I deserve to get paid once everyone else figured this out too?

Cisco figured this out ahead of time and positioned their product line to take advantage of the burgeoning communications infrastructure market. They deserve the financial success they've seen from this shrewd business accumen. They don't, however, deserve 5 dollars of every 50 I send to Comcast simply because they realized the obvious first.

Re:Not in a million years

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon's IPTV network is almost 100% Juniper equipment and Comcast's core is mostly Juniper... Cisco won't be using this patent to extract more money out of their customers ... they'll use it to FUD the competition.

Re:Not in a million years

[SecurityGuy]

Yes, it was an insightful move, but not one that deserves a 17 year revenue stream. The US PTO deserves a -1 Redundant.

Re:Not in a million years

[Anonymous Coward]

because Cisco rightly figured out (in advance) that the 'triple play' is where things are heading.

Which is of course exactly what patents were intened for.

Re:Not in a million years

[wish bot]

HTTP, FTP, and SMTP down one wire?!

Jesus - no one told me I didn't need to get all these tubes.

Re:Not in a million years

[LoadWB]

But did they? I remember all this BS was promised to us back in the 80's. Who was conjecturing it then?

Re:Not in a million years

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It might have been insightful in 1950, but this is pretty basic stuff once you know what computers and networks are.

Is big business just a big tangled mess of IP co-extortion these days? I don't see how anyone can operate in this patent environment without succumbing to ridiculous patent claims, and counter-claiming to make up the loss.

Re:Not in a million years

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cisco deserves a retroactive +1 Insightful mod"

Hmm... I'd give them a -1 Redundant myself. This was barely insightful 30 years ago, let alone in 2000.

Re:Not in a million years

[Aditi.Tuteja]

Maybe this is a good patent, but we can surely debate on this one. I mean that it's not nearly as broad as the statement makes it out to be. Cisco's main claim to innovation here is the dynamic access lists that affect routing of multicast traffic based on individual customers' subscriptions. That's pretty broad, but it's nowhere near a blanket patent on triple-play in general. To the extent that anyone has to worry about the patent, it's not Comcast or AT&T. It would be Nortel and Extreme and other network equipment vendors who are probably already looking at offering the same capabilities in future products.

Re:Not in a million years

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be nit-pickey, but that would be a 20-year monopoly. The triple play will be in the public domain in 2020.

Re:Not in a million years

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want yer stinkin' triple-play.
I want my phone to work when my ISP has a catastrophic failure.
I want to watch re-runs on TV when the phone lines are down.

Serendipitously, the MOTD at the bottom of this page says:
"Chicken Little only has to be right once."

Re:Not in a million years

[pipingguy]

no one told me I didn't need to get all these tubes.

Just use piping instead like I do - tubes have thinner walls, so stuff leaks out.

Re:Not in a million years

[WilliamSChips]

I use a big truck myself. You can just pile stuff on it, you can't do that with tubes.

Re:Not in a million years

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Slashdot in itself might serve as prior art ... You can have insightful, funny, interesting, informative and offtopic in the same story. And then you can even have the same article duplicated the following days in any RAID configuration you want.

Re:Not in a million years

[Anonymous Coward]

"They might as well have patented a "novel method" for sending HTTP, FTP and SMTP data over the same wire."

I believe in the future we can expect more of this sort of thing. Where the concept of mixing protocols and/or diversifying service offerings. The result .. real innovation gets stifled. Seems like a joke, but unfortunately everything is patentable. The problem is that most people dont bother listing every idea they have .. so when the patent search is done .. something pretty obvious comes up as a novel idea. For example .. when 3D stereo video is popular .. people will be out patenting delivering that service with other stuff as "quadruple play" etc. The situation with patents is getting worse and worse. I wonder how much cost goes into IP for a typical consumer item .. for example .. for an average car .. how much of the cost goes into technology licensing. Like say I want to produce a car with modern features like traction control, decent steering, etc. wonder how much of its cost would be toward IP. Note, I am not against being able to sell one's ideas for a limited time .. but I dont think being a first mover on obvious ideas should be patentable.

All your cash are belong to us

[davidwr]

And tonight, on NBC:
All your cash are belong to us

RING RING
"Hello"
Voice: "All your cash are belong to us"

File->open url: www.p0rn.com
<title>All your cash are belong to us</title>

Re:First post

[rolfwind]

You should patent that.

Well I patent...

[neozenkai]

... the patenting of general ideas. Now, everyone who patents ideas must pay me a royalty. Make the check payable to xxxxxxxxx thanks.

Re:Well I patent...

[NevDull]

Your patent rejected due to the countless evidences of prior art.

Re:Well I patent...

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry to say i was just granted a patent for the letter e... so you now owe me 17 times. come on, payup!

ant

Re:Well I patent...

[Wooloomooloo]

I wonder if someone has already tried to patent "a novel method for exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide between a gaseous and a liquid medium through an alveolar membrane using passive diffusion".

Re:Well I patent...

[Shados]

Worse is, unless one has a bit of a clue about biology, this actualy sounds like a valid thing. Imagine the news if someone actualy did succeed in fooling the patent office to pass that one.

