Cisco patents the "Triple Play"

If you haven't heard of a Triple Play yet -- you know, where some service provider tries to shove TV, internet and phone service onto one pretty little contract for supposed cost savings and convenience to you -- then we applaud you for your apparent skill at avoiding the incessant advertising of such services from the major media companies. Unfortunately, it seems the US Patent Office possesses just such a skill, since they've granted a patent to Cisco Technology for the concept of "providing integrated voice, video, and data content in an integrated service." Now, Cisco did apply for this patent way back in 2000, before the idea had quite gotten so pervasive, but we're still a bit miffed that something this common-sensical can be patented at all. No word yet on what Cisco plans to do with the patent, but there are a whole lot of "infringing" services out there that they could potentially go after if the mood strikes. Luckily, Cisco has some pretty neat ideas of their own for a Triple Play network offering listed in the patent, so we'll remain cautiously optimistic -- safe underground, of course, in our tin-foil shielded bunker.

[Via Slashdot]

[3rdsun @ Oct 14th 2006 6:59PM]

Lawyers start your engines!!

[Eddie @ Oct 14th 2006 7:06PM]

Wow. That will be all.

[George Lerma @ Oct 14th 2006 7:22PM]

Are you sure this is for the "concept" of providing integrated voice, video, and data content in an integrated service? The first 3 words of the abstract read: "A method for."

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7075919&OS=7075919&RS=7075919

[Patrick @ Oct 14th 2006 7:49PM]

Way to broaden the patent yourself there engadget. If you took 3 seconds to read claim 1, you'd see that it talks about converting cable, data, and voice all into a common format. AFAIK, that ain't the way stuff happens at comcast. It all comes over the same bundle of wires, but digital TV isn't in the same format as my Internet, e.g., MPEG-2 stream vs. TCP/IP packets.

-p-

[Pete L @ Oct 14th 2006 7:45PM]

Note to the editors:

You are _still_ demonstrating a weak grasp of patent law. Please educate yourself or try not to cast public judgement on all disputed patents and/or patent litigation. Yes, this patent is clearly "obvious". However, if you performed even a cursory (educated) read of this patent's claims (something you have repeatedly failed to do) or carefully read the comments from your source material, you would realize that this patent is only protecting the delivery of the 3 services (voice, video, and data) over a single communications protocol standard (read: IP). This patent would _not_ prevent Comcast and other carriers from doing what they are _already_ doing, namely, providing all these same services over the SAME lines, but using several different communications protocols to provide them. This is a _key_ distinction despite the absurdity and sheer obviousness of the patent.

[Reginald @ Oct 14th 2006 7:59PM]

I agree... and furthermore, this patent claim might later evolve into some sort of QOS prioritization device for those services based upon the providers preference or whatever.

My Linksys/Vonage router does that with VOIP versus standard IP traffic (and Cisco makes the router too, by the way).

[JehovaHimself @ Oct 14th 2006 8:07PM]

Hey Engadget (i.e. Paul Miller) looks like MS has filed for a patent of the binary system. I guess that trumps Cisco's patent for Triple Play IP services.

Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130




P.S.

In case you don't read the article (kinda like the USPTO article), it's SATIRE.

[Tony Rayo @ Oct 14th 2006 8:24PM]

*Engadget writer attempts to pronounce the word satire* Sur.. See.. Say ti-rurd? SAYITTURD!

Yes I failed to be funny, but only because it would really throw off the editors *rimshots his electronic drumkit*. We tease because we can =p *lessthanthreeve*.

- Tony R.

[Tony Rayo @ Oct 14th 2006 8:26PM]

Oops that was suppose to be "we tease because we care". Freudian slip... 'n'slide with your attractive 4th cousins. Damnit, I did it again!

- Tony R.

[... @ Oct 14th 2006 8:41PM]

What the heck is going on with the site?!?

When I first come there is a floating add, the articles were all crunched up over on the left... Refreshing solved it...

[Chris @ Oct 14th 2006 9:06PM]

um, the "triple play" for cable right now includes 3 devices attached to the cable, where cisco's is one device.

[mikey @ Oct 14th 2006 9:21PM]

i got a "triple play" from this hooker in vegas once when i was in vegas @ comdex.

[Rick @ Oct 14th 2006 9:46PM]

why's everyone getting their panties in a bunch and jumping all over Engadget??! Fer chrissakes people, grow up. btw: Engadget I entered that sweepstakes thing, just to let you know. thank you and have a nice day.

[p-diddy @ Oct 15th 2006 1:41AM]

i'm getting bent out of shape because engadget is claiming cisco has patented something they haven't. Worse, they are referring to an article on slashdot. Slashdot is by far the worst offender in patent-hysterics, to the point where I couldn't even go to the site anymore. Patent holders should hire slashdotters to define the scope of the patent because according to every slashdot article, the patentee is claiming they invented the wheel. I left /. because of that shit and I don't need engadget repeating it.

-p-

[NBC @ Oct 14th 2006 10:23PM]

video, audio, data is there a fourth one so i can patent quad play ?

