U.S. PTO
`1 1I895388
`08/24/2007
`
`Under the Pa - -
`
`PTO/53105 (07—07)
`Approved for use through 06B0l2010 OMB 0651-0032
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. U.5. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`
`
` Em... Mannheim—
`
`UTILITY
`PATENT APPLICATION
`TRANSMITTAL
`(Only fornew nmpruvisr'onal applirzlions under 37 CFR 1.53(b))
`
`First Inventor
`
`Scott MOSKOW'TZ
`Data Protection Method and Device
`
`APPLICATION ELEMENTS
`See MP3? chapter 600 concern/nu utility patenl app/hath" mutants.
`
`ADDRESS TO:
`
`Commissioner for Patients
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria VA 22313-1450
`
`OM0
`
`‘!
`\l
`
`O .
`
`C
`F”
`.0
`.4
`0
`
`
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3,
`
`Fee Transmittal Form (8.9., PTO/SB/17)
`(Submit an original and a dupliwte for fee processing)
`Applicant claims small entity status.
`See 37 CFR 1.27.
`[Total Pages
`Specification
`Both the daims and abstract must start on a new page
`(For infomretbn on lire wafer-red arrangement, see MPEP 6011mm)
`4.. Drawing(s) (35 U.S.C. 113)
`[Total Sheets
`1
`5. Oath or Declaration
`[Total Sheets
`3. - Newly executed (original or copy)
`b. I A copy from a prior appliwtlon (37 CFR 1.63(d))
`for continuation/divisional with Box 18 completed)
`QELEI 9” GE NyfiflTOflSl
`Signed statement attached deleting invantor(s)
`name in the prior appiimtion, see 37 CFR
`1.63(d)(2) and 1.330)).
`
`
`
`1.
`
`9. D Assignment Papers (cover sheet & document(s))
`Name of Assignee
`
`10. E] 37 CFR 3.13m) Statement
`(when there Is an assignee)
`
`Power at
`Attorney
`
`11. B English Translation Document (if applicable)
`
`12. El IntoETtion- Disclosure Statement (PTO/SBIua or PT01449)
`Copies of citations attached
`
`6. [Z] Applimtbn om Sheet. See 37 CFR't .76
`
`7. E] CD-ROM or CD-R in duplicate, Iarge table or
`outer Program (Appendix)
`Landsmpe Table on CD
`
`8. Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Submission
`(i! ap licable, items a. — c. are required)
`a.
`Computer Readable Form (CRF)
`b.
`Specification Sequence Listing on:
`
`13.
`
`Preliminary Amendment
`
`14. I Return Receipt Postcard (MPEP 503)
`(Should be specifically item/zed)
`
`Certified Copy of Priority Document(s)
`0f foreign priority is claimed)
`
`16.
`
`Nonpublication Request under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(i).
`Applicant must attach form PTO/SBI35 or equivalent.
`
`. CI CD—ROMorCD—R(2oopies); or
`ii. E]
`Paper
`
`17. D Other:
`
`c, D Statements verifying identity of above copies
`18. If a CONTINUING APPLICATION. check appropriate box, and supply the requisite infon‘nation below and in the first sentence of the
`specification follom'ng fire title, or in an Application Data Sheet under 37 CFR 1.76:
`
`D Continuation
`Prior appfrmtion inhnnation:
`
`- Divisional
`I: Continuation-Import (CIP)
`Examiner Laurel MSHQ I
`19. CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`
`of prior application No;
`Art Unit:
`2
`
`DThe address assoolated withCustomer NumberE OR I correspondenceaddress below
`w Scamsmwm
`16711 Collins Avenue #2505
`
`_ Sunnymeam m_ zncane
`__ ennnnen
`2059569041
`-
`'7".
`_—:"r'
`Print/T p —
`This coliedion of Information Is required by 37 CFR 1.53m). The information Is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the
`USPTO to pm) an appliwtion. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.11 and 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 12 minutu to
`complete, including gathering. preparing. and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any
`comments on the amount of time you require to complete this form and/or suogestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief lnfonnation Officer,
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, PO. Box 1450, Alexandria. VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED
`FORMS TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1451), Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`ifyou need assistance in completing the form, call l-800-PTO—9199 and select option 2.
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0001
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0001
`
`

