Source: http://www.google.com/patents/US20060190615?dq=7,634,557
Timestamp: 2017-06-26 02:34:55
Document Index: 180947778

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4']

Patent US20060190615 - On demand peer-to-peer video streaming with multiple description coding - Google PatentsSearch Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More »Sign inPatentsA peer-to-peer novel video streaming scheme is described in which each peer stores and streams videos to the requesting client peers. Each video is encoded into multiple descriptions and each description is placed on a different node. If a serving peer disconnects in the middle of a streaming session,...http://www.google.com/patents/US20060190615?utm_source=gb-gplus-sharePatent US20060190615 - On demand peer-to-peer video streaming with multiple description codingAdvanced Patent SearchTry the new Google Patents, with machine-classified Google Scholar results, and Japanese and South Korean patents.Publication numberUS20060190615 A1Publication typeApplicationApplication numberUS 11/337,833Publication dateAug 24, 2006Filing dateJan 23, 2006Priority dateJan 21, 2005Also published asUS7633887, US7986637, US20100049867Publication number11337833, 337833, US 2006/0190615 A1, US 2006/190615 A1, US 20060190615 A1, US 20060190615A1, US 2006190615 A1, US 2006190615A1, US-A1-20060190615, US-A1-2006190615, US2006/0190615A1, US2006/190615A1, US20060190615 A1, US20060190615A1, US2006190615 A1, US2006190615A1InventorsShivendra Panwar, Keith Ross, Yao WangOriginal AssigneePanwar Shivendra S, Ross Keith W, Yao WangExport CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefManPatent Citations (21), Referenced by (195), Classifications (31), Legal Events (5) External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, EspacenetOn demand peer-to-peer video streaming with multiple description coding
§ 4. DETAILED DESCRIPTION [0033] The present invention may involve novel methods, apparatus, message formats, and/or data structures for improving P2P-based video streaming networks using multiple-description coding that provides reliable and high performance video on demand. The following description is presented to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the invention, and is provided in the context of particular applications and their requirements. Thus, the following description of embodiments consistent with the present invention provides illustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the present invention to the precise form disclosed. Various modifications to the disclosed embodiments will be apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles set forth below may be applied to other embodiments and applications. For example, although a series of acts may be described with reference to a flow diagram, the order of acts may differ in other implementations when the performance of one act is not dependent on the completion of another act. Further, non-dependent acts may be performed in parallel. Also, as used herein, the article “a” is intended to include one or more items. Where only one item is intended, the term “one” or similar language is used. In the following, “information” may refer to the actual information, or a pointer to, identifier of, or location of such information. No element, act or instruction used in the description should be construed as critical or essential to the present invention unless explicitly described as such. Thus, the present invention is not intended to be limited to the embodiments shown and the inventors regard their invention to include any patentable subject matter described. [0034] § 4.1 Overview [0035] FIG. 1 is a bubble diagram illustrating operations, in an exemplary environment 100, which may be performed in a manner consistent with the present invention, as well as information that may be generated and/or used by such operations. In particular the environment 100 may include management facilities 101, video content source 125, one or more networks 130 (e.g., the Internet), and peers 135. The video content 125 may be a server/database containing large quantities of video content that is available to the management facilities through the network(s) 130 for use in peer-to-peer video streaming. Note that peers 135 may perform one or both of video client operations 140 and video server operations 145. The video client operations 140 may request movie content from video sub-stream servers 145 of other peers 135. Video sub-stream server operations 145 may provide sub-streams to a requesting video client 140 operations of another peer 135. The management facilities 101 may include provisioning operations 115, network and peer discovery-registration operations 105, session management operations 110, and peer and content information 120. [0036] The provisioning operations 115 are responsible for encoding video content into sub-streams and determining server peers 135/145 on which to store video sub-streams based on the availability of server peers 135/145 and an acceptable maximum distortion constraint. The availability of sever peers 135/145 may be obtained or determined from the peer and content information 120. [0037] The network and peer discovery-registration operations 105 are responsible for updating the peer and content information 120 as new peers 135 join or leave the peer-to-peer video streaming network 100, as capabilities of peers change, etc. [0038] The session management operations 110 are responsible for providing the requesting client peers 135/140 with the identification of server peers 135/145 (using the peer and content information 120) that are available for sending video sub-streams corresponding to a requested video. Further, in the event of a server peer 135/145 failure, which would otherwise result in degraded video quality, the session management operations 110 may provide the requesting client peers 135/140 with alternative server peers 135/145 to ensure reliable and high quality video streaming. [0039] The peer and content information 120 may include identification of each of the peers 135, the current status of each of the peers 135 (online/offline/spare capacity/etc.) as well as the video