Apple Inc.
`Exhibit 1080, Page 1
`
`

`
`networker
`
`is .3 l‘iIT1{J]l'[l'll}' }tli|l3liL'.l[ilJ1] at .-\(I.\i.
`lite .'\$'iI’tL'IJll[]1I tor Ltaittitiltitig
`
`Director at Publications: Mark Mandeibaum
`
`Publications board: Chair: Peter J. Denning,
`Members: William Arms. Hal Berghei,
`Jacques Cohen, Jim Coho-an, Lorrie F.
`Cronor, Carol Hutchins. Marvin Israel,
`Christine Montgomery, David Wise, Peter
`Wagner, Gio Wiederholcl
`Subscriptions: Annual cost to ACM
`members: 535.00, student members $30.00,
`individual nonmembers: $40.00,
`nonmernber institutions S60 00.
`
`Single copies are Si 3 O0 to members,
`$20.00 to nonmembers. Please send orders
`prepaid plus $37.00 tor domestic shipping
`and handling [$8.00 For toreign] to ACM
`Order Dept., PO. Box i2] 14 Church Street
`Station, New Yorlx, NY i025? or call
`+i-2t?-626-0500. For credit card orders,
`call +1 -800-3412-6626.
`
`Order personnel available 8:30-4:30 EST.
`Alter hours, please leave message and order
`personnel will return your call.
`
`Change of address: acmcoo@acm.org
`For other services, questions. or intormation:
`acrnh elp@acm org
`networker EISSN i091-3556i is published
`six times a year in February, April, June,
`August, October, and December by the
`Association tor Computing Machinery. Inc.,
`‘I51 5 Broadway, New ‘fork, NY 10036.
`Periodicals postage paid at New York, NY
`iOOOi and at additional mailing ottices.
`
`hrtp:,:‘ ;'www.ocm.org,:' networker
`Copyright © 1998 by Association For
`Computing Machinery, Inc. [ACM].
`Permission to make digital or hard copies at
`part or oil at this work tor personal or class-
`room use is granted without tee provided
`that copies are not made or distributed tor
`protit or commercial advantage and that
`copies bear this notice and Full citation on
`the iirst page. Copyright tor components at
`this work owned by others than ACM must
`be honored. Abstracting with credit is per-
`mitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to
`post on servers, or to redistribute to lists_.
`requires prior specitic permission and/or
`tee. Request permission to publish tram:
`Publications Dept. ACM, inc. Fcix +1-212-
`Sé‘?-Odfii or email permissions@acm.arg
`
`For other copying at articles that carry a
`code at the bottom ot the tirst or last page or
`screen display, copying is permitted provided
`that the per-copy tee indicated in the code is
`paid through the Copyright Clearance Center,
`222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,
`H 603-750-8500, +l -508-750-4470 {taxi
`
`.
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1080, Page 2
`
`Apple Inc.
`Exhibit 1080, Page 2
`
`

`
`-1
`
`Illusirolion by Terry Wiclanar
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1080, Page 3
`
`Apple Inc.
`Exhibit 1080, Page 3
`
`

`
` ‘,](\X€q
`Featured
`
`Story
`
`The NEW PUSH
`F07‘ PUSH
`TECHNOLOGY
`
` TO PLACE PUSH IN SOME TECHNOLOGICAL PER-
`
`PECTIVE. SOME ADI-IERENTS WOULD HAVE US
`
`BELIEVE THAT PUSH MIGHT BE THIS CENTURY’s
`
`LAST TECHNOLOGY “SILVER BULLET.” PUSH
`
`DETRACTORS VIEW THE TECHNOLOGY As A MIS-
`
`TAKE CARRIED THROUGH TO PERFECTION. THE
`
`TRUTH LIES SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN.
`
`HAL BERGHEL
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1080, Page 4
`
`Apple Inc.