Triple Play question

[eskayp]

For knowledgeable /.ers ( aren't we all! )
Possible workaround?
Instead of 3 concurrent streams, what about a single datastream.
Converter box or software separates the single datastream back into the 3 (or more) original feeds.
Needlessly complex and proprietary?
Yes.
Another anticompetitive result of our moronic patent system?
Yes.
Rhetorical question/answer format patent holder?
The Rumsfeld.

Re:Triple Play question

[KillerCow]

Instead of 3 concurrent streams, what about a single datastream.

We call that the network layer.

Converter box or software separates the single datastream back into the 3 (or more) original feeds.

And that would be the transport layer.

Cisco = Scientific Atlanta

[LoadStar]

The reason Cisco is patenting this is because they now own Scientific-Atlanta, who are one of a few companies that provide the infrastructure that make it possible for Time Warner, Comcast, et. al. to offer "triple play" or "all in one" or whatever brand name your particular cable operator uses for the combination. If Cisco were to sue someone for using this, it wouldn't be the cable operators - it'd be Motorola or whomever, their competitors who also offer a similar infrastructure.

I'm not exactly sure why the author of the article thinks that they'd sue the cable operators, many of whom use the Scientific-Atlanta technology in question... perhaps he wasn't aware of the link between Cisco and Sci-Atl.. which leads me to question his authority to even speak on the topic in the first place.

Re:Cisco = Scientific Atlanta

[TubeSteak]

Honest question: Does using Cisco/Scientific-Atlanta equipment automagically license the companies to use that patent?

It seems to me that anyone without a patent license could build equipment capable of doing data/voice/video... but the end user couldn't use all three features without a license.

Or did I miss something?

Re:Cisco = Scientific Atlanta

[supersat]

The reason Cisco is patenting this is because they now own Scientific-Atlanta ... except the patent was applied for in 2000, and the acquisition of Scientific-Atlanta was only announced in late 2005.

Re:Cisco = Scientific Atlanta

[voidptr]

As someone else said, the SA aquisition came later.

What's more important is that Cisco owns the entire backend technology for the system too. They sell the routers, the DSL and Cable headends, the media converters for IPTV, and the call manager hardware to do 300,000 subscriber VOIP and convert it to SS7 for the phone network. It all works together as one integrated technology for the service provider. Comcast, TWC, and Verizon buy all of the above by the truckload.

This is their play to keep Juniper, Nortel, and Tekelec away from an integrated service provider solution.

Re:Cisco = Scientific Atlanta

[Duhavid]

According to the header, the patent was filed in 2000,
Cisco bought SA earlier this year.

Re:Cisco = Scientific Atlanta

[xigxag]

In addition, it appears that the patent was thought up by techs at a company gobbled up by Cisco, not a homegrown invention.

A couple of things:

1) This appears to be a rather detailed and well-thought out patent. Although the "triple play" concept may seem obvious in hindsight, the implementation of it, converting everything into a single protocol, is not necesarily the only way to go, and seems as worthy of being patented as most other inventions that have received the imprimatur of the USPTO throughout the years.

2) Since, as I said, their implementation is not necessarily the only way to handle multiple types of data, a competing company could get around licensing by simply keeping the protocols separate. Cable wiring and fiber are obviously fat enough to multiplex various datastreams at once, hence instead of converting at the source, one might be able to avoid the Cisco tax by overlaying the various incompatible networks on top of each other and let the set top boxes sort things out at the receiving end. Chances are, though, that if that's worth doing at all, someone's patented it already.

Re:Cisco = Scientific Atlanta

[Em Ellel]

If Cisco were to sue someone for using this, it wouldn't be the cable operators - it'd be Motorola or whomever, their competitors who also offer a similar infrastructure.

By 2000 a company called Next Level Communications(then part owned, now completely owned by Motorola) was selling this technology (or at least something similar, here is a random link to the company description) I doubt Cisco would have much luck defending this patent if they went after Moto.

-Em

Re:Cisco = Scientific Atlanta

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know the situation in the US, but here in Europe there are more and more service providers who dump Cisco for other manufacturers at the first opportunity.

Re:Cisco = Scientific Atlanta

[Orange Crush]

Cisco/Sci-At probably have indemnity clauses in their licensing agreements to the cable operators. That, and it would be monumentally stupid for them to sue for patent infringement by devices they've already provided to paying customers (they won't be paying customers any more!).

Re:Cisco = Scientific Atlanta

[chris_7d0h]

I'm not sure I agree that it is a good patent and I do foresee problems which may well arise from this. The first 75% of the patent is a digest presentation of common knowledge coupled with all the domains for which they claim dibs (any networking domain or concept publicly available when the patent was written, from satellite communication to DSL and Cable) while the last 25% started to go in to the more specific suggestions of how they propose some sets of problems *may* be solved:

• High availability (reducing the likelihood of packet loss between producer and consumer)
  
• How discretionary provisioning of packets may be be realized (tagging data for consumers or to a set of consumers in a branch of their proposed network tree model, fanning out from producer to consumers, kind of like an LDAP directory tree).

The thing which bothers me is that the patent is a mix of a "for dummies" guide of a set of concepts which are obvious and have been taught at schools and at various tech-companies for over a decade, coupled with some very broad suggestions of concepts of obvious use. The "innovative" part (read. specifics of the proposed solution rather than "innovation", since it's arguable whether there is any innovation in those details as well) is both hard to isolate and account for perhaps only 3-4% of the patent. The result I fear is that this patent may be used to attack a broad range of people and companies delivering solutions making use of any one (or a set of) the 95+% common knowledge concepts which redundantly were incorporated in this patent application.