content (sub-streams) stored on a peer 135, etc. [0040] In a peer-to-peer video streaming network consistent with the present invention, each video is encoded into multiple descriptions/sub-streams. Then each description/sub-stream is placed on a different video sub-stream peer server 135/145 (or more generally, different descriptions/sub-streams are placed on different video sub-stream servers 135/145). When a video client 135/140 wants to play a video, multiple peers 135 act as servers 145, each sending a different description/sub-stream of the desired video to the video client peer 135/140. The video client peer 135/140 (e.g., after a short initial delay) combines the received sub-streams, decodes the video, and displays the video as the multiple descriptions/sub-streams are being delivered. When a video sub-stream server peer 135/145 disconnects during a streaming session, the video client peer 135/140 loses the associated description/sub-stream while the system searches for a replacement server peer 135/145 that stores the same lost video description/sub-stream and that is available to serve it (e.g., has sufficient uplink bandwidth). [0041] Coding a video into multiple descriptions/sub-streams and distributing the descriptions/sub-streams to separate server peers 135/145 has many benefits. First, when a video sub-stream server peer 135/145 is lost, it only causes temporary loss of a single description/sub-stream, which has limited impact on received video quality. Second, each description/sub-stream has a rate much lower than the total rate of the video, thus reducing the required uplink bandwidth at each server peer 135/145. Note that for high-quality video streaming applications, the rate of an entire video may exceed the uplink bandwidth of most video sub-stream server peers 135/145. In such situations, splitting a video across multiple video sub-stream server peers 135/145 not only helps to enhance system reliability, but also circumvents the problem of asymmetric bandwidth at the network access link. Third, streaming from multiple server peers 135/145 helps spread the load of serving the video over the video sub-stream serving peers 135/145. Fourth, from the video publisher's perspective, it is undesirable to store an entire video on any one peer 135. This helps prevent a peer 135 from having illegal and/or unauthorized access to the video (e.g., for purposes of unauthorized playing, copying, and/or distribution). Finally, another side benefit is that the use of multiple lower bandwidth sub-streams typically leads to improved multiplexing gains in the core Internet, thus allowing for an increased loading for a given Qualilty of Service (QoS) objective. [0042] FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary method 200 of overall operations consistent to the present invention. In particular, the method 200 may accept and store network and peer information, as well as video content. (Blocks 205 and 210) Next, the method 200 may provision server peers to serve sub-streams of the video. (Block 215) At this point, the system is provisioned and ready to serve videos as sub-streams. [0043] Upon accepting a movie request from a client peer, the method 200 may provide the client peer with server peer information and establish peer-to-peer sessions. (Blocks 220, 225, and 230) Subsequently, the sub-streams are served from the server peers to the client peer, where the received sub-streams are assembled into video. (Blocks 235, 240, and 245) The assembled video is then stored or rendered at the client peer. (Block 250) If the video is degraded, the method 200 may set up new session(s) with alternative sever peers (Block 260) before branching back to block 235. [0044] Thus, in peer-to-peer video server network systems consistent with the present invention, client devices request videos for immediate viewing. After a client makes a request (e.g., pursuant to a command), the system attempts to set up a session, which includes multiple descriptions sent from different server nodes to the user's client device. From a user's perspective, there are two important performance measures—acceptance probability and video quality. Acceptance probability is the likelihood the system will locate the necessary descriptions and establish a session. Video quality is the visual (and/or audio) quality of the session, from start to finish. [0045] Because each admitted session consumes peer upstream bandwidth resources, and because peers are intermittently connecting, as more sessions are admitted into the system, it becomes increasingly difficult to provide each on-going session with sufficient descriptions for adequate visual quality. Furthermore, once a servers upstream connection (pipe) becomes full, new session requests no longer have access to any of the video sub-streams stored at that particular server. [0046] Embodiments consistent with the present invention consider these simple observations in a high-level design goal—namely to design, in an integrated fashion, the components of the system (e.g., the coding, sub-stream placement, admission control, sub-stream assignment and delivery mechanism) to maximize the acceptance probability subject to the constraint that each on-going video session meets a target video quality constraint. [0047] For the foreseeable future, for peer users, the end-to-end bandwidth bottleneck will be in residential access and not in the Internet core. Furthermore, in most broadband residential connections today (including cable modem and ADSL), the upstream rate is significantly less than the downstream rate. Thus, it is not unreasonable to assume that the bandwidth bottleneck between server and client is the server's upstream rate. [0048] § 4.2 Exemplary Methods [0049] FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary method 300 of performing provisioning operations (Recall 115 of FIG. 1.) in a manner consistent with the present invention. Specifically, the method 300 may accept a maximum distortion constraint as well as information on available sever peer(s). (Blocks 305 and 310) Subsequently, the method 300 may determine video sub-streams and server peers on which to store sub-streams. (Block 315) The