`Exhibit 1080, Page 4
`
`

`
`First, a point of nomenclature. The phrases
`
`ution lists are 1:many push protocols. E-mail,
`
`“push technology” and “push-phase technolo-
`gy” found wide use in 1996-97. Because of the
`
`in fact, represents the point in push—phase
`
`technology evolution where push became
`
`uproar from MIS managers over the excessive
`
`digital. Perhaps the latest stage in push is
`
`bandwidth consumed by push—enabled clients,
`the term “push” in management circles came
`to mean “bandwidth bandit.” As a result,
`
`1998 has spawned a stable of euphemisms for
`
`push: “active business intelligence technolo-
`3?“.
`33%" “smart information delivery,
`electronic
`
`delivery management” and so forth. Rather
`
`built within computer assisted cooperative
`
`work ECACW} environments, a.k.a. group-
`
`ware, where the dynamics of the interactivity
`
`is predicated on the constant. uninterrupted
`exchange of information.
`.
`
`Like e-mail, push technology is both digital-
`and network-based. But, unlike e—mail,
`the
`
`than try to sort out subtle differences in mean-
`
`modern delivery mechanism is modeled after
`
`ings, we’ll continue to use “push" as an
`umbrella term.
`
`the metaphor of telecasting rather than those of
`
`digital
`
`information access and delivery. The
`
`
`
`Ifyour browser supports server push. you will see an animation below.
`
`Server Push
`
`L111122211jj1j2j11111::jjjj1:::::J
`f-figure 1. A dc-nmnstmtirm of Nerscapek o-rigt'r:a.I' sen-¢'r—pusb ft.i¢.’d' vi}: the Worm’ Wide Web Test Pant.-rn
`(source: b!rp:fiI'u'I«uIu.1aark.edw'-Iwg).
`
`Semantics aside, the first
`
`lesson to learn
`
`about push technology is that it isn't new. If we
`
`define “push” as a tool to distribute informa-
`tion without requiring specific requests from
`
`the consumer of that information, the deploy-
`
`ment of “push-phase" information delivery
`dates back to the late 1800s with the creation
`
`of the wire services and the teleprinter net-
`works. United Press
`International, The
`Associated Press, Tass and Reuters were all
`
`organized for the purposes of push communi-
`
`cation. The same is now true for Bloomberg in
`the financial services area.
`
`E-mail is a 1:1 push protocol in its sim-
`plest form, and alias files and E-mail distrib-
`
`push lexicon is littered with euphemisms that
`
`end in “casting”: “Netcasting,” “Webcasting,”
`116(-
`group casting,
`per-
`“focused multicasting,” “
`sonal casting” and the like.
`
`MULTICASTING FOR
`
`
`
`' THE MASSES
`
`Current Web push technol-
`
`ogy is a cousin to the
`
`dynamic updating technol-
`
`ogy that first appeared in
`
`Netscape’s browser in 1995 (see “Cyberspace
`
`2000: Dealing With Information Overload,”
`
`{Communications of the ACM, February
`
`1997}. The idea behind dynamic updating is
`
`Hal Berghel [lmp.'//www.acm.org/~l1lb/} is o professor of computer science oi ihe Universiiy of Arkansas
`and a freelance writer on compufing technology.
`
`@>
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1080, Page 5
`
`Apple Inc.
`Exhibit 1080, Page 5
`
`

`
` that there are situations in which it is desirable
`
`to continuously update Web browser windows
`
`with dynamic, changing information. Multi-
`
`cell animations were an early application, as
`were slide shows, automatic re-direction (such
`
`as passing through a splash page to get to the
`
`main menu), digital “ticker tapes,” etc. In all
`
`the dynamic updating was
`of these cases,
`designed to overcome the disadvantages of the
`
`push has fallen into disuse [a “deprecated
`feature,” in Web terminology).
`Client pull, on the other hand, remains in
`
`
`
`use within the Netscape community for the
`
`display of constantly updated HTML pages.
`Unlike server push, client pull requires no spe-
`
`cial programs to operate. The Web browser
`client
`initiates an HTTP connection and
`
`request for information from a server when it
`
`Web’s “stateless” protocol, which disconnects
`
`sees a particular token of the <META> tag in
`
`the client-server connection immediately after
`
`each transaction cycle (as opposed to ftp and
`telnet, which maintain transaction “states”}.