`

`
`
`PTO/SB!" (07—07)
`Approved for use through 06/30/2010. 0MB 0651-0032
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Oflice; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`'
`, nder the Pa-enuork Reduction Act at 1995 no -ersons are re - uired to resend to a collection of information unless it dis-la s a valid OMB control number
`
`Complete if Known
`
`
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Eifectivo on 12/ow2004.
`.
`'
`
`Eras pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (H.R. 4818).
`O |
`.. FEE TRANSMITTAL—m
`
`For FY 2007
`ScottAMOSKOWITZ
`
`__
`
`n
`Art U It _
`Applicant claims small entity status. See 37 CFR 1.27
`Tom AMOUNT 0.: PAYMENTm 80391000300er
`METHOD OF PAYMENT check all that a: I
`
`
`
`Credit Card l:lMoney Order D None D Other (please identity):
`l:l Cheek
`
`I: Deposit Accomt Daposit Account Number:
`Deposit Account Name:
`For the above-identified deposit account, the Director is hereby authorized to: (check all that apply)
`
`[I Charge fee(s) indicated below, except for the filing fee
`EIGharge fee(S) Indicated below
`Charge any additional fee(s) or underpayments of fee(s) D Credit any overpayments
`under 37 CFR 1.16 and 1.17
`WARNING: Information on this form may become public. Credit card information should not be included on this form. Provide credit card
`Information and authorization on PTO-2038.
`FEE CALCULATION
`
`1. BASIC FILING, SEARCH, AND EXAMINATION FEES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXAMINATION FEES
`SEARCH FEES
`FILINGSFEE|S ti
`t1
`Sm II Emit!
`Sm I| Eng]!
`In IE1]
`fee |§I Elfin M Faee Iii M @151
`300
`150
`500
`250
`200
`100
`200
`100
`100
`50
`130
`65
`200
`100
`300
`150
`160
`80
`300
`150
`500
`250
`600
`300
`200
`100
`0
`0
`0
`0
`
`Mpl‘rcagon Tm;
`Utility
`Design
`Plant
`Reissue
`Provisional
`2. EXCESS CLAIM FEES
`Mauritian
`Each claim over 20 (including Reissues)
`Each independent claim over 3 (including Reissues)
`Multiple dependent claims
`
`Fee
`Extra Claims
`Total Claims
`x
`I I
`2 I
`- 20 or HP:
`HP = highest number of total claims paid tor. if greater than 20.
`
`lFee Pald (fl
`23:5 -
`
`Fees Eaig (51
`gm
`
`MEI]!!!
`Betti m
`50
`25
`200
`100
`360
`180
`
`Multiple Degndent Claims
`Fee 1;]
`Fee Paid 1;]
`
`Th qq'Sg—D-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. OTHER FEE(S)
`
`
`$130 fee (no small entity discount)
`Non-English Specification,
`
`
`Other (e.g., late filing surcharge):
`
`SUBMITTED 1 Y
`,
`
`
`‘
`.—
`.
`Registration No.
`_-£LM Amine /A_ent
`Telephone 30_ 956 904‘
`_
`mm... s mosxowwz
`«2007 24
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.136. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the
`USPTO to process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 30 minutes to complete,
`including gathering, preparing. and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any comments
`on the amount at time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden. should be sent to the Chiet lntormation Otficer. U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office. U.S. Department of Commerce. PO. Box 1450. Alexandria. VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS
`ADDRESS. SEND TO: Commissioner for Patents, PO. Box 1450, Alexandria. VA 22313-1450.
`Ifyou need assistance In completing the form, call 1-800-PTO-9199 and select option 2.
`
`"Ides
`
`a.m-siiorHP = wX fl= jfim
`
`r. r greater than 3.
`
`to
`
`HP = highest number of independent claims paid
`3. APPLICATION SIZE FEE .
`If the specification and drawmgs exceed [00 sheets of paper (excluding electronically filed sequence or computer
`listings under 37 CFR l.52(e)), the application size fee due is $250 ($125 for small entity) for each additional 50
`sheets or fi’action thereof. Sec 35 U.S.C. 41:3)(1)(G) and 37 CFR 1.16:5).
`t e eo
`Total Sheets W e o e c
`ddI
`al
`0
`at
`- 100 =
`lat) =
`(round up to a whole number)
`x
`
`fee [5]
`
`Eee Paid l§l
`
`
`
`Fees paid (Q
`
`
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0002
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0002
`
`