determined sub-streams are then transmitted by the method 300 to the determined server peers. (Block 320) The method 300 might also verify the successful transmission and storage of transmitted sub-streams. (Block 325). [0050] Referring back to block 305, the maximum distortion constraint is the distortion between the original video quality and the reconstructed video by a client peer. The maximum distortion constraint can be considered as a measure of a target video quality. [0051] Referring back to block 315, the maximum distortion constraint and the availability of sever peers may be used in order to determine an optimal number of video sub-streams such that the maximum distortion constraint is not exceeded thus, ensuring high quality video streaming within a network. Exemplary techniques for performing these acts are described in § 4.4 below. [0052] FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary method 400 for performing session management operations (Recall 110 of FIG. 1.) in manner consistent with the present invention. The session management method 400 may provide video requesting client peers with information on server peers. Specifically, when a video request is received, the method 400 may determine appropriate server peers (e.g., using peer and content information 120) and transmit identification of the determined server peers to the requesting client peer. (Blocks 405, 410, and 415) In the event that the method 400 is informed of a video degradation occurring at a client peer receiving streaming video content, the method 400 may determine one (or more) alternative server peer(s) and transmit identification of determined alternative server peer(s) to client peer. (Blocks 405, 420, and 425) [0053] Referring back to block 410, the method 400 may utilize the peer and content information 120 in order to determine appropriate server peers. That is, this determination may need to know on which server peers the sub-streams of the requested video are stored, as well as information concerning the connectivity of the server peers (offline/online) and their available upload bandwidth (capacity). [0054] Referring back to blocks 420 and 425, the method 400 can also provide the requesting client with one (or more) alternative sever peer(s) in the event a video degradation occurs due to a server failure for instance. Thus the method 400 helps ensure video quality of expected standards within a video streaming network. [0055] FIG. 5 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary method 500 for performing video server peer operations (Recall 145 of FIG. 1.) in a manner consistent with the present invention. In particular, the video sever peer may accept a session request from a client peer (directly or via some other node) and establish a session with the client peer. (Blocks 510 and 520) Next, the sub-stream is then served to the client peer (Block 530) before the method 400 is left. [0056] FIG. 6 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary method 600 for performing peer video client operations (Recall 135 of FIG. 1.) in a manner consistent with the present invention. Specifically, the method 600 may follow various operations depending on different events that may occur. (Block 605) If a movie request is received (from user), the method 600 may transmit a request to the (remote) session manager (Recall FIGS. 4 and 110 of FIG. 1.). (Block 610) If session information is received (from the (remote) session manager), the method 600 may establish a session with server peers indicated in the received session information (Recall FIG. 5 and multiple instances of 145 of FIG. 1.). (Block 615) If video sub-streams are received, the method 600 may assemble the video from the received sub-streams and render or store the assembled video. (Blocks 620 and 625) If the video is degraded, the method 600 may inform the (remote) session manager of video degradation. (Block 630) If alternative server peer(s) information is received, the method 600 may establish a session with alternative session peer(s) indicated in the received information. (Block 635) [0057] As can be appreciated from blocks 630 and 635, the method 600 is able to inform the session manager of a degraded video quality. Once the session manager provides the client with one (or more) alternative server(s), the client can establish new sessions with alternative server peer(s) indicated by the session manager. Therefore, expected video quality may be maintained within the system. [0058] § 4.3 Exemplary Apparatus Consistent with the Present Invention [0059] FIG. 7 is a high-level block diagram of apparatus that may be used to perform at least some operations and store at least some information consistent with the present invention. The machine 700 basically includes a processor(s) 710, an input/output interface unit(s) 730, a storage device(s) 720, and a system bus or network 740 for facilitating the communication of information among the coupled elements. An input device(s) 732 and an output device(s) 734 may be coupled with the input/output interface(s) 730. [0060] The processor(s) 710 may execute machine-executable instructions (e.g., C or C++ running on the Solaris operating system available from Sun Microsystems Inc. of Palo Alto, Calif. or the Linux operating system widely available from a number of vendors such as Red Hat, Inc. of Durham, N.C.) to perform one or more aspects of the present invention. At least a portion of the machine executable instructions may be stored (temporarily or more permanently) on the storage device(s) 720 and/or may be received from an external source via an input interface unit 730. [0061] In one embodiment, the machine 700 may be one or more conventional personal computers. In this case, the processing unit(s) 710 may be one or more microprocessors. The bus 740 may include a system bus. The storage devices 720 may include system memory, such as read only memory (ROM) and/or random access memory (RAM). The storage device(s) 720 may also include a hard disk drive for reading from and writing to a hard disk, a magnetic disk drive for reading from or writing to a (e.g., removable) magnetic disk, and an optical disk drive for reading