SD6
join:2005-03-26
| GET IT RiGHT!!!
Hey guys (and gals), before you go off on your tirade, it is the claim which says what is patented. The title and abstract, and misleading one sentence summary, obscure what can sometimes be legitimate technical improvements. In this case, read the patent and what is new is:
"...assigning customer premises to multicast domains to support conditional access of the customer premises to content that is selected . . . , wherein the conditional access is implemented using interdiction."
If someone wants to explain the technology meant by this language, then that would be helpful. I don't know what they mean by interdiction. |
|
Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01
| Interdiction = disallow
Thus, in laymen's:
"Using multicast (tcp/ip multicast? or just any multicast? it doesn't specifically specify, I'll assume TCP/IP multicast, from the context of the rest of the patent) to broadcast [video/audio/data], with access control to manage content viewable [eg. not subscribed, you don't get it]" This sounds very much like what verizon/att are doing with their IPTV. |
|
TheKrell
join:2003-12-07
Fairfax, VA
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to SD6
Re: interdiction
The analog cable equivalent is having your cable company install filters on your cable to prevent the signal (for channels you don't pay for) from reaching your premises.
Speaking of analog equivalents, just what is it about the Cisco patent that isn't prima facie obvious? I still say the patent is frivolous and the PTO examiner completely out to luch.  |
|