In my mind, this is a bad patent from the outlook that it looks more like a legal weapon enabling attacks on solutions deviced from public knowledge, while it's not providing enough focus or detail to be used as a blue print for creating a content distribution network (which seemed to be part of the aim). A good patent for patent lawyers and their income, but not so much for society and the economy at large.

I've seen worse, but this one isn't close to qualify being in the upper quadrant of beneficial patents.

Re:Cisco = Scientific Atlanta

[Aceticon]

It seems to me that once again the patents system is not protecting real innovation, but instead protects "Being the first to write down a patent for an obvious approach to solve a problem".

Creating and using one standard format for various types of data is the kind of solution that has been used for loads of years in the area of software, more specifically EAI (Enterprise Application Integration).

So some guys got together and said - "Hey, lets do the same but over a transmission line!" - and this stuff is actually worthy of patent protection!!!

Kinda fits with the pattern of most business and software patents - grab a solution already used in one domain and write a patent for using the same solution on another domain.

Now, i don't dispute the fact that things like the actual standard format (including things like headers and such) is worthy of protection (the competition should go through the trouble of making up their own format themselfs), but then again copyright already protects it. What pisses me off is that having a solution based on the concept of encoding multiple types of data in a single format and transmiting it is now a state granted monopoly of this guys.

Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

I already have a patent on non-cash payment transactions. Using checks will cost you.

Re:Sorry

[students]

Well I patent the patenting of general ideas. Now, everyone who patents ideas must pay me a royalty. Make the check payable to xxxxxxxxx thanks

I already have a patent on non-cash payment transactions. Using checks will cost you.

And I have a patent on government granted licences that only allow a single entity to sell a particular technology. You will pay me a modest license fee every time you enforce your patent.

Gillette Mach3 meet Schick Quattro!!

[bughouse26]

I call dibbs on creating a patent for opening 4 simultaneous TCP/IP sockets!

Re:Gillette Mach3 meet Schick Quattro!!

[KillerCow]

I call dibbs on creating a patent for opening 4 simultaneous TCP/IP sockets!

Sure thing dude, but I just filed for doing it with one click.

Ohhhhhh. You got served!

Hmmm

[grasshoppa]

Cisco, a company I don't like, would use this against AT&T or comcast. Two other companies I don't like.

I fail to see the problem here.

Re:Hmmm

[Hemogoblin]

You'll realize there's a problem when they pass the cost onto you, the consumer.

Re:Hmmm

[infolib]

When the elephants fight, the grass is trampled

-- Ancient African proverb.

(Ok, I don't know if it's really African, but it sounds like that, what with elephants and stuff).

I patented prior art!

[vlad_petric]

So quick, gimme 10$

Re:I patented prior art!

[Duhavid]

I patented patenting prior art, just hand that over here.

And that.

And the other thing.

And those, over there.

I'll be back for more later.

Re:I patented prior art!

[Directrix1]

I just patented the composition of words used to convey ideas, thoughts or emotions.

Re:I patented prior art!

[Directrix1]

I also patented the packet switching network capable of transmitting information.

Re:I patented prior art!

[WilliamSChips]

I just patented patents.

Re:I patented prior art!

[Duhavid]

I have a patcnt covering the act of patenting anything.

Re:I patented prior art!

[Duhavid]

Yes, but I patented the patenting of the composition of words used to convey ideas, thoughts or emotions.

Sorry.

Re:I patented prior art!

[WilliamSChips]

Well, I patented the patenting of a class of patents. So sell yourself into eternal servitude with me, or prepare to be sued.

Re:I patented prior art!

[Duhavid]

Sorry, I patented the patenting of patenting a a class of patents.

I also patented suing people, places, and things.

You can still sue a verb, if you like. My patent for that
has not yet been awarded ( submarine patent on you...
Opps, I was not supposed to say that... )

Re:I patented prior art!

[Directrix1]

Man if only somebody would patent stupidity.

Re:I patented prior art!

[Duhavid]

If they did, they would be rich!

Re:I patented prior art!

[WilliamSChips]

Yeah, well I'm a Prior, so not only do I have Prior Art, I have Ori-given powers. Hallowed are the Ori.

Don't look for a big fight.

[postbigbang]

Think about it: Cisco going after their biggest customers-- Verizon, AT&T, Deutsche Telekom, Comcast, TW/Brighthouse?

Nope. Not going to happen. And therefore, despite the fact that this patent needs to be thrown out on its ass, it's useless to even have the first tiny tort sent. It's a nihilistic sort of patent to start with....

Well..

[grumpyman]

It's all really single play isn't it? 0s and 1s. Whichever marketing (or engineer, you never know) guy came up with this idea should be hanged on the spot.

From a non-American

[BSDevil]

What the fuck is triple-play?

Re:From a non-American

[Trifthen]

I'm not really sure, but I think it involves your mom.

(Seriously, it's offering voice, TV and internet from the same service. Completely lame patent and all that jazz.)