from or writing to a removable (magneto-) optical disk such as a compact disk or other (magneto-) optical media. [0062] A user may enter commands and information into the personal computer through input devices 732, such as a keyboard and pointing device (e.g., a mouse) for example. Other input devices such as a microphone, a joystick, a game pad, a satellite dish, a scanner, or the like, may also (or alternatively) be included. These and other input devices are often connected to the processing unit(s) 710 through an appropriate interface 730 coupled to the system bus 740. The output device(s) 734 may include a monitor or other type of display device, which may also be connected to the system bus 740 via an appropriate interface. In addition to (or instead of) the monitor, the personal computer may include other (peripheral) output devices (not shown), such as speakers and printers for example. [0063] One or more of the video content source 125, management facilities 101, and peers 135 may be one or more machines 700. [0064] Various aspects of the present invention may be implemented using hardware (e.g., integrated circuits, ASICS, etc.) and/or software (e.g., processor executed program instructions, which may be stored on a tangible storage medium and/or received from an external source). The peer devices may include, for example, one or more of personal computers (desktop, laptop, etc.), personal digital assistants, mobile telephones, mobile devices, etc. Information may be communicated using one or more of various means (e.g., wired, optical, wireless) and various protocols. [0065] § 4.4 Refinements and Alternatives [0066] FIG. 8 is a block diagram illustrating an overview of interactions of the system components in a manner consistent with the present invention. Specifically, the exemplary system may include components for video coding (MD-FEC) 830, sub-stream placement in nodes 810, and admission control, server selection and sub-stream replacement policy 820. The video coding (MD-FEC) 830 is responsible for encoding a video into multiple descriptions/sub-streams and may accept a maximum distortion constraint as well as distortion evaluation results from the admission control, server selection and sub-stream replacement policy 820. As a result, the video coding 830 may output the optimal video parameters (e.g., bit rate of each description r, number of descriptions M). The sub-stream placement in nodes 810, may accept video parameters from the video coding 830 as well as storage size constraints and a video request rate. The sub-stream placement in nodes 810 information is then forwarded to the admission control, server selection and sub-stream replacement policy 820. The admission control, server selection and sub-stream replacement policy 820 is responsible for establishing sessions within the network as well as admitting new peers and determining alternative peers in case of a peer failure. It 820 may also accept other information such as a node failure model and system parameters (e.g., number of peers in the system, peer uplink bandwidth, etc.). As a result a distortion evaluation of the system may be performed and the video coding 830 may be informed of such a distortion evaluation. [0067] § 4.4.1 MD-FEC Video Coding [0068] Multiple description (MD) video coding has become an active research area only in the past few years. Although various coders have been proposed (See, e.g., Y. Wang, R. Reibman, and S. Lin, “Multiple description coding for video communications,” Proc. IEEE Special issue on recent advances in video coding and delivery; A. Reibman, H. Jafarkhani, Y. Wang, and M. Orchard, “Multiple Description Coding for Video using Motion Compensated Prediction,” IEEE Trans. Circuit and System for Video Technology, pp. 193-204 (March 2002); and Y. Wang and S. Lin, “Error resilient video coding using multiple description motion compensation,” IEEE Trans. Circuit and System for Video Technology, vol. 12, pp. 438-453 (June 2002), all incorporated herein by reference), most coders generate a fairly small number of descriptions, with M=2 being the most common case. On the other hand, to fully explore the load balancing and error-resilience benefit from employing multiple peer-servers, a larger M is desired. [0069] Instead of designing the source encoder to yield multiple descriptions directly, one can apply unequal forward error coding (FEC) to different parts of a scalable bitstream, commonly known as MD-FEC. (See, e.g., A. Albanese, J. Blomer, J. Edmonds, M. Luby, and M. Sudan, “Priority encoding transmission,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, pp. 1737-1744 (November 1996); and G. Davis and J. Danskin, “Joint source and channel coding for image transmission over lossy packet networks,” Proc. SPIE Conf. Wavelet Applications to Digital Image Processing, (Denver, Colo., August 1996), both incorporated herein by reference.) [0070] FIG. 9 illustrates a video bit stream partitioned into sub-streams according to MD-FEC video coding in a manner consistent with the present invention. As shown in FIG. 9, the original bitstream from each group of frames (GoF) is partitioned into M layers, with layer k allocated Rk bits. For k=1, . . . , M, the kth layer is further divided into k equal-length groups. An (M, k) Reed-Solomon (RS) code is then applied to k groups to yield M groups. Description m is formed by packing bits from group m from all layers. At the receiver, if K descriptions are received, the decoder can recover the first K layers of the original bitstream. The rate and receiver distortion is controlled by varying the layer partition (R1,R2, . . . ,RM). It is also worth noting that in FIG. 9, a stronger FEC is applied on the more important bits (on the left bits) 910, while weaker FEC is applied on the less important bits (on the right bits). This is because the left-hand side comprises the most important bits for video rendering. [0071] In the following specification, M denotes the number of descriptions and r denotes the bit rate of each description. Thus, the total rate of a video with all descriptions is R=Mr. We now consider the challenge of optimally determining the layer partition (R1,R2, . . . ,RM) for