`Technological Protection Systems for Digitized Copyrighted Works:
`A Report to Congress
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`On November 2, 2002, the President signed into law the “Technology, Education
`and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002” (the TEACH Act), which updates certain
`provisions of the Copyright Act to facilitate the growth and development of distance
`education, while introducing new safeguards to limit the additional risks to copyright
`owners that are inherent in exploiting works in a digital format.1 For information
`purposes only, the TEACH Act requires the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`(USPTO), after consultation with the Register of Copyrights, to submit a report to
`Congress on technological protection systems to protect digitized copyrighted works and
`to prevent infringement, including those being developed in private, voluntary, industry-
`led entities through an open broad-based consensus process.
`
`Over the last several years, the educational opportunities and risks associated with
`distance education have been the subject of extensive public debate and attention in the
`United States. In November 1998, the Conference on Fair Use (CONFU), convened by
`the Administration’s Information Infrastructure Task Force, issued its final report, which
`included a proposal for educational fair use guidelines for distance learning.2 Following
`the enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA),3 the Copyright
`Office was tasked with preparing a study of the complex issues involved in distance
`education and to make recommendations to Congress for any legislative changes. In May
`1999, the Copyright Office issued an extensive report on copyright and digital distance
`education. 4 After hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 13, 2001) and
`before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual
`Property (June 27, 2001), Congress passed the TEACH Act as part of the “21st Century
`Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.”
`
`
`
`1 Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (Nov. 2, 2002).
`2 See The Conference on Fair Use: Final Report to the Commissioner on the Conclusion of the Conference
`on Fair Use (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, November 1998). The report is available at:
`http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/confu/confurep.htm.
`3 Pub. L. No. 105-304, 1122 Stat. 2860 (Oct. 28, 1998).
`4 See Report on Copyright and Digital Distance Education: A Report of the Register of Copyrights (U.S.
`Copyright Office, May 1999). The report is available at: http://www.copyright.gov/disted.
`
`
`
`EX1051
`Roku V. Media Chain
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`1
`
`

`

`B. Overview of the TEACH Act
`
`Subsection (b) of the TEACH Act amends section 110(2) of the Copyright Act to
`allow for the inclusion of performances and displays of copyrighted works in digital
`distance education under appropriate circumstances and subject to certain limitations.
`The Act expands the categories of works exempt from the performance right in section
`106(4) of the Copyright Act, from nondramatic literary works and musical works to
`“reasonable and limited portions” of any work and permits the display of any work in “an
`amount comparable to that typically displayed in the course of a live classroom setting.”
`The Act removes the concept of the physical classroom, while maintaining the
`requirement of “mediated instructional activity,” which generally requires the
`involvement of an instructor. The exemption is limited to mediated instructional
`activities that are conducted by governmental bodies and “accredited” non-profit
`educational institutions. Subsection (c) of the TEACH Act amends section 112 of the
`Copyright Act to permit transmitting organizations to store copyrighted material on their
`servers in order to allow the performances and displays of works authorized under
`amended section 110(2).
`
`The TEACH Act contains a number of new safeguards to limit the additional risks
`to copyright owners that are inherent in using works in the digital format. The Act limits
`the receipt of authorized transmissions to students officially enrolled in the course or to
`Government employees as part of their official duties “to the extent technologically
`feasible.” With respect to “digital transmissions,” transmitting institutions must apply
`technological measures that reasonably prevent “retention of the work in accessible form
`by recipients of the transmission … for longer than the class session” and “unauthorized
`further dissemination of the work in accessible form by such recipients to others.” The
`statute also prohibits transmitting institutions from engaging in “conduct that could
`reasonably be expected to interfere” with technological measures used by copyright
`owners to regulate the retention and further unauthorized dissemination of protected
`works.
`
`C. The USPTO Report
`
`Subsection (d) of the TEACH Act requires the Under Secretary of Commerce for
`Intellectual Property, after consultation with the Register of Copyrights, and after a
`period for public comment, to submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate
`and the House of Representatives a report on technological protection systems to protect
`digitized copyrighted works, including those being developed in private voluntary
`industry-led entities through an open broad-based consensus process. The report, which
`is intended solely to provide information to Congress, is due not later than 180 days after
`the date of enactment of the Act.