[David @ Oct 15th 2006 3:39AM]

Well quad play is nice, but fore play is better! yes please

[JuanJohn @ Oct 15th 2006 5:15AM]

mikey @ Oct 14th 2006 9:21PM

i got a "triple play" from this hooker in vegas once when i was in vegas @ comdex.

HAHAHA!! I live in LV!! Goto Tropicana near the strip and avery hooker will offer something like triple play! What would I do if I lived somewhere else?

[Magallanes @ Oct 15th 2006 7:42AM]

So, you will not be able to use windows media player, iexplorer and skype because they are in some extend a triple play?

[GhostDoggy @ Oct 15th 2006 8:48AM]

There goes Microsoft's Xbox Live with its sights (Visioncam), sounds (in-game VoIP), and data (game data). lol

[Michael @ Oct 15th 2006 10:52AM]

So, you guys who were flaming the writers all have pursued and gotten a law degree? If not, you aren't really experts either, I bet. If you have, then stop muscling your assumed mental superiority over everyone. You see, despite all of your harsh words and nonconstructive criticism, there were still posts that probably made you grit your teeth. So, why get so angry with the writers? They do the best they can with the knowledge they have in the job that they do. If your job is to be critical of writer's knowledge of law, go find a lawyer blog. I hear Capcom's hiring for the new Phoenix Wright game!

Okay, so maybe they aren't copyrighting what it sounded like they were at first, but America is the country that gave a million bucks to someone who burned themselves on coffee - because, you know, NOBODY knows that it could burn you - so anything can happen.

I still think Comcast might have to watch out. The 'triple play' has been their niche for a while now, and if little kids can sue over IPods, I wouldn't be surprised if a legal squabble does break out - although I'm not holding my breath for it.

[Pete L @ Oct 15th 2006 2:30PM]

Michael,

Firstly, the point is that the _editors_ are constantly passing judgement on patent issues, something which they are not only _not_ expert in, but that they're obviously completely ignorant of. If they don't know what they're talking about, then they should simply not pass judgement publically.

Secondly, they are substantively wrong in this case. Comcast's Triple Play and most other products out on the market _today_ are _not_ under threat because this patent only has the potential to apply to services that converage these 3 services on a single communications protocols (e.g., IP). The fact that Comcast and others deliver these services over several different protocols protects them. Cisco would not have a leg to stand on if they want to go after Comcast et. al right now.

Thirldly, I do in fact have real knowledge of and experience with intellectual property matters. I am the inventor of record with on a patent and I helped with the filing. My wife is a laywer and she also passed the patent bar. Furthermore, I come from a family of engineers/entreprenuers that has created over 100 patents and successfully commercialized them (read: real innovation, strong IP, and building real companies with them). I would not call myself an expert, but I am certainly conversant in the issues (which comes in handy with my own business plans). That said, you do not need to be an expert to read a patent and get a fairly decent sense of what the patent is trying to protect. (Though it does help if you want to know how strong the patent really is).

Fourthly, there are _real_ problems with the patent system (which I won't go into here). However, people on slashdot and forums like this one that ignorantly spout off nonsense only serve to discredit and distract from the real problems and the real abuses of the system.

Lastly, patents and copyrights are wholly different things. Please read up.

[J @ Oct 15th 2006 11:53AM]

yes, please stop ripping on the USPTO. It's not as simple as obvious vs. not obvious. There needs to be documentary evidence that predates the filing of the patent application to show that it is obvious. A lot of technology is proprietary, so there is no documentary evidence out there. So please stop ripping on the best patent system in the world.

[anon @ Oct 15th 2006 2:15PM]

Did engadget even read the patent?

[Shmoe @ Oct 15th 2006 5:51PM]

I'm with Pete here. Please read at least read the independent claim before saying something like "USPTO just issues patent on the wheel!"

Here is the claim from the Cisco patent. Not so broad anymore is it?

1. A method for providing integrated voice, video, and data content in an integrated service offering to one or more customer premises, comprising: receiving television programming from a programming source; converting the television programming to a common format for communication over a single network infrastructure using a common communication protocol; receiving data from a data network in the common format of the common communication protocol for communication over the single network infrastructure; receiving telephone communications from a telephone network; converting the telephone communications to the common format for communication over the single network infrastructure using the common communication protocol; communicating the converted television programming, data, and converted telephone communications in the common format over the single network infrastructure using the common communication protocol to one or more customer premises to provide the integrated service offering; and assigning customer premises to multicast domains to support conditional access of the customer premises to content that is selected from the group consisting of selected television programming, video-on-demand, pay-per-view video, near-video-on-demand, audio channels, audio-on-demand, and interactive gaming, wherein the conditional access is implemented using interdiction.

Plus it was filed in 2000. I've seen patents that are much, much worse. Even from the claim construction it looks like they threw in the last interdiction feature to overcome prior art.

[J @ Oct 16th 2006 10:14AM]

Wireless (Cell) Phones. Home Video Surveillance. Physical Security (Locks). There's no limit on the number of services you can put down that (IP) pipe. Feel free to file your own patents!

(I think this post would get me for prior art. Suckers!)