Technical Discussion of the patent:
Your review is very impressive and most informative and true. What is not
clear is how the patents will be held up against the new packetized video
delivery of the future, namely MPEG-2 for the downstream and typically
TCP/IP (or DAVIC) type of communication upstream back to the headend
servers.
Here are some of my views:
Even though the patents predates the MPEG and TCP/IP (in the cable world),
the way it was spelled out with the explicit mention of the digital
distribution is where I think the perceived (and maybe eventually
realizeable) value of the company.
Some specifics:
1. MPEG technology, by definition, transmits "addressed" packets, not
frames, to the home and, then, the packetized data are reassembled by the
Set-top Boxes into video streams (with I/B/P frames). But these frames are
STORED and then displayed. This is clearly addressed by SRCM patents.
2. Vertical Blanking Intervals (VBIs) will no longer be in the digital video
world, only in the sense that the close-captioning, parental control
information, and other misc data will be RE-CONSTRUCTURED, but they are not
transmitted the same in the analog world. Hence, I think it is no longer
relevant per se, but it is just one implementation of the SRCM patent when
digital infrastructure was not in place. However, this will only strengthen
the value of the patent since they have an IMPLEMENTATION, in my opinion.
3. The graphic overlay mentioned in the patent are fairly restrictive and it
is not clear how it will be applied to computer-like graphic engines, e.g.
ATI or WebTV.
4. By nature of the new digital video services, all video sources will be
coming from a server in the headend somewhere up the stream, be it in the
local regional offices (for locally originated content, e.g. local channels
or VOD contents) or some remote locations (e.g. HITS from TCI), thus, the
SRCM patent should cover with respect to the client/server model of the
patent in the broad sense.
5. Is the GI deal a validation of the technology? I tent to think so given
that GI is one of the two key players (with SA) in the new digital
video+internet services, and they should know the MPEG technology inside
out.
6. The suit over WorldGate is very meaningful given that WG is clearly in
violation of the SRCM patent by using the VBI space to address data and
video.
7. Cable modem is currently the trend, but it adds quite a cost to the
Set-top Boxes, not to mention the messy situation with the standards. But it
gives a clean TCP/IP type of data path to the home for internet type of
services. These data are not MPEG type and the only relevance here is the
data/content will eventually be displayed onto a TV screen by the processing
of the set-top boxes, much like a computer using your TV as display, e.g.
WebTV. Is it in conflict with the SRCM patent? I am not usre because on the
one hand, the data DOES come from the cable line, but on the other hand, it
seems to suggest that all packetized data network (Ethernet included) would
also be brought into question, and I think it's highly unlikely that SRCM
will want to engage in that fight.
|