`

`DATA PROTECTION METHOD AND DEVICE
`
`CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
`
`[0001] This application is a divisional of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 10/602,777, which
`
`is a continuation application of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/046,627 (which
`
`issued July 22, 2003, as U.S. Patent No. 6,598,162), which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 08/587,943, filed Jan. 17, 1996, (which issued April
`28, 1998, asiU.S. Patent No. 5,745,943). The entire disclosure of U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/046,627 (which issued July 22, 2003, as U.S. Patent No. 6,598,162) and U.S.
`
`Patent Application Serial No. 08/587,943, filed Jan. 17, 1996, (which issued April 28,
`
`1998, as U.S. Patent No. 5,745,943) are hereby incorporated by reference in their
`
`entireties.
`
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION
`
`[0002] The invention relates to the protection of digital
`
`information. More particularly, the
`
`invention relates to a method and device for data protection.
`
`[0003] With the advent of computer networks and digital multimedia, protection of intellectual
`
`property has become a prime concern for creators and publishers of digitized copies of
`
`copyrightable works, such‘as musical recordings, movies, video games, and computer.‘
`software. One method of protecting copyrights in the digital domain is to use "digital
`watermarks. "
`
`[0004] The prior art
`
`includes copy protection systems attempted at many stages in, the
`
`development of the software industry. These may be various methods by which a
`
`software engineer can write the software in a clever manner to determine if it has been
`
`copied, and if so to deactivate itself. Also included are undocumented changes to the
`
`storage format of the content. Copy protection was generally abandoned by the software
`
`industry, since pirates were generally just as clever as the software engineers and figured
`
`out ways to modify the software and deactivate the protection. The cost of developing
`
`such protection was not justified considering the level of piracy which occurred despite
`
`the copy protection.
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0003
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0003
`
`

`

`[0005] Other methods for protection of computer software include the requirement of entering
`
`certain nummrs or facts that may be included in a packaged software's manual, when
`
`prompted at start-up. These may be overcome if copies of the manual are distributed to
`
`unintended users, or by patching the code to bypass these measures. Other methods
`
`include requiring a user to contact
`
`the software vendor and to receive "keys" for
`
`unlocking software after registration attached to some payment scheme, such as credit
`
`card authorization. Further methods include network-based searches of a user's hard drive
`
`and comparisons between what is registered to that user and what is actually installed on
`
`the user's general computing device. Other proposals, by such parties as AT&T's Bell
`
`Laboratories, use "kerning" or actual distance in pixels,
`
`in the rendering of text
`
`documents, rather than a varied number of ASCII characters. However, this approach can
`
`often be defeated by graphics processing analogous to sound processing, which
`
`randomizes that information. All of these methods require outside determination and
`
`verification of the validity of the software license.
`
`[0006] Digital watermarks can be used to mark each individual copy of a digitized work with
`
`information identifying the title, copyright holder, and even the licensed owner of a
`
`particular copy. When marked with licensing and ownership information, responsibility is
`
`created for individual copies where before there was none. Computer application
`
`programs can be watermarked by watermarking digital content resources used in
`
`conjunction with images or audio data Digital watermarks can be encoded with random
`
`or pseudo random keys, which act as secret maps for locating the watermarks. These keys
`
`make it impossible for a party to find the watermark without having the key. In addition,
`
`the encoding method can be enhanced to force a party to cause damage to a watermarked
`
`data stream when trying to erase a random-key watermark. Other information is disclosed
`
`in "Technology: Digital Commerce", Denise Caruso, New York Times, Aug. 7, 1995;
`
`and "Copyrightingj in the Information Age", Harley Ungar, ONLINE MARKETPLACE,
`
`September 1995, Jupiter Communications.
`
`[0007] Additionally, other methods for hiding information signals in content signals, are
`
`disclosed in US. Pat. No. 5,319,735--Preuss et a]. and US. Pat. No. 5,379,345--
`
`Greenberg.
`
`[0008] It is desirable to use a "stega-cipher" or watermarking process to hide the necessary parts
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0004
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0004
`
`