Re:From a non-American

[SpecialAgentXXX]

It's a baseball term. There are 3 outs in an inning. Let's say there are 2 men on base and 1 batter. Well, the batter then hits a long pop fly ball that's caught, but since the other 2 guys are leading off, they have to tag up first before stealing the bases. If the team can tag the bases before the runners can get back to them, you'll have a "triple-play" off of one pitch. Don't you cricket folks have something like that?

Re:From a non-American

[Skippy_kangaroo]

Don't you cricket folks have something like that?

Nope.

For a start, there are only two batters on the field at any one time, so a double play is the most you could ever get.

And second, once you get one person out the ball is dead and you can't go for a second out.

Re:From a non-American

[Anonymous Coward]

Why Triple Play is a pricing game on The Price is Right!

Re:From a non-American

[locokamil]

Seriously. You ask-- on a forum full of geek nerds who are reading Slashdot on a Friday night-- what "triple play" is.

You deserve every single bad ménage a trois joke you get. :)

That said, it refers to a service that provides phone, cable and broadband internet over the same pipe.

Dammit. A tube joke. I can't shake them... sorry.

Re:From a non-American

[strider44]

A hattrick (yes that term is originally from Cricket), though I'm sure a cricketing hattrick is much rarer. According to wikipedia there's been just 36 of them in the recorded history of international test cricket.

Re:From a non-American

[mikeydb]

We get two pipes from our cable co (i'm in the UK) one cable for tv and internet, another cable for the telephone. Arguably all the signals get here some of the way via one pipe but it had to be joined together at some point and it get's split up eventually, I think that relies upon multiplexing and demultiplexing, either by frequency division or time division, not a new idea even in the year 2000..

Re:From a non-American

[pipingguy]

It's a typical sports-oriented marketing term that the advertisers and buzzword junkies are so fond of. "ICUP" (internet, cable, usenet, phone) service does not sound nearly as exciting or sexy.

Of course, the Brits, if they ever get this, will make up some cutesy-sounding shorthand for it. Something like "pee-pee", probably.

Re:From a non-American

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, NTL in the UK have been offering this for ages... they have a service which includes mobile phones as well, but seeing as how that doesn't come down the same pipe I guess it doesn't count as four-play :)

But no, they don't have a snappy name for it like you do over there.

Re:From a non-American

[Anonymous Coward]

True !

In France, we have quadruple play ! (add cellphone)

Re:From a non-American

[ByteofK]

Hat trick isn't really the same. But close enough for anyone that hasn't a clue about baseball. Go Tigers!

UK expat in Michigan regards.

Re:From a non-American

[BiggyP]

As the AC said, NTL and Telewest cable operators already provide this, and have done for some time, cable broadband internet, cable digital TV with VoD and cable telephone, they tend to wrap them up together in, relatively, low cost bundles.

Re:From a non-American

[Will2k_is_here]

Here's a more likely situation:
Runner on first and third,
A line drive is caught by the third-baseman right over third base. He steps on third base and fires to first before the runner can get back to the bag.

Here's an example of one that utilizes a strike-out to make the triple play
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O2ZnQMV03iM

Here's a comprehensive explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_play_(baseball )

To quote the Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five

Networks don't transport voice or video--only data

[KonoWatakushi]

The absurdity of this patent is mind boggling. All a network does is move data. Voice and video may be encoded as data, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the network.

Why don't I just patent moving web pages over networks. Or, moving mp3s over networks. (Now there's an idea for the RIAA...) Just how obvious does something need to be for the folks at the patent office? Moving DATA over a NETWORK? How novel...

This just goes to show that everything should be encrypted. Only then can fairness, and the end-end nature of the Internet be restored. As soon as the ISP's can peek at your data, you may as well bend over.

Joke's on them...

[psiogen]

I just patented a scheme whereby a company abusively patents anything it can possibly think of in order to squeeze money out of nothing! Pay up, Cisco!

Re:Joke's on them...

[Antique Geekmeister]

I think the current management of SCO can show prior art.

RCN does this

[l0ungeb0y]

They offer $90.00 a month for 10mbps DSL, VOIP phone and HD/Digital cable.
Sweet deal, but here in SF they seem to be quite spotty as to what buildings have it.. to the point of being a joke.
But I'm just bitter because the building across the street has it and my lofts I live in doesn't.
Instead I have Earthlink DSL which gives me 8mbps and VOIP phone for $70.
So I guess 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Re:RCN does this

[Alarash]

They offer $90.00 a month for 10mbps DSL, VOIP phone and HD/Digital cable. Sweet deal, but here in SF they seem to be quite spotty as to what buildings have it.. to the point of being a joke.

Sweet deal? Jesus, in Europe this goes for 29,99. You can even 20Mbps if you are eligible (ie: the DSLAM near you is upgraded for ADSL2+).

strategic patent - not intended for direct use

[SleepyHappyDoc]

This sounds to me like a patent Cisco would use as leverage, not for direct revenue. (insert company here) could be swayed to buy products or license other patents from Cisco, to avoid being called on the carpet with respect to their 'triple-play' offerings. Maybe now we'll see (if we don't already) telcos and cable ISPs using Cisco hardware exclusively (paid for by the customer, of course, but mandated by the ISP at Cisco's behest)..that would be a huge financial win for Cisco, and would probably be the path of least resistance for the ISPs.

Triple play?