`
`In addition to precluding a transaction “mem-
`
`ory,” the Web's stateless orientation prevents
`the sequencing of downloads without time-
`consuming end-user involvement.
`
`Dynamic updating, at least in Netscape’s
`
`the tag
`an HTML document. To illustrate,
`<META lattp-eqm'v=”refresb” content=”5;
`
`url=lattp://www.widget.com”; would cause a
`pull-compliant browser to refresh the current
`browser window with the document at
`
`Imp://www.widget.com five seconds after
`
`loading the current page. Without a URL spec-
`ified,
`the browser will refresh itself with a
`
`sense, took one of two forms: server push and
`
`client pull. Server push refreshed information
`
`reload of the current page. The “pull” is shut
`off as soon as a document is reached that does
`
`through predeter-
`displayed on the client
`mined,
`timed, server-initiated transmissions
`
`of HTML documents. However,
`
`this
`
`approach is server-invasive, requiring special
`server—side executables to create and deliver
`
`the refresh stream, and accordingly server
`
`not have a refresh <META> tag.
`
`For both server push and client pull, the
`idea is a simple one: provide data downloads
`
`without requiring user intervention. However,
`
`early server-push and client-pull technologies
`were deficient in one major respect: They were
`
`
`
`Figure 2. The Pot'm‘Cust client at work. In this case. the topic is weather. Other categoiues or feeds appear in fflt’ 1't’ft frame.
`-
`r'JInfl.'u.:l Hi: ml.
`lII'|l'lflllfll"|Ihlgfll-:1:”fI|Jd“]I1‘§l.:llzIllHl:l
`-
`|I.:rliru'1«r|II|lJI'i§:_:.
`
`Apple Inc.
`Exhibit 1080, Page 6
`
`

`
`context- and content-insensitive. That is, all
`
`advantages over manual, pull-phase informa-
`
`accesses to a URI. —- whether pushed or
`pulled — produced the same results for all
`
`users at any given moment in time. This con-
`
`tion distribution technologies. The following
`are among the more obvious advantages tout-
`ed in the trade literature:
`
`text/content insensitivity became the béte noir
`
`* Automatic downloads — in some cases,
`
`of Netscape’s dynamic updating technology
`because it produced an information access and
`delivery system that wasn’t scalable — the
`
`timely and
`delivery of numerous, complex,
`personalized documents requires as many
`URLs as there are documents. To minimize
`
`information overload, some mechanism had
`
`“differential downloading,” which only
`
`downloads the files that have changed
`
`* Automated announcements of updated
`content
`
`* Coherent information streaming via
`content channels
`
`Todayis info-pushers are first and foremost in the business
`
`of content delivery, along the way developing the
`
`client-server technology they need to accomplish their goal.
`
`to be created to build context and content sen-
`
`sitivity into the push technology itself.
`In current push environments, the content
`is handled via “content identifiers” while the
`
`context
`
`is provided through broadcast~lil<e
`
`“channels.” In this way, downloads are pre-fil-
`tered on servers and organized, consolidated
`
`and distributed as coherent Streams. Also,
`
`push~phase access is desktop-compatible and
`standalone rather than browser-centric {as in
`
`helper apps and plug-ins]. This liberates both
`information consumer
`and information
`
`* Delivery and rendering independence
`from the browser
`
`* Automated, but interactive, Web
`
`document management
`
`3! Managed delivery of electronic
`information
`
`IF Server-side information filtering and
`screening
`Push environments tend to have several
`
`things in common. For one, push servers tend
`to combine the dissemination of both internal
`
`content {provided by the vendor) and external
`
`provider from dependence on Web-based
`clients. Today’s info-pushers are first and fore-
`
`content {provided by third parties and routed
`
`through the vendor’s push server). In addition,
`
`most in the business of content delivery, along
`the way developing the client-server technolo-
`
`gy they need to accomplish their goal.
`
`THE VAGARIE5 OF
`
`“SOLICITED” PUSH
`
`Currently, the push para-
`
`“targeted and
`digm is
`solicited.” Individuals vol-
`
`.