`

`or resources of the executable object code in the digitized sample resources. It is also
`
`desirable to further modify the underlying structure of an executable computer
`
`application such that it is more resistant to attempts at patching and analysis by memory
`
`capture. A computer application seeks to provide a user with certain utilities or tools, that
`
`is, users interact with a computer or similar device to accomplish various tasks and
`
`applications provide the relevant interface. Thus, a level of authentication can also be
`
`introduced into software, or "digital products," that include digital content, such as audio,
`
`video, pictures or multimedia, with digital watermarks. Security is maximized because
`
`erasing this code watermark without a key results in the destruction of one or more
`
`essential parts of the underlying application, rendering the "program" useless to the
`
`unintended user who lacks the appropriate key. Further, if the key is linked to a license
`
`code by means of a mathematical function, a mechanism for identifying the licensed
`
`owner of an application is created.
`
`[0009] It is also desirable to randomly reorganize program memory structure intermittently
`
`during program run time, to prevent attempts at memory capture or object code analysis
`
`aimed at eliminating licensing or ownership information, or otherwise modifying, in an
`
`unintended manner, the functioning of the application.
`
`[0010] In this way, attempts to capture memory to determine underlying functionality or provide
`
`a "patc "
`
`to facilitate unauthorized use of the "application," or computer program,
`
`without destroying the functionality and thus usefiilness of a copyrightable computer
`
`program can be made difficult or impossible.
`
`[0011] It is thus the goal of the present invention to provide a higher level of copyright security
`
`to object code on par with methods described in digital watermarking systems for
`
`digitized media content such as pictures, audio, video and multimedia content in its
`
`multifarious forms, as described in previous disclosures, "Steganographic Method and
`
`Device" Ser. No. 08/489,172, filed Jun. 7, 1995, now US. Pat. No. 5,613,004, and
`
`"Human Assisted! Random Key Generation and Application for Digital Watermark
`
`System", Ser. No. 08/587,944, filed on Jan. 17, 1996, the disclosure of which is hereby
`
`incorporated by reference.
`
`[0012] It is a further goal of the present invention to establish methods of copyright protection
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0005
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0005
`
`

`

`that can be combined with such schemes as software metering, network distribution of
`
`code and specialized protection of software that is designed to work over a network, such
`
`as that proposed by Sun Microsystems in their HotJava browser and Java programming
`
`language, and manipulation of application code in proposed distribution of documents
`
`that can be exchanged with resources or the look and feel of the document being
`
`preserved over a network. Such systems are currently being offered by companies
`
`including Adobe, with their Acrobat software. This latter goal is accomplished primarily
`
`by means of the watermarking of font, or typeface, resources included in applications or
`
`documents, which determine how a bitmap representation of the document is ultimately
`
`drawn on a presentation device.
`
`[0013] The present invention includes an application of the technology of "digital watermarks."
`
`As described in previous disclosures, "Steganographic Method and Device" and "Human
`
`Assisted Random Key Generation and Application for Digital Watermark System,"
`
`watermarks are particularly suitable to the identification, metering, distributing and
`
`authenticating digitized content such as pictures, audio, video and derivatives thereof
`
`under the description of "multimedia content." Methods have been described for
`
`combining both cryptographic methods, and steganography, or hiding something in plain
`
`view. Discussions of these technologies can be found in Applied Cryptography by Bruce
`
`Schneier and The Code Breakers by David Kahn. For more information on prior art
`public-key cryptosystems see U.S. Pat. No. 4,200,770 Diffle-ilellman, U.S. Pat. No.
`
`4,218,582 Hellman, U.S. Pat. No. 4,405,829 RSA, U.S. Pat. No. 4,424,414 Hellman
`
`Pohlig. Computer code, or machine language instructions, which are not digitized and
`
`have zero tolerance for error, must be protected by derivative or alternative methods,
`
`such as those disclosed in this invention, which focuses on watermarking with "keys"
`
`derived from license codes or other ownership identification information, and using the
`
`watermarks encoded with such keys to hide an essential subset of the application code
`resources.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`
`[0014] Increasingly, commercially valuable information is being created and stored in "digital"
`
`form. For example, music, photographs and video can all be stored and transmitted as a
`
`series of numbers, such as 1's and 0's. Digital techniques let the original information be
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0006
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0006
`
`