[JFMulder]

I prefer to call it "Ménage à trois". :)

My head asplode

[tomstdenis]

I seem to recall using webcams and the like in 2000 over the interweb. Granted webcam != broadcast TV but the principle is the same just the scale is different.

How the hell isn't this patent just blatantly invalid? /me hides in Canada...

Tom

This is where the patent office fails

[WillRobinson]

I believe its ok to have a patent on an idea, only if the language is specific to the actual item, to the minute detail. Language such as "standard protocol, such as TCP/IP" is not. Thats similar to having a patent on popping popcorn using heat.

Re:This is where the patent office fails

[dmaserver]

and where Microsoft [in good company] reign http://www.flickr.com/photos/17093805@N00/22370701 8/in/set-72157594260547553/

Re:This is where the patent office fails

[cronius]

I believe its ok to have a patent on an idea, only if the language is specific to the actual item, to the minute detail.

But why though? I'm not trying to flamebait, but why should someone be allowed to own an idea, ie one of my thoughts, just because they thought that thought before me?

I sit quietly in my office and think of a system where video, tv and phone goes over the same wire conveniently for the user. I start a business to sell this, but I'm slapped in the face with a patent violation because "well, somebody thought about that before you," so eventhough you've never heard about this other company before they actually "own" my idea.

You're saying it has to be specific, perhaps to prevent these coincidenses from happening, but what if it does happen? We thought of the same thing, why is the other guy entitled to "own" my idea just because he came up with it first?

What justifies this? (Again, not trying to flamebait, just curious.)

Re:This is where the patent office fails

[stargrazer]

I sit quietly in my office and think of a system where video, tv and phone goes over the same wire conveniently for the user. I start a business to sell this, but I'm slapped in the face with a patent violation because "well, somebody thought about that before you," so eventhough you've never heard about this other company before they actually "own" my idea.

Even if you weren't faced with a patent violation you would probably get sued for violating an employment contract because you came up with that idea while sitting in your employer's office on "their" time!

Old prior art

[stox]

Isn't this exactly was promised by ISDN in the early 1980's? Somehow, it never got past step #1, ie. 2B+D. The plan was, once it caught on, things would scale up as the end user was able to consume bandwidth. 95B+D anybody? Oh, never mind, AT&T's patents for ISDN have probably all expired. If we take the same idea, and color it pink, the PTO will gladly patent it for us.

Re:Old prior art

[Humafari]

Its called ISDN30 and its still widely used. You only get 30 channels (x64k) to play with though and after that you multiplex. You would be amazed how much use this stuff gets.. its still a very viable alternative to DIA and if you use all 30 channels for data your going to get a lot more upstream bandwidth than you do on ADSL and Cable...

I got yer prior art right here...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cio.com.nyud.net:8080/archive/021597_et .html

Re:I got yer prior art right here...

[TheSHAD0W]

That's cool, that's a start, but it doesn't detail a

• service provider

hosting these services. That's what Cisco's patent is for.

This is insanity.

[MaWeiTao]

Considering how inept the patent office seems to be I think I'm going to patent the act of looking at the sky. While I'm at it I think I'll patent the act of defecation too.

Re:Networks don't transport voice or video--only d

[Loconut1389]

The bottom line is ultimtely, the Triple-Play should dissolve anyway since once enough people go VOIP, there's absolutely no reason to pay for POTS termination, a service provider, or anything. By that time, someone will have simplified the asterisk implementation enough to not only put it on a WRT54GS (already done) but also make it simple to configure (not so far off).. Anyway, sooner or later, there will be no point in paying a provider for telephone service. I can't wait for POTS to die a horrible death (though hopefully not before uber-reliable internet)

Ehh

[otacon]

I for one welcome our new triple play overlords

Why?

[mr_zorg]

Why on Earth would Cisco go after AT&T and Comcast? Cisco makes hardware. They are not an ISP or cable provider. AT&T and Comcast are providers, but they do not make hardware. It seems more likely that Cisco would go after competing hardware vendors. This may well have an impact on AT&T and Comcast, but only in the sense that they may be forced to use Cisco hardware if they want to continue offering such services.

Add smell and you win!!!

[Maximum Prophet]

I'm going to patent the process of providing voice, video, data, and scents. Bingo!, I trump your patent.

Re:Add smell and you win!!!

[skingers6894]

Actually scents over IP would indeed be novel and worthy of a patent - not sure about the other 3 though, I think that's been done before!

Re:This is complete and utter bull - suck it Cisco

[aiken_d]

Indeed, a warning to us all.

If you read the actual patent, you would see that it is a patent on a specific implementation of using dynamic access lists at upstream routers to block multicast content from particular subscribers or subnetworks.

It is not a business process patent. It is not a patent on triple play, though it clearly covers one particular implementation of triple play using multicast and upstream filtering. But there are plenty of other ways to skin this cat.

-b

Editors screw up again...

[NewToNix]

Surely that was 'Triple Pay' that Cisco figures they just got the patent for.

Screw patents - ignore them at every opportunity - future generations will hold you in high regard for it.

Re:Editors screw up again...

[Aditi.Tuteja]

Cisco is not claiming a patent on the mere idea of triple play services. The patent covers a specific implementation ("method") of offering triple play services, which is an implementation that nobody is using as yet (probably because the Cisco hardware hasn't been released yet).