a given M and r. To this end, suppose that the client is receiving the M descriptions from M different server nodes, and suppose that these server nodes can fail or disconnect from the network. Let Pm denote the probability of receiving m out of M descriptions, and let P denote the probability mass function Pm, m=0, . . . ,M. (As discussed below, the vector P depends on statistics governing the peer disconnects as well as the time to find replacement peers.) Let Dm(R1,R2, . . . ,RM), m=0, . . . ,M, denote the distortion when m descriptions are received for layer partition (R1,R2, . . . ,RM). Then the expected distortion of the received video is: D ( R 1 , … , R M ) = ∑ m = 0 M P m D m ( R 1 , … , R M ) ( 1 ) [0072] Because the MD-FEC coder with an arbitrary M can be obtained from any scalable coder and rate-distortion optimized layer partition based on a given P, the MD-FEC coder may be used to evaluate the effect of M and r on the overall system performance. [0073] Using the above notation, the MD-FEC optimization problem can be formulated for given M, r, and P as follows: determine the optimal layer partition (R1,R2, . . . ,RM) for: min D ( R 1 , … , R M ) s . t ∑ m = 1 M α m R m = Mr where α m = M m ( m + 1 ) , m = 1 , … , M - 1 and α M = 1 ( 2 ) Let D(M, r, P) denote the optimal value of this optimization problem. This is a non-linear optimal resource allocation problem. Fast algorithms for solving this optimization problem have been presented. (See, e.g., Puri and K. Ramchandran, “Multiple description source coding through forward error correction codes,” 33rd Asilomar Conf. Siqnals, Systems and Computers, (October 1999); A. E. Mohr, R. E. Ladner, and E. A. Riskin, “Approximately optimal assignment for unequal loss protection,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Image Processing, (Vancouver, BC, September 2000); and V. Stankovic, R. Hamzaoui, and Z. Xiong, “Packet loss protection of embedded data with fast local search,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Image Processing, (Rochester, N.Y., September 2002), all incorporated herein by reference.) Assume that the multiple descriptions are created with MD-FEC, and that the partition (R1,R2, . . . ,RM) for a given M, r, and P is obtained by solving the optimization problem (2). [0074] § 4.4.2 Maximizing the Number of Sessions [0075] The system design objective introduced above is now expressed in a more quantitative way and the solution for a simplified system model is now presented. In the specification, video quality will be measured in terms of the distortion between the original video and the reconstructed video by the client, and the target quality will be translated into a target distortion dmax. Let Q denote the number of ongoing video sessions (with each session consisting of a multiple sub-streams). With the same notation as above, let D(M, r, P) denote the optimal expected distortion for a given number of descriptions M, description rate r, and probability mass function P. This probability in general depends on the rate r, the number of on-going sessions Q and the video placement over peers, collectively denoted by φ. To make this dependency explicit, the notation P(m,M; r,Q,φ) is used instead of Pm and D(M,r,Q,φ) is written for D(M, r, P). Recall that an overall design criterion might be to maximize the number of sessions subject to the constraint that each on-going video session meets the target quality constraint. This criterion can now be restated as: max Q s . t D ( M , r , Q , ϕ ) ≤ d max ( 3 ) The challenge in solving this problem lies in the fact that the distortion is affected by the video encoding parameters M, r and video sub-stream placements. To shed some insight on this complex problem, a simplified and idealized model is first formulated and solved. After gaining some insights from this simplified problem and its solution, we will then return to the original problem. [0076] Consider a homogeneous system with N peers, each with Cu bps of uplink bandwidth. Each peer is connected with probability p and peer connectivity is independent from peer to peer. Each peer can simultaneously send S=Cu/r descriptions (for this illustrative analysis, the integer constraint is ignored). In this simplified model, the storage limitation at the peers is ignored and it is assumed that all descriptions of all videos are stored in every node. Therefore φ may be removed from P(m,M; r,Q,φ) and D(M,r,Q,φ) in this section. With these simplifications, the problem (3) becomes choosing M and r to maximize Q while meeting the distortion constraint D(M,r<Q)≦dmax. To solve this problem, the average distortion D(M, r, Q) for a given M, r, and Q is determined. To this end, P(m, M; r, Q) is first calculated. Then, the optimization problem (2) is applied to get the optimal average distortion D(M, r, Q). [0077] Now P(m, M; r, Q) is calculated. Let X be a random variable denoting the total number of peers in the network that are up at any time; X is binomial with parameters N and p. The total number of descriptions that the system can send at any time is XS. For a given X, the number of descriptions that can be sent to each session is m=XS/Q, with m ranging from 0 to mmax=NS/Q. In otherwords, m descriptions are available to each of the Q sessions when the number of connected peers is X=k=Qm/S with S=Cu/r. This occurs with probability P ( X = k ) = ( N k ) p k ( 1 - p ) N - k , k = 0 , … , N [0078] The number of descriptions available to any one session is at most M. When m<M, use all the available servers must be used to send m descriptions to each client. When m≧M, only M descriptions need be sent to each client by selecting M out of possible m servers. Therefore, the probability of having m out of M descriptions available for a client is P ( m , M ; r , Q ) = { P ( X = Qm / S ) , m = 0 , 1 , … , M - 1 ∑ l = m NS / Q P ( X = Ql / S ) , m = M ( 4 ) [0079] In summary, under the assumptions of this subsection, for each given M, r, and Q whether a given parameter triple (M, r, Q) is feasible can be determined as follows: [0000] 1) Calculate P(m, M; r, Q), m=1, . . . ,M, using (4). [0000] 2) From P(m, M; r, Q), m=1, . . . ,M, calculate the optimal MD-FEC