`

`recreated in a very accurate manner. Unfortunately, digital
`
`techniques also let
`
`the
`
`information be easily copied without the information owner‘s permission.
`
`[0015] Because unauthorized copying is clearly a disincentive to the digital distribution of
`
`valuable information, it is important to establish responsibility for copies and derivative
`copies ‘of such works. For example, if each authorized digital copy of a popular song is
`
`identified with a unique number, any unauthorized copy of the song would also contain
`
`the number. This would allow the owner of the information, such as a song publisher, to
`
`investigate who made the unauthorized copy. Unfortunately, it is possible that the unique
`
`number could be erased or altered if it is simply tacked on at the beginning or end of the
`
`digital information.
`
`[0016] As will be described, known digital "watermark" techniques give creators and publishers
`
`of digitized multimedia content localized, secured identification and authentication of
`
`that content. In considering the various forms of multimedia content, such as "master,"
`
`stereo, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) video, audio tape or compact
`
`disc, tolerance of quality will vary with individuals and affect the underlying commercial
`
`and aesthetic value of the content. For example, if adigital version of a popular song
`
`sounds distorted,
`
`it will be less valuable to users. It is therefore desirable to embed
`
`copyright, ownership or purchaser information, or some combination of these and related
`
`data, into the content in a way that will damage the content if the watermark is removed
`
`without authorization.
`
`[0017] To achieve these goals, digital watermark systems insert ownership information in a way
`
`that causes little or no noticeable effects, or "artifacts," in the underlying content signal.
`
`For example, if a digital watermark is inserted into a digital version of a song, it is '
`
`important that a listener not be bothered by the slight changes introduced by the
`
`watermark. It is also important for the watermark technique to maximize the encoding
`
`level and "location sensitivity" in the signal to force damage to the content signal when
`
`removal is attempted. Digital watermarks address many of these concerns, and research
`
`in the field has provided extremely robust and secure implementations.
`
`[0018] What has been overlooked in many applications described in the art, however, are
`
`systems which closely mimic distribution of content as it occurs in the real world. For
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0007
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0007
`
`

`

`instance, many watermarking systems require the original un-watermarked content signal
`
`to enable detection or decode operations. These include highly publicized efforts by
`
`NEC, Digimarc and others. Such techniques are problematic because, in the real world,
`
`original master copies reside in a rights holders vaults and are not readily available to the
`
`public.
`
`[0019] With much activity overly focused on watermark survivability, the security of a digital
`
`watermark is suspect. Any simple linear operation for encoding information into a signal
`
`may be used to erase the embedded signal by inverting the process. This is not a difficult
`
`task, especially when detection software is a plug-in freely available to the public, such as
`
`with Digimarc. In general, these systems seek to embed cryptographic information, not
`
`cryptographically embed information into target .media content.
`
`[0020] Other methods embed ownership information that is plainly visible in the media signal,
`
`such as the method described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,530,739 to Braudaway et al. The system
`
`described in Braudaway protects a digitized image by encoding a visible watermark to
`
`deter piracy. Such an implementation creates an immediate weakness in securing the
`
`embedded information because the watermark is plainly visible. Thus, no search for the
`
`embedded signal is necessary and the watermark can be more easily removed or altered.
`
`For example, while certainly useful to some rights owners, simply placing the symbol
`
`“©" in the digital
`
`information would only provide limited protection. Removal by
`
`adjusting the brightness of the pixels forming the "©" would not be difficult with respect
`
`to the computational resources required.
`
`[0021] Other relevant prior art includes U.S. Pat. No. 4,979,210 and 5,073,925 to Nagata et al.,
`
`which encodes information by modulating an audio signal in the amplitude/time domain.
`
`The modulations introduced in the Nagata process carry a "copy/don't copy" message,
`
`which is easily found and circumvented by one skilled in the art. The granularity of
`
`encoding is fixed by the amplitude and frequency modulation limits required to maintain
`
`inaudibility. These limits are relatively low, making it impractical
`
`to encode more
`
`information using the Nagata process.
`
`[0022] Although U.S. Pat. No. 5,661,018 to Leighton describes a means to prevent collusion
`
`attacks in digital watermarks, the disclosed method may not actually provide the security
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0008
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0008
`
`