There probably is...

[Weaselmancer]

...now, who you gonna get with enough cash to buy a lawyer and challenge it?

It's a shame, but that's how it works.

You know, patents aren't about inventions anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

They are about people saying "I got dibs!"

Re:Cisco = Scientific Atlanta = weak acquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

Cisco bought Scientific Atlanta, but they didn't get as much as you think. Primarily, they bought a set top box company. They don't have an access product. Cisco, 5 years ago "end-of-lifed" their entire DSL product line, which proved that Cisco didn't want to compete in the access equipment market. I don't see how they are going to compete with companies like Calix, Occam, Alcatel, Adtran, Allied Telesyn, Zhone, and at least a 1/2 dozen other "triple play" manufacturers.
Voice, video and data is out there, and Cisco isn't offering products that compete. They might have a good grip on the GigE switch and router market, but there are other players. GigE video feeds for IPTV are all over the place. Service providers are, at this moment, making plans to get away from ATM based networks and moving to pure Ethernet. Soon, VLANs will carry voice, video, and data from your homes to voice softswitches, IPTV multicast video servers, and internet backbone routers.

As for "prior art" go back in time and look at the idea behind ATM. ATM was set up to haul voice, video, and data. The idea was to put an ATM port in every PC, provision UBR, ABR, CBR services for various needs, and use one single connection for a "triple play."

I doubt Cisco's patent will hold water... but who is going to fight it? Cisco can tie this up in court for decades. If you think Blackberry was painful, this could be more so.

Cisco patents Triple Play?

[HAKdragon]

Man, I bet Major League Baseball is going to be pissed about this.

Erm...

[tehSpork]

I think Cisco just should have labeled their patent 'The Internet' and been done with it.

Fortunately for Ted Stephens I didn't see any mention of tubes in there, so his fictional reality is outside the bounds of this patent and thus safe from the likes of Cisco. :)

Of course there is prior art...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Sprint offered a service called ION in the late 90s that provided these services bundled over copper. It turned out to be the greatest single failure in the history of the company, by some estimates ultimately costing the company nearly $1.5B

So yeah, there's prior art for the 3x play.

Going after TXU (and Google)?

[transporter_ii]

TXU Electric Delivery, the largest electric company in Texas, plans on offering broadband over power lines to over 70% of its grid. TXU's partner in this venture is Current Communications Group...which has Google as an investor.

more info here

Service speeds and pricing details haven't been released, but Current said the network will have enough capacity to offer customers a "triple play" package, which would include telephony, TV service and high-speed Internet access. Users will be able to access the high-speed broadband network by plugging a device into an electrical outlet in the wall.

Transporter_ii

I've got to patent this QUICK!!

[monkeySauce]

I call my idea '3/2 play'. Basically it is a system of delivering three services by load balancing all the required traffic over two lines. It is best employed when you can't deliver all three services over one line because that has been patented. (I'll license you for half the cost!)

Oh, and this is not to be confused with my existing patent for '3 on 2 play'; a method for making pornos involving three chicks, two guys, a trampoline and 1.5 tons of peanut butter.

Cisco is way the hell out of date..

[Khyber]

AIM, Yahoo, and MSN offred this *WAY* before the patent in question. Cisco is a bunch of fucking fools for even trying to follow up with this, as I've been doing this since 1998. Two years too fucking late, boys. You got a problem with it, then deal with this expert witness in court, who has no shame in shutting you down for your ignorance and greed. Dunno about the rest of the /. crowd, but I won't stand for this one.

And to add fuel to the fire...

[Khyber]

Cisco's contact us link is inexplicably slow/down suddenly (it took ten minutes to even get the page to load.) C'mon, you cowards, start owning up to your own foul play, or get the hell off our internet. Nothing is worse than when we wish to contact you and you have your mail server slashdotted, especially since you're supposd to be the network KING OF THE WORLD. That reeks of incompetence more than anything else, and at this time, it's only driving me, and maybe many of us, away from your services. Enjoy the nice bit of rational logic, while you hide in fear from the backlash of the tech/IT community.

Sincerely,
Khyber

The focus of this article is just wrong.

[j741]

Cisco manufacture most of the routers and other infrastructure elements which are required for a service provider (Like AT&T, etc.) to be able to make money. Cisco obviously wants the lion's share of this lucrative infrastructure market. To suggest they may take legal action against a provider who would be a potentially lucrative client is simply a foolish notion. If they forcefully stop the service providers from providing specific services, then they won't be able to sell them infrastructure equipment capable of supporting the service.

To put it simply, Cisco would loose customer's and would loose money if they pursued this unlikely course of legal action.

Project Lightspeed could slow down "even more?"

[Chas]

As it is, Lightspeed's momentum is nearing that of molecules in an absolute-zero environment.

Prior art, august 2000

[derekb]

I worked for iMagicTV in partnership with Newbridge networks (remember them?) in the 'frontier days' of ITPV in 1999 and 2000.

I read through the patent, there is a lot of prior art for this.

In June 2000 I was at Supercom in Atlanta and was involved in at least 6 booths who were publically selling this same 'System and method for providing integrated voice, video and data to customer premises over a single network ' solution. There were several public trials underway by the time this patent was filed.

This is not a tough one to defeat - this is just some wise-ass at Cisco getting his patent compensation cheque.