`
`Congress specifically directed the USPTO to include information “on
`technological protection systems that have been implemented, are available for
`implementation, or are proposed to be developed to protect digitized copyrighted works
`
`2
`
`

`

`and prevent infringement, including upgradeable and self-repairing systems, and systems
`that have been developed, are being developed, or are proposed to be developed in
`private voluntary industry-led entities through an open broad based consensus process.”
`Congress also directed the USPTO to exclude “any recommendations, comparisons, or
`comparative assessments of any commercially available products that may be mentioned
`in the report.”
`
`
`Subsection (d) of the Act further states that the report “shall not be construed to
`affect in any way, either directly or by implication, any provision” of the Copyright Act
`in general or the TEACH Act in particular, including the requirement of transmitting
`institutions to apply certain technological controls and not to engage in conduct that
`could be reasonably expected to interfere with technological measures used by copyright
`owners (discussed more fully above), or “the interpretation or application of such
`provisions, including evaluation of the compliance with that clause by any governmental
`body or nonprofit educational institution.”
`
`Finally, the legislative history of the TEACH Act sheds some light on the
`purpose, benefits and possible limitations of the USPTO report. Some lawmakers noted
`that a report on technological protection systems would “only provide a snapshot in
`time,” while others noted that such a report would be “out of date by the time it is
`finished due to continual advances in technology.”5 In preparing this study, USPTO
`became well aware of these inherent difficulties. Nonetheless, Congress also noted that
`such a study could be “useful in establishing a baseline of knowledge for the Committee
`and our constituents with regard to what technology is or could be made available and
`how it is or could be implemented.”6 In that spirit, this report is respectfully submitted to
`Congress.
`
`
`D. Public Comments and Public Hearing
`
`
`
`Under the TEACH Act mandate, and to assist in the preparation of the report, on
`December 4, 2002, USPTO solicited written comments from interested parties and
`scheduled a public hearing on February 4, 2003.7 Written comments were due
`January 14, 2003. In particular, USPTO requested information in response to the
`following questions:
`
`
`(1) What technological protection systems have been implemented, are available
`for implementation, or are proposed to be developed to protect digitized
`copyrighted works and prevent infringement, including any upgradeable and
`self-repairing systems?
`
`
`
`(2) What systems have been developed, are being developed, or are proposed to
`be developed in private voluntary industry-led entities through an open broad-
`based consensus process?
`
`5 Congr. Rec. S5991 (June 7, 2001).
`6 Id.
`7 67 Fed. Reg. 72,920.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(3) Consistent with the types of information requested by Congress, please
`provide any additional comments on technological protection systems to
`protect digitized copyrighted works and prevent infringement.
`
`In response to these questions, USPTO received written comments from the
`following organizations: Infraworks Corporation; Blue Spike, Inc; Macrovision
`Corporation; OverDrive, Inc.; ContentGuard; Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.; NDS
`Americas, Inc.; 4C Entity, LLC; Protexis, Inc.; Association of American Universities;
`The Walt Disney Company; Digimarc; Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.;
`Software & Information Industry Association; Digital Transmission Licensing
`Administrator, LLC; and Information Technology Industry Council. Copies of the
`public comments are available on the USPTO web site at http://www.uspto.gov.
`
`
`On February 4, 2003, USPTO conducted a public hearing to assist in the
`preparation of the TEACH Report. The following persons testified: Mr. William
`Krepick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Macrovision Corporation; Mr. Steven
`Potash, Chief Executive Officer, OverDrive, Inc.; Mr. Michael Miron, Chief Executive
`Officer, ContentGuard; Mr. Troy Dow, Vice President & Counsel, Technology & New
`Media, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.; Mr. Bruce Funkhouser, Vice
`President of International and Business Operations, Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.;
`and Mr. Mark Bohannon, General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Government
`Affairs, Software & Information Industry Association. A transcript of the hearing is
`available on the USPTO web site at http://www.uspto.gov.