`

`described. For-example,
`
`in cases where the watermarking technique is linear,
`
`the
`
`"insertion envelope" or "watermarking space" is well-defined and thus susceptible to
`
`attacks less sophisticated than collusion by unauthorized parties. Over-encoding at the
`
`watermarking encoding level is but one simple attack in such linear implementations.
`
`Another consideration not made by Leighton is that commercially—valuable content may
`
`already exist in a un-watermarked form somewhere, easily accessible to potential pirates,
`
`gutting the need for any type of collusive activity. Digitally signing the embedded signal
`
`with preprocessing of watermark data is more likely to prevent successful collusion.
`
`Furthermore, a "baseline" watermark as disclosed is quite subjective. It
`
`is simply
`
`described elsewhere in the art as the "perceptually significan " regions of a signal.
`
`Making a watermarking function less linear or inverting the insertion of watermarks
`
`would seem to provide the same benefit without the additional work required to create a
`
`"baseline" watermark. Indeed, watermarking algorithms should already be capable of
`
`defining a target insertion envelope or region without additional steps. What is evident is
`
`the Leighton patent does not allow for initial prevention of attacks on an embedded
`
`watermark as the content is visibly or audibly unchanged.
`
`[0023] It is also important that any method for providing security also fimction with broadcasting
`
`media over networks such as the Internet, which is also referred to as "streaming."
`
`Commercial
`
`"plug-in" products
`
`such as RealAudio and RealVideo, as well as
`
`applications by vendors VDONet and Xtreme,
`
`are common in such network
`
`environments. Most digital watermark implementations focus on common file base
`
`signals and fail to anticipate the security of streamed signals. It is desirable that any
`
`protection scheme be able to function with a plug-in player without advanced knowledge
`
`of the encoded media stream.
`
`[0024] Other technologies focus solely on file-based security. These technologies illustrate the
`
`varying applications for security that must be evaluated for different media and
`
`distribution environments. Use of cryptolopes or cryptographic containers, as proposed
`by IBM in its Cryptolope product, and InterTrust, as described in U.S. Pat. Nos.
`
`4,827,508, 4,977,594, 5,050,213 and 5,410,598, may discourage certain forms of piracy.
`
`Cryptographic containers, however, require a user to subscribe to particular decryption
`
`software to decrypt data. IBM's InfoMarket and InterTrust‘s DigiBox, among other
`
`implementations, provide a generalized model and need proprietary architecture to
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0009
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0009
`
`

`

`function. Every user must have a subscription or registration with the party which
`
`encrypts the data. Again, as a form of general encryption, the data is scrambled or
`
`encrypted without regard to the media and its formatting. Finally, control over copyrights
`
`or other neighboring rights is left with the implementing party,
`
`in this case, IBM,
`
`InterTrust or a similar provider.
`
`[0025] Methods similar to these "trusted systems" exist, and Cerberus Central. Limited and
`
`Liquid Audio, among a number of companies, offer systems which may functionally be
`
`thought of as subsets of IBM and InterTrust's more generalized security offerings. Both
`
`Cerberus and Liquid Audio propose proprietary player software which is registered to the
`
`user and "locked" in a manner parallel to the locking of content that is distributed via a
`
`cryptographic container. The economic trade-off in this model is that users are required to
`
`use each respective companies' proprietary player to play or otherwise manipulate content
`that is downloaded. If, as is the case presently, most music or other media is not available
`
`via these proprietary players and more companies propose non-compatible player
`
`formats, the proliferation of players will continue. Cerberus and Liquid Audio also by
`
`way of extension of their architectures provide for "near-CD quality" but proprietary
`
`compression. This requirement stems from the necessity not to allow content that has
`
`near-identical data make-up to an existing consumer electronic standard, in Cerberus and
`
`Liquid Audio's case the so-called Red Book audio CD standard of 16 bit 44.1 kHz, so
`
`that comparisons with the proprietary file may not yield how the player is secured.
`
`Knowledge of the player's file format renders its security ineffective as a file may be
`
`replicated and played on any common player, not the intended proprietary player of the
`
`provider of previously secured and uniquely formatted content. This is the parallel
`
`weakness to public key crypto-systems which have gutted security if enough plain text
`
`and cipher text comparisons enable a pirate to determine the user's private key.
`
`[0026] Many approaches to digital watermarking leave detection and decoding control with the
`
`implementing party of the digital watermark, not the creator of the work to be protected.
`
`A set of secure digital watermark implementations address this fimdamental control issue
`
`forming the basis of key-based approaches. These are covered by the following patents
`
`and pending applications, the entire disclosures of 'which are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference: US. Pat. No. 5,613, 004 entitled "Steganographic Method and Device" and its
`
`derivative US. patent application Ser. No. 08/775,216 (which issued November 11, 1997,
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0010
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0010
`
`

