by Robert Smallwood, eContent Magazine
09-01-2005
Patents covering major functions in DRM/ERM will likely play a significant role in the development of the marketplace. As rights management software proliferates, approved patent holders will attempt to generate revenue by licensing their patents to software development companies.
ContentGuard, Inc., now based in Bethesda, MD, grew out of Xerox’ PARC research facility almost a decade ago. Researchers there considered where content use was going (remember, this was before the Internet explosion) and developed a number of patents related to DRM/ERM. In 2000, ContentGuard was spun out as a separate entity and it is now owned by the powerful triumvirate of Microsoft, Time-Warner and the French-owned Thomson. The original focus of ContentGuard was on DRM as it related to e-Books, but after the initial hype died down, its business model was revised to an ERM emphasis on protecting IP.
“We believe that interoperability between ERM vendors will become a bigger and bigger issue as the technology is deployed more widely. Our business model is to license our patented technologies,” states ContentGuard’s Director of Sales & Marketing, Rajan Samtani.
DigitalContainers, LLC, is mostly positioned in the business-to-consumer marketplace and owns patented symmetric key/token-based security technologies for use in DRM. These technologies support secure file and media delivery, tracking, authorization, certification and communication of transactional data to trusted third parties across the Internet. As opposed to Apple iTunes’ centralized DRM, DigitalContainers takes a decentralized approach, which applies to peer-to-peer (P2P) distribution systems like Napster, and also P2P collaborative software (groupware) like Groove Networks, purchased last Spring by Microsoft.
DigitalContainers defines a digital container as: an intelligent software package that provides an all-in-one security, management and e-commerce system for files of any type and size as they travel over the Internet. These containers "wrap" the files in a secure digital shell that can only be opened with a "key" that can be as simple as a password, as unique as a fingerprint, or used in conjunction with a patented authorization process in which the container "talks" to remote authorization authorities. DigitalContainers has two patents, and five more are pending:
1) Regulating Access to Digital Content - describes a process in which access to digital content, such as text, video, and music, is based on completion of an authorization process to unlock or gain access to the protected object. Authorization may require payment information and/or other usage information before approval is granted. This mostly applies to retail entertainment and other business-to-consumer applications where Internet users download and pay for music, videos, e-books and the like;
2) Tracking Electronic Content - describes a system whereby a secure digital content file persistently reports the identification of, and provides information about, any new user that attempts to access the content. The central concept of this patent is that access to electronic content can be tracked as the content is passed from user to user, whether they send the content over the Internet, peer-to-peer networks, e-mail or using physical media. The tracking function is accomplished by transmitting notification information back to an Internet address that is pre-determined by the original sender of the content as each successive user attempts to access the electronic content.
“It took nearly five years to get these patents approved,” says DigitalContainers CEO Chip Venters, “and these patents cover a broad swath in the DRM area.” He continues, “We use tokens and single keys, versus the PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) approach which requires multiple keys, and is a very expensive and lengthy process to implement.”
With both DigitalContainers and ContentGuard claiming to have patents that cover much of DRM functionality, is there a fight brewing between the two companies? “Generally, patents within the same market space are complementary,” says ContentGuard’s Samtani. He goes on, “If each patent weren’t unique, they wouldn’t have been granted in the first place.”
Download: Full Article in PDF Format