`
`II. TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS
`
`
`A. Introduction
`
`
`
`The 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty
`(WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) (collectively the
`WIPO Treaties) require signatories to provide “adequate legal protection and effective
`legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures.”8 The
`U.S. legislation implementing the WIPO Treaties, the 1998 Digital Millennium
`Copyright Act (DMCA),9 generally divides technological measures into measures that
`prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent
`infringement of a work. Although the term technological protection system is not defined
`in the TEACH Act or in the DMCA, it is generally used in this report to refer to a range
`of technological methods to control unauthorized access to and copying of digitized
`
`
`8 WIPO Copyright Treaty (“WCT”), Article 11, adopted December 20, 1996, WIPO Doc. CRNR/DC/94;
`WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (“WPPT’), Article 18, adopted December 20, 1996, WIPO
`Doc. CRNR/DC/95; Agreed Statements Concerning the WIPO Copyright Treaty, adopted December 20,
`1996, WIPO Doc. CRNR/DC/96. The Treaties also require adequate legal protection and effective legal
`remedies for the protection of the integrity of copyright management information. WCT, Art. 12; WPPT,
`Art. 19.
`9 Pub. L. No. 105-304.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`copyrighted works. This section briefly introduces some of the core technologies that
`underlie such technological protection systems.10
`
`
`B. Core Technologies
`
`
`1. Encryption
`
`Encryption is a process that “scrambles” data using sophisticated mathematical
`
`
`equations in order to protect it and keep it private. In very general terms, encryption
`algorithms convert human readable data, such as a word processor document, into
`encrypted or scrambled data. The encrypted data can be made readable again by
`decrypting it with a corresponding decryption key. If the decryption key is given only to
`authorized parties and if the encryption algorithm used is sufficiently strong,
`unauthorized access to the data by the casual user is prevented. The whole point of
`encryption is that an encrypted work cannot easily be manipulated without authorization.
`A secret key or pair of keys, as discussed more fully below, is required for the encryption
`or decryption of the scrambled file. Encryption technology can be used to protect data
`and works transmitted over computer networks (such as e-mail and database
`information), or more broadly in connection with other information delivery systems,
`including telephone, satellite and cable communications.
` Broadly speaking, encryption algorithms may be characterized either as “secret
`
`key” encryption (sometimes called “symmetric key” encryption) and “public key”
`encryption (or, “asymmetric key” encryption). Secret key encryption involves the use of
`a single key to encrypt and to decrypt the content. A common example of the use of
`secret key encryption to control access to content is pay-per-view television. In this
`illustration, the television program is encrypted using the secret key, and only paying
`customers have access to the secret key. Of course, as its name suggests, the successful
`application of secret key encryption to protect copyrighted works depends on keeping the
`key secret. Wide distribution of the secret key to numerous parties may result in
`compromising such a technological protection system. Thus, public key encryption, as
`explained below, is generally used as for distribution of content to a wide audience.
`
`Public key encryption uses an algorithm requiring two keys – a "public" key and a
`"private" key. The data is encrypted using the public key, which is then made widely
`available to the public. The private key is kept secret by individuals. The fundamental
`point is that the encrypted content or secret message can only be decrypted using the
`corresponding private key. For example, a copyright owner could encrypt a work using
`the public key of the intended recipient. Once the recipient receives the encrypted
`transmission, he or she could use the private key to decrypt the transmission. No private
`keys need to be exchanged in this transaction. Without the private key of the intended
`
`
`10 For an earlier introduction to these technologies, see Information Infrastructure Task Force, Intellectual
`Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual
`Property Rights (1995). For a more recent survey of these technologies, see “Protecting Digital Intellectual
`Property,” Chapter 5, in Committee on Intellectual Property Rights and the Emerging Information
`Infrastructure, National Research Council, Computer Science and Technology Board, The Digital
`Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age (1999).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`recipient, the work cannot be read, manipulated or otherwise deciphered easily by casual
`users.
`
`The Content Scrambling System (CSS) illustrates how encryption technology is
`integrated into a technological protection system. First, using CSS, digital audiovisual
`content (including the keys that enable a DVD player to access that content) is encrypted
`on a DVD disk. Second, only DVD players licensed by the DVD Copy Control
`Association (DVD CCA), a private industry-led non-profit organization that is discussed
`later in this report, may decrypt the encrypted content. Third, under DVD CCA’s license
`requirements, licensed players must, among other things, protect against copying, protect
`against disclosure of the decryption keys, and not pass the content over unprotected
`digital outputs.