partition (R1, R2, . . . , RM) and the corresponding average distortion D(M, r, Q) from the sub-optimization problem (2). [0000] 3) If D(M,r,Q)≦dmax, then the triple (M, r, Q) is feasible. [0080] To find the maximum number of sessions, one can search over all triples (M, r, Q) to find the feasible triple with the largest value of Q. However, since the number of such triples is very large, we now show that it is optimal to set M=Mmax, where Mmax is the largest number of descriptions permitted. [0081] § 4.4.3 Optimum Value of M [0082] Define Q*(M, r) as the maximum number of sessions that the network can support to meet the distortion criterion dmax given the video parameters (M, r). [0083] Theorem: For any given r, Q*(M, r) is non-decreasing with M. [0084] Proof: Fix r and M. Let Q1*:=Q*(M, r) and Q2*:=Q*(M+1, r). It suffices to show that Q2*≧Q1*. [0085] We first prove that the optimized average distortion D(M,r,Q1*) is greater than or equal to the optimized average distortion D(M+1,r,Q1*). For M descriptions, the optimal MD-FEC structure 1010 is given in FIG. 10. Each row corresponds to one description. The white rectangles represent the amount of source bits. The hatched rectangles represent the amount of channel bits. An MD-FEC structure 1020 is constructed for M+1 descriptions in FIG. 10 as follows: [0086] 1) The first M rows in 1010 are copied to the first M rows in 1020; and [0087] 2) The last row in 1020 is filled with channel bits only. [0088] Based on this construction, the distortion of receiving m descriptions out of M in 1010 is equal to the distortion of receiving m descriptions out of M+1 in 1020 for m≦M. Let {tilde over (D)}(m,M+1,r) denote the distortion when receiving m descriptions for this construction (which is not optimized). Thus, we have {tilde over (D)}(m,M+1,r)=D(m,M,r), m=1, . . . ,M (5) Also, from 1020, we have {tilde over (D)}(M+1,M+1,r)={tilde over (D)}(M,M+1,r) (6) The probability in equation (4) implies: { P ( m , M ; r , Q 1 * ) = P ( m , M + 1 ; r , Q 1 * ) , m = 0 , 1 , … , M - 1 P ( M , M ; r , Q 1 * ) = P ( M , M + 1 ; r , Q 1 * ) + P ( M + 1 , M + 1 ; r , Q 1 * ) ( 7 ) [0089] The average distortion for M+1 descriptions is D ~ ( M + 1 , r , Q 1 * ) = ∑ m = 1 M + 1 P ( m , M + 1 ; r , Q 1 * ) D ~ ( m , M + 1 , r ) = ∑ m = 1 M - 1 P ( m , M + 1 ; r , Q 1 * ) D ~ ( m , M + 1 , r ) + [ P ( M , M + 1 ; r , Q 1 * ) + P ( M + 1 , M + 1 ; r , Q 1 * ) ] · D ~ ( M , M + 1 , r ) = ∑ m = 1 M - 1 P ( m , M ; r , Q 1 * ) D ( m , M , r ) + P ( M , M ; r , Q 1 * ) D ( M , M , r ) = ∑ m = 1 M P ( m , M ; r , Q 1 * ) D ( m , M , r ) = D ( M , r , Q 1 * ) Therefore, the optimized average distortion for M descriptions is equal to the average distortion for M+1 descriptions using the above construction. [0090] The optimal design of MD-FEC for M+1 descriptions has an average distortion no greater than the design just constructed for M+1. Therefore, D(M+1,r,Q 1*)≦D(M,r,Q 1*)≦d max (8) Finally, by definition of Q2* we have D(M+1,r,Q)≦d max iff Q≦Q 2* (9) Thus, from (8) and (9), we have Q1*≦Q2. [0091] It follows from the theorem that we can use the highest possible value of M. In a real network, since M descriptions are streamed from different nodes, the total number of descriptions should be less than the total number of nodes in the network. Furthermore, as M becomes larger, more connections for each streaming session need to be established. This consumes more network and node computation resources. Therefore, within system constraints, there is a practical upper limit on M. [0092] § 4.4.4 Average Distortion Analysis for Gaussian Source [0093] In this subsection, we consider a theoretical rate-distortion (R-D) model, namely, the Gaussian source model: D m(R 1 , . . . ,R M)=D(R m)=2·22 R m (10) [0094] For simplicity, let Pm denote P(m, M; r, Q). Then the average distortion of a Gaussian source is: D m ( R 1 , … , R M ) = ∑ m = 0 M P m σ 2 · 2 - 2 R m = P 0 σ 2 + ∑ m = 1 M P m σ 2 · 2 - 2 R m ( 11 ) [0095] Recall the MD-FEC optimization problem in equation (2). The optimal solution can be found using the theory of Lagrange Multipliers. Introducing the Lagrange multiplier λ, we obtain L ( R 1 , … , R M , λ ) = P 0 σ 2 + ∑ m = 1 M P m D ( R m ) + λ ( ∑ m = 1 M α m R m - Mr ) ( 12 ) [0096] At optimality, the partial derivatives of the Lagrangian function with respect to Rm,m=1, . . . ,M, and λ equal zero. This yields the optimal bit allocation: P m α m ⅆ D ( R m ) ⅆ R m + λ = 0 where α m = M m ( m + 1 ) , m = 1 , … , M - 1 , and α m = 1 ( 13 ) [0097] Substituting (10) in (13), we can explicitly determine the optimal values for MD-FEC partition: R m = - log 2 ( λ β m c ) / 2 where λ = [ 2 - 2 Mr ∏ m = 1 M ( β m c ) α m ] 1 ∑ m = 1 M α m and β m = α m / P m , c = 2 σ 2 ln 2. ( 14 ) [0098] Based on (14), we can get an explicit expression for (10), then calculate the average distortion as follows: D ( M , r , Q ) = σ 2 [ P 0 + λ c ∑ m = 1 M M m ( m + 1 ) ] ( 15 ) [0099] From (15), the average distortion can be calculated for a given (Q, r, M). From the theorem, Q* is a non-decreasing function with M. Thus, the optimal solution of Q can be determined by a one dimensional numerical search for r. [0100] As an example, consider a network with N=100 nodes. Suppose the uplink bandwidth at each node is Cu=250 kbps and the peer connectivity probability is p=0.9. How the average distortion changes as a function of Q and r is investigated. (It has already been proven that the average distortion decreases with increasing M.) Search over rates r from 10 kbps to the peer uplink bandwidth 250 kbps, and the number of sessions Q from 10 to 300. FIG. 11 is a graph illustrating distortion-description bit rate curves with a fixed number of descriptions M=32 in accordance with the given example. [0101] From FIG. 11, notice that when r is greater than some value (around 25), the average distortion increases as r becomes larger. As r decreases, the total rate of each video, M r, decreases but the number of descriptions per session increases (since m=XCu/Qr). If the total rate is near the flat tail of an R-D curve, the decrease in total rate has little negative impact on video quality but an increase in the number of descriptions per session provides