Posted on 08/23/2007 8:13:03 AM PDT by paltz
SALT LAKE CITY--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Broadcast International (OTCBB: BCST "BI") today announced that the patent for its core CodecSys video compression technology has been allowed by the U.S. patent office. CodecSys is based on breakthrough artificial intelligence technology that dramatically cuts video bandwidth requirements over satellite, cable, IP, and wireless media.
The new technology will enable, for example, twelve HDTV channels to be broadcast over the same media that currently support only two - a bandwidth reduction of more than 80%. The CodecSys technology will likewise enable a new generation of bandwidth-intensive video applications such as real-time video chat and live streaming video to cell phones and iPhones® -- applications that until now have been cost-prohibitive and impractical.
The U.S. patent is the seventh international patent allowed for the CodecSys technology. Patents have also been granted in Australia, Singapore, India, Korea, Malaysia and Russia. Broadcast International already has licensing agreements in place with IBM, Vanguard Software Solutions, Zenterio and Helius for the patented CodecSys technology. The agreement with IBM is a joint development effort to implement the CodecSys compression system on the IBM® BladeCenter® QS20 "Cell Blade" offering for the first time, true, real-time video compression with HDTV quality.
"This is an enormous step forward for the company and the industry as a whole," said Rod Tiede, Broadcast International CEO. "The demand for video is virtually unlimited. With computers, HDTVs and video-enabled cell phones, iPods® and PDAs in the hands and homes of nearly every consumer, the only real obstacle is lack of bandwidth. Our patented CodecSys technology is the only approach that fundamentally removes the bandwidth barrier for both new and existing video applications. When you can deliver HD-quality video under 3Mbs, as we can with the CodecSys technology, the sky is literally the limit for both traditional and new video applications."
"The approach taken by Broadcast International's patent application is a true paradigm shift in video compression technology," said Kory D. Christensen of Stoel Rives, LLP, patent attorney for Broadcast International. "Traditional techniques have always relied on a single codec agreed upon by the sender and receiver of a video signal. Broadcast International has turned tradition on its head by allowing each segment of a video stream to be compressed using an optimal codec selected from a library of codecs. This approach leverages all the strengths of each codec while avoiding its weaknesses. The result is incredibly high quality video requiring less bandwidth than conventional, single codec techniques. The fact that CodecSys technology is so readily adaptable to parallel processing is exciting and will likely be the 'killer app' for the new multi-core processors in production and under development."
The CodecSys software utilizes artificial intelligence technology to dynamically switch between optimized, expert codecs for specific video content, such as bright and dark, fast-motion or slow motion scenes, resulting in the highest video quality at the lowest possible bandwidth. Another major benefit of this approach is that new codecs can be readily incorporated as they become available, virtually "future-proofing" the newly patented approach.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office allowed all pending claims of Broadcast International's groundbreaking patent application on the CodecSys® video compression technology. The patent application covers any compression system in which a video stream is divided into multiple segments, and each segment is compressed using a number of different codecs to determine which codec produces the best video quality without exceeding a target data rate. The CodecSys® inventors discovered that no single codec works best for all types of video. By testing multiple codecs and selecting an optimal codec for each video segment, the invention allows for much higher compression ratios without the usual decrease in video quality.
The patent application also covers real-time video compression in which different codecs are tested on a video segment in parallel, which is ideal for implementation in multiprocessing environments, such as IBM's Cell processor. Aside from applications in IPTV and video conferencing, the patented technology offers enormous opportunities in bandwidth-constrained applications, such as delivering high-quality video to cellular telephones and the next generation of wireless video iPods®.
About Broadcast International
Broadcast International is a leading provider of video-powered business solutions, including IP and digital satellite, Internet streaming, and other types of wired/wireless network distribution. In addition, BI assists clients with video production, rich media development and a full range of network support services. BI also possesses a patented technology, CodecSys, which provides enhanced video at current bandwidths or reduces the cost of bandwidth while maintaining quality.
PINGS!!
Wait a few days. The government (Socialist/Libs)are trying to give away our national patent protection to the “One Worlders”.
It runs a bunch of codecs within it? Thanks, I already have enough codecs on my machine, and I’m doing some conversion to whittle it down to mainly H.264.
Why bother? It’s not like they’re memory resident. Just find a good codec pack like K-Lite and don’t sweat it.
Yep, quite a few on this very site as a matter of fact. They love to congregate around "free software" and typically choose foreign products over American ones, even if the foreign products are cheap knocks offs of the US originals.
He’s just anti-patent, best excuse he could come up with.
More stuff to put on my computer, simplicity, guaranteed cross-platform.
Do you know how stupid your claim sounds in light of what I wrote in #4? Let's see if you're smart enough to figure out what the incongruity is.
Oh, and retract the overall "anti-patent" claim, you know it's a lie.
That sentence is incomprehensible. What were you trying to say?
It's computer & legal stuff. I'll reveal later, but in the mean time let's see if our buddy can figure out why his post was incredibly dumb.
Don’t bother “telling me later”. I’m a code monkey. I doubt I’d be interested in what you have to say on the subject.
No response? Are you still researching? Time’s running out.
I just thought about this. They'd kind of have to be memory resident. You need fast access to codecs if your stream is constantly switching them. You'd keep them in memory so they could be called up instantly for the switch, or you could have some problems with stuttering as the system tries to pull the next codec from disk. Predictive logic could alleviate this, but switching codecs too fast would always be a danger, emptying the predictive queue (and even in that case, you have at least two codecs in memory at the same time).
I know your first post to this site was an attack against copyright, that you’ve spent much of your time here since defending other copyleftists who are opposed to patents protecting software as well, and have even admitted to making up the lies you posted while defending criminal Russian hackers who cracked software from Apple computer. You can trot out some more laughable excuses, talk in circles some more if you want, but you’re fooling no one.
Nice try, you didn’t address the issue. Can I assume that yet again you have no idea what you’re talking about?
Pinging the list...
1. I objected to this on practical grounds, preferring to consolidate codecs, stating I'm moving my stuff to H.264.
2. You insinuated I'm lying, that my real reason is an opposition to this system being patented.
Here's where your ignorance comes in:
3. H.264 (MPEG-4) is covered by a long list of patents.
How could I be against this system because of patents when my preferred codec itself is heavily covered by patents? Duh!
First rule: Don't believe anything GE says about me. I've caught him lying about my positions several times, and have backed it up with my earlier posts.
I think the patent term is just fine (as opposed to our current unconstitutional copyright terms). I'm against obvious patents, patents that are an obvious rehash of existing concepts and for software, patents that simply computerize an existing concept. I put almost all software patents I've seen under those categories (did you know someone patented the doubly linked list 50 years after it's invention?).
I would also prefer not to have software patents, as was the situation before an activist court overruled the professional opinion of the USPTO and started us on the slippery slope towards the general issuance of software patents. Now it is pretty much impossible to write a program of any complexity without violating at least one software patent, even for obvious and long-used concepts, e.g., status bars and linked lists. This hurts our software industry -- small developers who can't afford a protective patent war chest against the large ones, and large ones whose patent war chests still leave them as targets for patent trolls (Eolas/Microsoft comes to mind).
Software patents are the equivalent of patenting the concept of a story so you can sue anyone who writes a similar story, although their actual writing is entirely original. IOW, software is, and should be, covered by copyright, but should not get this double-dipping dual protection. Nothing else that I know of does.
But notice that's software patents I'm against in general, not all patents like GE has repeatedly lied that I'm against.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.