`
`untarily “subscribe”
`
`to
`
`most if not all push servers require proprietary
`
`clients, and offer support to varying degrees to
`Internet,
`intranet and extranet
`information
`
`access, although individual emphases may be
`different. PointCast, for one, emphasizes Web
`information more than most, while Wayfarer
`tends to focus on intranet use. Finally, push
`
`clients tend to be free, or at least inexpensive.
`
`It’s worth noting that Internet vs. enterprise
`environments are predicated on different
`
`network information providers through inter-
`mediate push delivery systems.
`
`assumptions. Consider,
`
`for example,
`
`that
`
`Bacl<Web’s intranet orientation makes it possi-
`
`Push-phase technology can offer several
`
`ble to utilize Intel’s CPU ID capabilities for seg-
`
`W
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1080, Page 7
`
`Apple Inc.
`Exhibit 1080, Page 7
`
`

`
`
`
`tion sources, and filtering them properly.
`However, not all environments support
`the
`same range of content. Some are restricted to
`
`HTML while others support executa bles.
`
`
`
`_
`
`_
`
`NEW STANDARDS
`FOR PUSH
`
`CDF, Microsoffs Channel
`
`Definition Format {iattp://
`
`www.mt'::rosofr.com/
`
`standards/cdflffitml, is
`
`a proposed standard for push clients that is
`
`
`
`menting content based on the client ID {e.g., by
`
`power of processor, MMX compliance and
`
`internal MPEG support), a process that simply
`wouldn’t be feasible for the Web.
`
`There are, however, some significant differ-
`ences in the push vendors’ products, as shown
`
`in Table 1. For example, PointCast represents
`a very different business model from its com-
`
`petitors. The PointCast business model
`
`is
`
`advertising-based, while the others are sub-
`
`scription-oriented. These two approaches cre-
`ate important variations in the economics of
`
`push, just as they do in the traditional publish-
`
`written in extended markup language {XML}.
`
`ing industry. And, like its publishing ancestor,
`we expect that push business models will even-
`
`tually blend together as competition forces
`developers to prowl
`for additional
`revenue
`streams.
`
`With the exception of Wayrfarer, all of the
`push environments that we reviewed for this
`
`In this scenario, a content—description file that
`
`would define the structure, nature, currency
`and other parameters for each channel could
`
`be downloaded with, and define, each Web
`
`document and the channel to which it belongs.
`The main alternative at this time, advanced by
`Netscape, is to handle the meta-level informa-
`
`article are,
`
`technically speaking, automated
`
`tion with scripts, java and enhanced HTML.
`
`client pull products. The terms “client polling"
`and “smart pulling” are used in the vendor lit-
`
`Legacy database access is likely to he cru-
`
`cial for applications where the currency of the
`
`erature to denote information delivery by auto-
`
`U1él|.'iC Client
`than
`a
`
`l‘al'l'l€T
`fetching,
`server—initiated
`
`
`
`process. However, since both
`
`data is mission-critical. At this writing, several
`Figure 3. Marimba‘: Comma: client. Note that three channels are established; the firs: and :
`wardmus. Inreradfwry between client and server is autonurrc and autrmomrms for each -
`-
`
`techniques are transparent to
`the end user, the difference is
`not a crucial one.
`
`.__‘
`
`Push programming is usu-
`
`ally handled through a mix-
`ture of internal or external
`
`channels
`pre-programmed
`that come from a multitude
`“feeds.”
`
`sources,
`
`or
`
`of
`
`Typically, a vendor will offer
`dozens or even hundreds of
`
`channels through its server.
`
`An exception is Wayfarer,
`which distributes informa-
`
`tion by complex messaging
`over a single channel. In all
`
`cases, however, the emphasis
`
`is on increasing the type, vari-
`ety and quality of informa-
`
`3I.
`
`5;
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`
`Apple Inc.
`Exhibit 1080, Page 8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`RG60WI! *3
`lg--A|.._._u.,—..i—|._.-t..iu.DnsL\....-I‘.-5-,4:
`A-u..qZ|.£o|u-unulih-g Luvluafnub-and .uh-nu.-nus
`
`K.i.‘|OA-Why [qua-P.-uuwuqhu-fllflan
`Hill. ht-IRA
`
`
`
`rage" View crilrrfnrrres channel. ticker rape. frmm’ and headline mews of the pushed mformrrmm. Individual rriems may also be
`amryfnrr-r.rr.»nfprria':rrtsfuiews..lJon).