`

`as U.S. Patent No. 5,687,236), U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/587,944 entitled
`
`"Human Assisted Random Key Generation and Application for Digital Watermark
`
`System"(which issued October 13, 1998, as U.S. Patent No. 5,822,432), U.S. patent
`
`application Ser. No. 08/587,943 entitled "Method for Stega-Cipher Protection of
`
`Computer Code"(which issued April 28, 1998, as U.S. Patent No. 5,748,569), U.S.
`
`patent application Ser. No. 08/677,435 entitled "Optimization Methods for the Insertion,
`
`Protection, and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digitized Data"(which issued March
`
`30, 1999, as U.S. Patent No. 5,889,868) and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/772,222
`
`entitled "Z-Transform Implementation of Digital Watermarks"(which issued June 20,
`
`2000, as U.S. Patent No. 6,078,664). Public key crypto-systems are described in U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 4,200,770, 4,218,582, 4,405,829 and 4,424,414, the entire disclosures of which are
`
`also hereby incorporated by reference.
`
`[0027] In particular, an improved protection scheme is described in "Method for Stega—Cipher
`
`Protection of Computer Code," U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/587,943 (which issued
`
`April 28, 1998, as U.S. Patent No. 5,748,569). This technique uses the key—based
`
`insertion of binary executable computer code within a content signal that is subsequently,
`
`and necessarily, used to play or otherwise manipulate the signal in which it is encoded.
`
`With this system, however, certain computational requirements, such as one digital player
`
`per digital copy of content, may be necessitated. For instance, a consumer may download
`
`many copies of watermarked content. With this technique,
`
`the user would also be
`
`downloading as many copies of the digital player program. While this form of security
`
`may be desirable for some applications, it is not appropriate in many circumstances.
`
`[0028] Finally, even when digital information is distributed in encoded form, it may be desirable
`
`to allow unauthorized users to play the information with a digital player, perhaps with a
`
`reduced level of quality. For example, a popular song may be encoded and freely
`
`distributed in encoded form to the public. The public, perhaps using commonly available
`
`plug-in digital players, could play the encoded content and hear the music in some
`
`degraded form. The music may-sound choppy, or fuzzy or be degraded in some other
`
`way. This lets the public decide, based on the available lower quality version of the song,
`
`if they want to purchase a key from the publisher to decode, or "clean—up," the content.
`
`Similar approaches could be used to distribute blurry pictures or low quality video. Or
`
`even "degraded" text, in the sense that only authenticated portions of the text can be
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0011
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-842
`Exhibit 1004, Page 0011
`
`

`

`determined with the predetermined key or a validated digital signature for the intended
`
`message.
`
`[0029] In view of the foregoing, it can be appreciated that a substantial need exists for a method
`
`allowing encoded content to be played, with degraded quality, by a plug-in digital player,
`
`and solving the other problems discussed above.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
`
`[0030] The disadvantages of the art are alleviated to a great extent by a method for combining
`
`transfer
`
`functions with predetermined key creation.
`
`In one embodiment, digital
`
`information,
`
`including a digital
`
`sample and format
`
`information,
`
`is protected by
`
`identifying and encoding a portion of the format
`
`information. Encoded digital
`
`information,
`
`including the digital sample and the encoded format
`
`information,
`
`is
`
`generated to protect the original digital information.
`
`[0031] In another embodiment, a digital signal, including digital samples in a file format having
`
`an inherent granularity, is protected by creating a predetermined key. The predetermined
`
`key is comprised of a transfer function—based mask set to manipulate data at the inherent
`
`granularity of the file format of the underlying digitized samples.
`
`[0032] It is thus a goal of the present invention, to provide a level of security for executable code
`
`on similar grounds a