And what a vague patent - it looks like it would cover any form of Internet broadcasting.

Re:Prior art, august 2000

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.riverstonenet.com/solutions/video.shtml

"Alliant Telecom of Canada decided in the early '90s to transform themselves from a traditional telephone company into a multimedia service company. They could see that revenues from fixed-line telephone and other narrowband services were falling under the dual pressures of commoditization and competition from other carriers and mobile operators. Alliant launched its first new service offering in 1996: high-speed Internet ccess utilizing its all-digital, all-fiber network. Then in 2000, Alliant was the first company in North America to launch a commercial interactive digital TV service over the same telephone connection as the Internet and voice service."

Since it was offered in 2000, I presume the work to create this was done prior to 2000.

AFAIK BT and Mercury were doing work before this.

Cisco might be doing it in a way that is unique or different though (I haven't read the patent).

Trivial in nature

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you realy patent a trivial in nature "invension" ?

Like: UDP + bandwithlimitations ?

beware

[Anonymous Coward]

i just patented walking to the toilet and shitting into it, now make me rich!

Implications for cellular / wireless networks?

[drelectro]

Doesn't a 3G mobile network also provide:-

A method for providing integrated voice, video, and data content in an integrated service offering to one or more customer premises includes receiving television programming from a programming source, receiving data from a data network, and receiving telephone communications from a telephone network

Editorial fearmongering?

[entendre entendre]

The story says: "Cisco was recently granted a patent on a system and method for [triple play]." Note that's a system and method, not all systems and methods.

The headline says: "Cisco patents the triple play."

There's a world of difference between those two claims. It's like saying General Motors has patented "the automobile" because they've been granted a patent on a specific manufacturing technique. If Cisco's patent is as broad as TFA implies, it won't be enforceable. If it's not, it won't be relevant.

Cisco has the highest markup in the business

[viking80]

Cisco already has the highest markup in the business, to the envy of everyone else.

Overheard in a pricing discussion on a new router at Cisco:

Mgr. of marketing: "Well, the overall manufacturing costs of this box is $3250. What should we sell it for?. 10x or $32,500 as usual?"
V.P: "Well, that number looks a little constructed. Let's say $36,847"
All: "Done"

This patent will allow them to keep it that way.

If you work for a company like Dell, or Gateway, start to cry now, or maybe look for a new job...

Re:Cisco has the highest markup in the business

[Anonymous Coward]

...10x markup...

And the telcos are so exited when they get their special "most favoured customer"40% off agreement.

Cisco must laugh all the way to the bank.

unique set of molecules patented ..

[rs232]

By this logic I can patent a method of arranging a unique set of molecules into an Amino acid. This means that every restaurant or food grower on the planet owes me a license.

Prior Art

[Martin Spamer]

I worked for Kingston Interactive Television which was the first commercial launch of an Interactive Digital Television over ADSL in October 1999.

KIT offered the three services that are now called Triple play, Telephone, Video (both VOD and broadcast) and data (Internet and Walled Garden content).

Kingston Interactive Television October 1999.

Re:Prior Art

[AReilly]

Hey, I did vacation work on a Mac (Plus!) interface to an experimental ATM network in about 1988. Sure, ATM doesn't seem to have made it into the home, but voice+video+data over one protocol was the goal. Worked, too. Just wasn't TCP/IP based... If there's anything interesting in this patent (which I haven't read), it'll be something clever to do with priority and QoS associated with IP routing, which is probably fair enough. The three "modes" typically have considerably different bandwidth/latency profiles and requirements.

Cisco? Insightful?

[msauve]

They may be insightful in the choice of companies/technologies they purchase, but not particularly in inventiveness. They're much like Microsoft - they buy technologies that have been shown to be "just good enough" to be successful in the marketplace, then try to "proprietary-ize" them to lock customers in.

Delivering multiple media across a network is neither original or insightful, and was being done in practice long before 2000.

In basis your right

[WillRobinson]

I agree with you on that.

But with the current system which is in place, just requiring specific implementation would be an improvement. For example, you both have the same idea, but there is two different approaches to the same end. You both should be able to make your idea fly, without litigation. And then the best implementation, price, function, marketing etc., would win the market share.

I feel you should not be able to patent vague ideas, thoughts, generic processes.

If you give me a problem, and I can think of a working solution within 1 day, that shouldn't be a patentable idea. If I have to do 6 months of research, make a product, and come up with a genuine breakthrough in an item in the implementation, that might be patentable. But only that piece that is truly a breakthrough. Not the whole process.

Common solution direction of anyone skilled in ..

[3seas]

Common solution direction of anyone skilled in th art...

So how many skilled in the art, to come up with the same solution, before the USPTO recognizes the solution or solution direction is not novel?

How many consumers whould have come up with the one click shopping idea/app. had they just had the easy enough for them to use, programming tools?

dumbing down consumers works for who?

One Triple Play

[Doc Ruby]

That patent doesn't give Cisco the sole rights to any "triple play". The patent claims sole rights to

A method for providing integrated voice, video, and data content in an integrated service offering to one or more customer premises includes receiving television programming from a programming source, receiving data from a data network, and receiving telephone communications from a telephone network.