`
`2. Digital Watermarking
`
` Although encryption is an important tool to control access to and transmission of
`
`content, encryption alone does not solve all digital copy protection and prevention
`problems. At the receiver’s end, for example, decrypted content is subject to
`unauthorized use, manipulation and further distribution. One approach to addressing this
`problem is to directly embed control information into the media itself, a process
`commonly referred to as “digital watermarking.”11 Originally, digital watermarking was
`the term used only for techniques to embed copyright markings (the “originator’s mark”)
`into a digitized work. The term “fingerprinting” generally is used for watermarking
`techniques that reveal the identity of the recipient of the protected content (the
`“recipient’s mark”). More broadly, digital watermarking today refers to any technology
`aimed at concealing data in media content.
`
`In its basic form, a digital watermark contains information about the origin, status
`or destination of the host data. A digital watermark may be embedded in almost any kind
`of digitized visual or audio data, including broadcast data, without perceptibly degrading
`or interfering with its quality. 12 The hidden information cannot be removed from the
`associated data without introducing perceptible distortions or significantly reducing data
`quality. Thus, digital watermarks can be an important mechanism for content owners to
`monitor, audit, and index works in the digital environment. Digital watermarks also can
`be used to identify the source and destination of data, thereby providing rights owners
`with a useful tool to authenticate content when copyright infringement is suspected.
`Finally, digital watermarks can be used to detect the unauthorized manipulation of
`content, thereby providing a means to control the integrity of digital content.
`
`
`11 For a comprehensive treatment of the subject, see Ingemar Cox, Jeffrey Bloom, and Mathew Miller,
`Digital Watermarking Principles & Practice (Morgan, Kaufman 2001). See also Christophe de
`Vleeschouwer, Jean-Francois Delaigle, and Benoit Macq, “Invisibility and Application Functionalities in
`Perceptual Watermarking—An Overview,” 90 Proceedings of the IEEE (January 2002).
`12 Digital watermarks may be either “perceptible” (to humans) or “imperceptible.” A “fragile” watermark
`becomes undetectable even after minor modifications of the work in which it is embedded. A “robust”
`watermark is capable of surviving manipulations over its lifetime such as compression, image processing,
`or printing/scanning. A “semi-fragile” watermark is fragile against certain distortions and robust against
`others.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Digital watermarking technology can be integrated into technological protection
`
`systems in a variety of ways. They potentially can be used to recognize and screen out
`music watermarked as “no copy.” Digital watermarks also can be used in connection
`with copy and playback controls in playback devices such as DVD players. DVD
`players employing the Content Scrambling System (CSS) search for watermarks in a
`motion picture on a recordable DVD, refusing to play back a disk that does not include
`the required watermarks.
`
`3. Authentication
`
`Technologies used to identify devices and authenticate the identity of users are
`important elements of modern technological protection systems. One method to control
`user access to protected resources in a centralized network is through the use of IP
`(Internet Protocol) addresses, commonly referred to as “IP authentication.” To facilitate
`access to protect content from off-site locations, however, a resource provider may need
`to provide password accounts to users. User information (such as user names and
`passwords) also may be stored in a cookie, a text string or small file that is placed on an
`end user’s hard drive. The use of digital certificates is another tool to authenticate the
`identity of users. Under this approach, a certificate authority (CA) issues a personal
`digital certificate, which contains the name of the owner of the certificate, the owner’s
`public key, the expiration of the public key, the name of the certificate issuer, the serial
`number of the certificate, and the digital signature of the certificate issuer.
`
`Technologies to authenticate the integrity and source of digital content are also
`important components of technological protection systems. As it has become easier and
`easier to tamper with digital works without detection, techniques to ensure the integrity of
`digital content have become more important. For example, a publisher of a medical text
`may depend on content authentication techniques to ensure that textual data (such as
`dosage amounts) or visual data (such as medical illustration) have not been altered. One
`common cryptographic solution to the problem is the use of digital signatures, a
`technique that authenticates both the contents of a message and the person who signed it.
`Digital signatures may be transmitted along with the work as “metadata” (encoded
`identifying information about the content, discussed more fully below) or embedded
`directly into the work as watermarks. More broadly, encryption technology may be used
`to authenticate the integrity of license terms and conditions associated with copyrighted
`digitized work.