stronger resilience to network loss. The more reliable network offsets the video quality degradation due to smaller total rate. However, when r is very small, the average distortion will increase as r decreases, since according to the R-D curve, D(Rm)=σ2·22-R m , the average distortion is large even if all descriptions are received. [0102] FIG. 12 is a graph illustrating number of session-distortion constraint curves in an exemplary system consistent with the present invention. Recall that Q* denotes the maximum number of sessions. In FIG. 12 Q* is plotted as a function of the distortion constraint. Notice that Q* increases with dmax. For a given dmax, when M is larger, the dmax is also greater. In FIG. 12, when dmax=102, for M=8, Q* is around 10, but for M=32, Q* is around 25, so that the system capacity more than doubles. Thus, the number of descriptions, M, can have a dramatic impact on performance. When dmax is greater than about 5×103, the curves for different M converge: when dmax is large enough, the effect of M is negligible. [0103] Note that thus far all provisioning, session, repository of videos and general management operations have been carried out by a central server within a network. However, it is also possible for these operations to take place at the peers themselves (e.g., without the help or management of a central server). Thus, such operations may occur in a decentralized manner. [0104] Furthermore with MD coding, each sub-stream has the same importance. One alternative to MD coding is layered video. With layered video, the sub-streams (called layers) have varying importance. For the client to be able to make use of sub-stream m+1, the client must also be receiving sub-stream 1 through sub-stream m. Thus, with layered-encoded video, the lower layers are more important than the upper layers. [0105] As with MD peer-to-peer VSNs, the design of a peer-to-peer VSN with layered video has five interacting components: (1) video coding; (2) sub-stream placement; (3) admission control; (4) sub-stream server selection; and (5) sub-stream delivery. However, the design for the layered-case will be different. With the MD system, all sub-streams can be treated equally in terms of sub-stream placement, server selection, and sub-stream delivery. This, as shown above, greatly simplifies the system design. On the other hand, the layered system provides unequal treatment to the sub-streams, to increase the likelihood of delivering the most important sub-streams. For example, for sub-stream placement, the optimal schemes will replicate more aggressively the lower layers than the upper layers. For admission control, a new session may be admitted as a function of how many layers the session requires. Some of the layers may have a higher rate than others, which will influence the design of the server selection. With proper unequal treatment of layers, the layered approach may be more efficient in utilizing the peer resources (that is, can serve more requests for the same target decoding quality), but this higher efficiency would likely be obtained at higher design and operational cost. [0106] § 4.4.5 Business Models [0107] A P2P VSN such as one of those described above may be operated under one or more of the following business models. [0108] As one example, functionality described above may be implemented on a set-top box. Participation as a peer server may help subsidize the cost of a movie, a video file, and/or the set-top box itself. Participation in the P2P VSN may be transparent to the user. [0109] Alternatively, or in addition, advertising may be used to help subsidize the cost of a movie, a video file, and/or a set-top box. [0110] Alternatively, or in addition, subscription fees and/or per download fees may be imposed. [0111] § 4.4.6 Provisioning [0112] In at least some embodiments consistent with the present invention, popularity estimates may be used when determining how to divide a video into sub-stream and on which server peers to save them. [0113] § 4.4.7 Session Management [0114] In at least some embodiments consistent with the present invention, a centralized server may provide redundant peer server information to a peer client in anticipation of one or more of the server peer failing. This can minimize various communications and/or delays in the event that a server peer fails and a backup is needed to maintain acceptable video quality. [0115] In at least some embodiments consistent with the present invention, a centralized management facility can establish sessions between a client peer and appropriate server peers. In alternative embodiments consistent with the present invention, a centralized management facility can provide server peer identifiers to the client peer and/or a client peer identifier to the server peers so that the client peer and/or server peers can initiate the establishment of sessions themselves. [0116] § 4.4.8 Location of Management Functions [0117] As illustrated in FIG. 1, various functions such as session management, provisioning, etc. can be performed at one or more dedicated management facilities. However, in at least some alternative embodiments consistent with the present invention, at least some of these functions can be distributed to various peers of the P2P VSN. Similarly, as illustrated in FIG. 1, peer and content information is stored at one or more dedicated management facilities. However, in at least some alternative embodiments consistent with the present invention, at least some of this information can be distributed to various peers of the P2P VSN. § 4.5 EXAMPLES [0118] § 4.5.1 Simple Example [0119] Consider a simple example of a peer-to-peer video streaming network as depicted in FIG. 13. The network includes peers 1310-1315. [0120] In this example peers 1313 and 1314 are each receiving a video. Initially, peer 1313 is receiving sub-streams from peers 131 land 1312. Peer 1314 is receiving sub-streams from peers 1310 and 1313. The connection of peers is depicted using dashed lines. Also a fat pipe (depicted as a thicker rectangle) next to a peer represents a downlink and a thin pipe (depicted at a thinner rectangle) next to a peer represents an uplink. Now, assume that at some