`
`including
`database interfaces are supported,
`CGI, Open Database Connectivity, java and
`SQL, with java in the lead.
`
`There are currently two basic types of inter-
`face for push technology: autonomous desk-
`
`tion provider. Some products also support dif-
`ferential downloading of files so that the latest
`version of a file is downloaded if the end-user
`
`doesn‘t already have it. This is becoming a
`de facto standard and is widely viewed as good
`Netiquette.
`
`Push technology developers are also com-
`plementing their peruser
`technology with
`advanced proxy server and firewall software
`to minimize network traffic and information
`
`duplication on the intranet’s server while
`
`increasing its throughput. Security and encryp-
`tion are also being built in, as are expanded
`intelligent—agent and brokerage capabilities to
`increase content coherence on the channels.
`
`
`
`top clients and existing Web browsers, with
`the former predominating. End—user filtering
`allows the information consumer the luxury of
`determining the nature of the filtering rather
`than relying on the judgment of the informa-
`
`are being offered to end—users
`
`THE FUTURE OF PUSH
`
`Currently, hundreds —
`5 maybe even thousands —
`" of media—rich [if not con»
`
`tent—rich)
`
`channels
`
`by push technology vendors. That these chan-
`nels provide useful information to some user
`
`communities is beyond dispute. However, the
`information processing industry’s negative
`reaction to PointCast’s initial offerings {many
`users simply removed PointCast from their
`
`desktops after the novelty wore off} indicates
`that push technology, as such and in general, is
`certainly not a silver bullet. So, where lies the
`future value of push?
`
`The two most popular push milieus,
`Internet and enterprise content delivery, will
`likely continue to evolve, penetrating ever-
`narrower and more focused market niches
`
`along the way. Because of the huge volume
`and growth rate of Internet resources, we
`don’t foresee a one—size-fits—all “push for the
`masses” environment because consumers
`
`would drown in at best marginally useful
`
`Apple Inc.
`Exhibit 1080, Page 9
`
`l'lW
`
`Apple Inc.
`Exhibit 1080, Page 9
`
`

`
`
`
`_—#—
`
`information {this relates to our “information
`
`Delivery independence is also hard to
`
`customization conjecture”;
`
`see bttp://www.
`
`acm.org/~bib/publications/cb5/cb5Jvtml).
`Our view of the future is more of a “dis-
`
`tributed push” model where thousands of
`
`information providers use push technology to
`link to specific and well—defined consumers.
`
`assess. Since proprietary interfaces are cur-
`rently the norm, a return to browser centrici-
`
`ty will require the integration of popular push
`interfaces into the two leading browsers, i.e.,
`as plug-ins. Though few would argue that
`
`dozens of independent standards for render-
`
`On the Internet side, push will complement
`
`ing push information constitute a social good,
`
`both the Web and e-mail by adding a layer of
`automated information feeds on top of exist-
`ing content. It is on the enterprise side, how-
`
`ever, that push has the clearest advantages
`over rival technologies, especially in the areas
`
`of differential downloading and automated
`announcement systems. For
`these reasons
`
`the future of push in some form or
`alone,
`other seems secure.
`
`After these first two advantages, however,
`trying to determine which push features will
`
`remain important is difficult because cyber-
`
`space continues to redefine itself. For example,
`
`AN streaming via push channels, though in
`theory a useful application, falls victim to the
`
`the leading browser
`it doesn’t appear that
`developers are very interested in integrating a
`
`wide range of push tool plug-ins. Even
`
`Microsoft’s CDF, which is as close to a push
`
`standard as anything, has yet to be supported
`by a majority of developers.
`
`In terms of automated document manage-
`ment and managed delivery, we see future
`
`push technology evolving coetaneously with
`
`brokering services {flash lists, distribution lists,
`
`etc.) as well as with recommender systems (see
`
`brtp://www.firefly.com], which develop virtual
`relationships between infonnation producers
`and consumers on the one hand and
`
`autonomous information agents on the other.