`
`
`C. Digital Rights Management (DRM) Systems
`
`Today advances in technology (both hardware and software) permit content owners to
`assert much finer-grained control over digital media embodying copyrighted works,
`authenticating users and the integrity of content, and developing new business models for
`digital content in addition to simply deterring piracy. The general term Digital Rights
`Management (DRM) is commonly used to refer to technologies or systems used to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`achieve these objectives.13 Although there is no generally accepted definition for DRM,14
`such technological protection systems typically incorporate the following controls or
`functions: access controls, use controls, and tracking functions. For purposes of this
`report, the term DRM is used to refer to a broad range of technical, legal and business
`issues pertaining to copyright management and control of works in a digital format. This
`section briefly introduces some of the key concepts and elements underlying DRM
`systems and technologies.
`
` 1. Trusted Computing
`
` A
`
` trusted computer system combines hardware and software (meeting certain
`security specifications approved by the content provider) to create a secure trusted
`platform for the exchange of digital content and information. The conceptual
`underpinnings of trusted computing technologies trace back to Dr. Mark Stefik’s
`pioneering work at Xerox PARC.15 In very general terms, Stefik defined a trusted system
`as a system that can be relied on to follow certain rules. In the DRM context, a trusted
`system is a computer (or other device) that can be relied on to follow and enforce rules
`governing the access and use of protected digital content. The server relies on “trusted”
`elements of the recipient’s device to identify the recipient, to transmit only accurate
`information about the recipient, and to limit the recipient’s ability to manipulate any
`content it receives from the server in ways that exceed its authorization.
`
`2. Rights Models and Rights Expression Languages
`
`
`
`Rights models and rights expression languages are two mechanisms that can be
`used to facilitate transactions involving copyrighted works in the digital environment. In
`broad outline, a rights model specifies the types of rights, types of users, extent of rights,
`and associated costs. The rights model may specify such rights types as print, view, or
`play. Examples of users that can be specified in a rights model include subscribers,
`enrolled students, or site licensees. The extent of rights may be specified either as a
`period of time or number of times (for example, print 5 times, view for 10 days, or play
`for 48 hours). The rights model also expresses costs associated with the exercise of
`specific rights. In practice, the rights model is implemented through a “rights expression
`language” (REL), which defines a structure for expressing permissions in machine (and
`human readable form) and a “rights data dictionary,” which precisely defines the
`meaning of the permissions and conditions expressed. An example of a modern REL is
`Extensible Rights Markup Language (XrML), which is discussed later in this report.
`
`
`13 For a very useful introduction to DRM technologies and systems, see Bill Rosenblatt, Bill Trippe, and
`Stephen Money, Digital Rights Management: Business and Technology (New York: M&T Books, 2002)
`14 One commentator broadly defined DRM systems as “technology systems facilitating the trusted and
`dynamic management of rights in any kind of digital information, throughout its life cycle, irrespective of
`how and where the digital information is distributed.” See N. Garnett, “Outline of Presentation of Nic
`Garnett, representing InterTrust Technologies,” ALAI Congress 2001.
`15 See generally Mark Stefik, “Letting Loose the Light: Igniting Commerce in Electronic Publication,” in
`Internet Dreams: Archetypes, Myths, and Metaphors (MIT Press, 1996). See also Stefik “Shifting the
`Possible: How Trusted Systems and Digital Property Rights Challenge Us to Rethink Digital Publishing”
`12 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 137 (1997).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Electronic rights transactions also require the unique identification of each item of digital
`content. Such encoded information about a digital work (such as author, title, date of
`creation, and other identifying information) is commonly referred to as “metadata.”
`
`3. DRM Architecture
`
`Although DRM systems vary widely depending on their purpose and function, the
`overall architecture of a DRM consists of three major components.16 First, the “content
`server” consists of the actual digital content, along with information about the products
`and/or services that the content provider wants to distribute digitally after secure
`packaging. The content server typically includes a “content repository,” a file server or a
`database that holds the content, along with associated metadata. The content server also
`usually includes a “DRM packager,” which is used to prepare the content for secure
`distribution (for example, by encrypting the content and/or inserting metadata), create
`specifications of rights associated with content, and create encryption keys to authenticate
`users and decrypt content, before passing the information along to the license server.