That's "A" method. Their method, specified in their patent. If the patent doesn't describe a specific working method, making specific choices (and thereby excluding others) in SW, HW, network connections, configs and usage scenarios, then it's too broad. If its methods were used before, then it's not novel. Either way, it's not a valid patent.

But it just might be valid, protecting Cisco from others just copying their specific invention - the only legit purpose of a patent. It really looks like the narrow claim to a single instance was distorted from the PTO filing, by Phil Harvey in his Light Reading column, then exaggerated (as usual) in the Slashdot summary. That doesn't mean Cisco and its lawyers won't make the same exaggerated claims. But only if a judge makes the same serious mistake is this patent dangerous to anyone but real copycats. If they do, they must be kept from the serious business of judging patent law. If it does hold up on actual legal merits, without finding fault with a fireable patent examiner, then the patent system itself must be ripped out by the roots, as is probably the consensus of the threads in this discussion.

the idea of "triple play" was already old in 2000

[Christian Linhart]

I remember that in University we learned in the networking-course about why it is more economic to have all communication, including data, voice and video be transferred on top of the same network-layer protocol.

It was given as an easy-to-understand illustration about the general benefits of a layered network architecture. It was just an obvious idea used to emphasize a point.

This was way before year 2000, I guess it was around 1995. And the prof was already very long term active in networking by then, in fact he was one of the Internet-technology pioneers, so he had this idea in his mind for much much longer probably.

Therefore, a broad patent on "triple play" filed in 2000 is just ridiculous. There already was an ocean of prior art at least in form of ideas at this point in time.

Unfortunately I don't have any written proof anymore. But I guess there will be quite a sizable number of people who have such a written proof of prior art dating way before year 2000.

On the other hand, if the patent is about a very specific technique for implementing some aspects of triple play in a better way than before, then it might be valid.

But then it is not much of a threat. It's probably possible to make a good or even better triple play implementation which does not use this specific technology.

Also, what about the OSI-network model? This is *old* by now and for sure it or associated literature will include a mentioning of what is now buzzworded as "triple play" by those who don't understand it technically.

Chris

PS: I think that the term "triple play" rather ridiculous. There are plenty of protocols and forms of data which can be transmitted over the Internet-Protocol, not just tree.

It's just for the pre-Internet-Protocol folks who were used to install an extra cable and an extra business model for each of these forms of data transmission.

For me, I started getting to know the Internet-Protocol and the associated philosophy and vision in the year 1989, so really a patent in year 2000 seems ridiculous.

In fact I learned about email before I learned about Fax. And Fax seemed a way outdated technology for me when I heard about it...

For me, "triple play" means that we finally start consolidating our old and awkward communication-infrastructure towards a thing which just makes sense, about 10 to 15 years later than would have been necessary from a technical point of view.

It was more a process of breaking government monopolys and established business models rather than a technical process. And you can't patent political work and lobbyism. :-)

not quite...

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T is Cisco's biggest customer. This is patented to allow Cisco to advertise that it's the only hardware provider that can deliver video, voice, and network connectivity into a home or business.

Re:Networks don't transport voice or video--only d

[Ant P.]

You can send voice, video and data with a single analogue signal though. In fact, that's how TV has worked in the UK for about 30 years.

Cisco is smarter than your average bear..

[noslzzp]

As a fellow inventor listed on a patent with Cisco, I will suggest that Cisco probably didn't originate this patent. More than likely, it was a scrappy startup that said "let's patent this, so if we get crushed in the market, we can atleast sue someone!". My guess is that Cisco bought that particular startup and the patents came along with the other intellectual property. What Cisco is really good at is making a billion dollar company adhere to smart strategic visions and move like a startup. All this hype is just a product of their moves.

Cisco patents triple-play: part of their culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the problem is Cisco's fondness for software patents. Cisco issues significant financial incentives to its employees for filing patents - any patents. What you see here is just an offspring of that policy. Even simple network design schemes can be patented, and very often the lawyers reviewing the submitter's work aren't exactly elite club members of Techies-R-Us. Combine with the heavy bureaucratic and somewhat incompetent nature of US Patents Office and you end up with frivolous half-baked ideas being certified as genuinely innovative.

AT&T can afford it

[OrangeTide]

they can afford to license it, likely they will just do a patent swap locking startups out of this sort of service. It is not goign to even impact us regular folks.

-- "PUT THAT COFFEE DOWN. Coffee is for closers."

Lightspeed!

[SeaFox]

If such a thing were to happen, progress on AT&T's Project Lightspeed [CC] could slow even more.

The project must be to bring back the old Ma Bell through time travel since they're working on slowing down the speed of light.

best and most valid patent in recent times

[zIRtrON]

By allowing a patent like this to exist, and with _all_ the prior art that exists, and the wording of the patent (a method, rather than all method), and possibly more reasons - it is an example of how the patent system should not apply to technology as it does.

It seems that patents were all well and good 50 years ago when everything (physical) was manufactured.

From what I remember of playing freeciv, it goes to show that the "technology" of a patenting system has been "obsoleted" by free software and communications infrastructure.

Maybe we should start "researching" a new form of currency which is based wholy and solely on what something costs to maintain it and R&D it and not whore (advertise/market) it to buggery.

My Cisco Stock

[Nom du Keyboard]

Maybe my Cisco stock will finally regain its Dot Com boom value.