`bandwidth-bottleneck problem.
`We also envision push technology as a core
`
`
`
`
`¢IlAlIAC'I'EI!IS'I'lC5 OF SELECTED
`
`TABLE I :
`
`
`
`PUSH EIIVIIIONHEIIITS
`
` Differential
` COMPANY
`End-user
`AclverIising-
`Method
`Content
`cor-
`I-9906)’
`Interface
`filtering
`downloading
`(pgopucr)
`based or
`{client poll or
`lbiaary,
`compatible
`database
`[proprietary
`
`subecn‘pIien-
`server push] HTML, Java]
`access
`or browser]
`based
`
`Backweb
`
`Subscription
`Client poll Binory/HTML
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Proprietary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Intermincl
`
`Subscription
`Client poll
`[Communicator]
`
`
`
` Marimba
` Proprietary
`Subscription
`Client poll HTMI./Jovo
`No
`Yes
`[Ci-istanet}
`
`
`HTML
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`Browser
`
`
`
`
`HTML
`Yes
`No
`
`AdvertisingPointCust' Client poll
`Proprietary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Subscription Server push
`
`Wayfarer
`n.o.
`No
`Yes
`Proprietary
`
`Exhibit 10
`
`Apple Inc.
`Exhibit 1080, Page 10
`
`

`
`ILIADIIIO PIISI-I TICIIIIOLOGY VIIIDOIIS
`
`The URLs of the push environments examined in this orficle are listed below, as well as additional popular
`push vendors ond their products.
`'
`
`Backweb: hflp://vwvw.baclcweb.oom
`
`Global Village lflewscatcher): liflp://www.globalvi'llag.com
`
`i'nCommon (Downtown): ltllp://WwMu'ncommon.com
`
`lnlelliserv: imp://wvwv.veri'iy.com
`
`lfllennind (ContmurIi¢cIfor_): imp.’//www.intennind.com
`
`lcntacom (Headliner: now part of Backweb): hfip://www.lanacom.com
`
`Newsidgot ltflp.'//vvww.newsedge.com
`
`Marimba (cusiunen: hfip://WWw.morimbo.com
`
`Poinlcasts hllp://Mwv.poinlcost.com
`
`imp.-//www.wuyfarer.com
`
`component of CACW environments, especial-
`ly with respect
`to differential downloading.
`Similarly, we see filtering/screening backplanes
`behind push technology to be an extension of
`mainstream work in information retrieval and
`customization.
`
`We also anticipate that commercial inter-
`
`inevitably drive push technology
`ests will
`toward “unsolicited” push so that vendors
`
`may advertise through existing distribution
`channels. For example, PointCast advertise-
`
`ments are not filterable —- they are an integral
`part of the feed. Perhaps we should revisit the
`
`age—old (but newly relevant} question, “Will
`push lead to shove?"
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Though the future of push seems bright over-
`all, the outlook gets cloudy beyond applica-
`tions
`like
`differential
`downloads
`and
`
`enterprise narrowcasting. The real challenge
`for push developers will be either to carve out
`
`new application gamuts for which push is par-
`ticularly suited, or to somehow blend push
`into the toolbox of desktop suites. The next
`phase of push development will likely be char-
`acterized by information-theoretic studies of
`
`the recall, precision, fallout and generality of
`the output. As push matures, many of the cur-
`rent players will fall by the wayside, and a raft
`of new ones will emerge.
`In the end, our reservations about push
`technology are based on a simple axiom
`that, for want of a better term, we’ll call
`Boyle’s Law for Cyberspace: Data will
`always fill whatever void it can find. The
`
`primary lemma is that even if network over-
`
`load can be avoided, information overload
`of the end—user will always remain. Client-
`side solutions such as
`information cus-
`
`to relieve the
`tomization must be sought
`pressure from information overload — and
`
`make push, if not a silver bullet, at least a
`dependable projectile. N
`
`@
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1080, Page 11
`
`Apple Inc.
`Exhibit 1080, Page 11