`
`Second, the “license server” contains information that identifies the digital
`content, specifies the rights associated with that content (for example, “play” or “copy”),
`and establishes the terms and conditions for the exercise of those rights (such as an
`expiration date), whether by a user or a device. 17 Third, on the “client” side of a DRM,
`the “DRM controller” receives the user’s request to exercise rights with respect to
`specific content, gathers information about the identity of the user, obtains a license from
`the license server, authenticates the application that performs the rights exercise, retrieves
`the encryption keys, decrypts the content for the appropriate “rendering” application
`(such as playing a song or viewing a movie).
`
`4. Types of DRM Systems
`
` A
`
` wide range of DRM options are available in the marketplace today, probably
`reflecting the fact that no single technology or solution can fulfill the remarkably diverse
`requirements of the digital marketplace. In broad outline, DRM systems may be
`hardware-based, software-based, or hybrid systems combining software and hardware
`elements. Hardware-based DRM solutions embed the technological protection in the
`hardware itself. Examples of hardware-based DRM systems are DirecTV, smartcards
`and many conditional access systems, which are used in a variety of delivery systems,
`including direct broadcast satellite, digital cable television, and digital terrestrial
`television.
`
`Software-based DRM technologies have been and are being developed to provide
`for secure delivery of content over the Internet and adherence to copy control instructions
`and usage rules in the PC and home-network environments. Many companies have
`
`16 This section relies on Rosenblatt and others, Digital Rights Management (n. 13 above).
`17 Digital content protection technologies help support a variety of “copy control states,” including “copy
`never” (used in pay-per-view, video-on-demand, and pre-recorded media), “copy once” (used in pay TV
`and basic and extended cable), and copy control not asserted, but no redistribution (free-to-air TV).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`developed such software-based DRM solutions, including ContentGuard, Intertrust
`Technologies, Liquid Audio, Microsoft, and Real Networks, which are discussed in the
`next section. A number of these products (such as Microsoft’s “Windows Media Rights
`Manager”) include a built-in renewability feature, which enables the content owner to
`respond quickly to security breaches by renewing the protections that apply to all other
`copies of the content. Finally, the CSS system, discussed above, is an example of hybrid
`DRM solution, using CSS-enabled DVD players to inspect DVDs for embedded code.
`
`III. COMPANIES AND PRODUCTS
`
`
`
`
`A. Introduction
`
`Based on public comments submitted to the USPTO, the agency compiled a list of
`more than 100 companies that have developed, are proposing to develop, or offering
`technological protection systems (including components thereof) to protect digitized
`copyrighted works and prevent infringement. A complete list of these companies is
`attached as Appendix A to this report. Many companies are constantly entering (and
`leaving) the rapidly evolving market for technological protection systems. Thus, as
`Congress itself recognized, any attempt to report on developments in this changing arena
`will “only provide a snapshot in time” because of the continual advances in technology. 18
`
`Solely to provide information requested by Congress, this section of the report
`briefly discusses selected technological protection systems that are under development or
`currently available in the marketplace. All descriptions of commercially available
`products in this section are distilled from information that is made publicly available by
`the companies. The USPTO has not conducted an independent analysis of these
`products and services and makes no recommendations, comparisons, or comparative
`assessments of the technological protection systems discussed in this section or included
`in the list attached to this report as Appendix A. Almost all the products and services
`discussed in this section are registered trademarks.
`
`B. Companies and Products
`
`
`
`Adobe Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`Adobe Systems is a provider of graphic design, publishing, and imaging software
`for web and print production. Adobe offers a line of software products for managing
`information of all types. The Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) is a format for
`secure and reliable electronic files. Adobe Acrobat software enables users to create PDF
`files, which prevent unauthorized viewing of documents. The “Adobe Acrobat eBook
`Reader” is software that displays Adobe PDF-based eBooks on notebook and desktop
`computers. The “Adobe Content Server” is a system that allows publishers, distributors,
`retailers, and individual authors to prepare, secure, and license eBooks in Adobe PDF
`directly from their web sites. More information on Adobe Systems and its products is
`available at: http://www.adobe.com.
`
`18 Congr. Rec. S5991 (June 7, 2001).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Aladdin Knowledge Systems, Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`Aladdin Knowledge Systems offers products used to manage network security,
`including applications for managing content and guarding against computer viruses.
`Aladdin's products are incorporated into virtual private networks, intranets, and extranets.
`Aladdin