instant peer 1311 becomes disconnected from the network or otherwise becomes unable to serve its sub-stream. This is depicted by 1320. Since peer 1311 is disconnected, visual quality at peer 1313 is degraded. The system will be informed of this degradation and will seek to locate and establish a replacement peer containing the sub-stream that peer 1311 was providing to peer 1313. In this example, the system recovers by assigning peer 1315 as a replacement and the video quality at peer 1313 is restored. Generally, a peer can function as a client only, a sever only, or simultaneously as a sever and a client (e.g., peer 1313) [0121] § 4.5.2 Simulations [0122] The previous section presented an analytical model for the system under a number of homogeneity assumptions. The model led to a simple optimization procedure for finding the optimal system parameters. It was shown that system performance will improve as the number of descriptions for the videos increases and the case for the theoretical Gaussian source model was investigated. In this section, the performance results of extensive simulations of an exemplary P2P video streaming scheme consistent with the present invention are presented. Real video data was used and each node was assumed to have limited storage. [0123] The Foreman video sequence was coded in CIF (352×288) resolution into a scalable bit stream using the MPEG-4 FGS (See, e.g., MoMusys code, “MPEG4 verification model version 18.0,” ISO/IEC JTC1/SC291WG11 Coding of Moving Pictures and Audio, (January 2001), incorporated herein by reference.), at a base layer rate of 150 kbps. Each Group of Frames (GOF) had the duration of T=1 second and comprises 15 frames. The output bits from each GOF were converted to M descriptions using the MD-FEC method, where M is varied from 4 to 32. The total rate of a video after MD-FEC was set to be either 512 kbps, 576 kbps or 640 kbps. [0124] § 4.5.2.1 Network Setting [0125] In the simulations, a homogeneous system in which each peer had the same uplink bandwidth (250 kbps) and storage capacity (230 MBytes) was assumed. For example, if the total rate is 512 kbps and M=4, each node with this storage capacity can store at most two (2) descriptions. There were 300 nodes in the network. Each node in the network alternated between “connect” and “disconnect” status. The connect time was modeled as an exponentially distributed random variable with mean four (4) hours. Similarly, the disconnect time was another exponentially distributed random variable with mean one (1) hour. [0126] Assume J=50 videos. Each video had the same size but not the same popularity, and the popularity of these videos followed the Zipf distribution with parameter a=1.1. The number of new requests for all videos was modeled as a Poisson process with rate of λ=1.5 requests/min. The length of each video was two (2) hours. The number of copies bj for each video was proportional to its request rate. Each node stored at most one description for a particular video. [0127] When a node requested a video, a central manager tried to find M serving nodes that have the M descriptions of the video, with each node also having sufficient surplus uplink bandwidth to serve one description. For each description, the server that was the least loaded over all servers that had this description was chosen. If during service a node disconnected, the central server looked for a replacement node that had the same description and sufficient uplink bandwidth. If there was no such node available, the central server kept searching in the next update interval. [0128] Admission Policy: ParameterQmax was set. If the total number of sessions in the network was greater than Qmax, then the new requests were blocked. In the simulations, six values for Qmax—60, 80, 100, 120, 150 and 180—were chosen. [0129] Placement Policy: Assume N nodes ordered from {1, 2, . . . , N} and the sorted popularity list of all videos {b1, b2, . . . , bj}, with b, being the most popular video and bj being the least popular video. An index I(j,m,i) was assigned to the ith copy of the mth description for the jth video. The index was calculated as follows: I ( j , m , i ) = ∑ k = 1 j - 1 M · b k + b j · ( m - 1 ) + i The description indexed by I(j,m,i) was put on the node I(j,m,i) mod N. [0130] § 4.5.2.2 Simulation Results [0131] The affect of the admission control parameter Qmax on the system performance is described. As the admission control parameter Qmax increases, more sessions will be admitted into the system and it becomes increasingly difficult to provide each session with sufficient descriptions. Therefore, the video quality will decrease as Qmax increases. FIG. 14 shows how the video quality changes as Qmax increases for M=32. Simulations with two different total rates: 512 kbps and 576 kbps, were run. From FIG. 14, notice that when Qmax is small, a higher total rate gives a better video quality. This is because when Qmax is small, the network is lightly loaded, which means that the descriptions are less likely to be lost, and the increase in total rate gives a better video quality. However, when Qmax is large, as seen from FIG. 14, a smaller total rate provides a better video quality. [0132] As the total rate of each video increases, the video size increases as well. Since the total storage is fixed, the number of copies for each video will decrease, thus the overall serving capacity for each video decreases. If during the streaming interval, a node goes down, it is less likely to find a replacement node. Although the increase in total rate gives a better video quality, for a higher rate, each session receives, on the average, a smaller number of descriptions. Therefore, when the network is heavily loaded, a smaller total rate has a better video quality. [0133] FIG. 15 shows how the video quality varies with the description numbers for a fixed total rate of 512 kbps. Notice that the PSNR improves as the number of descriptions increases, but the improvement gradually levels off as M becomes very large. Note that this is consistent with the theorem, introduced above, which assumed an idealized model. One reason that increasing the number of descriptions is better is that the MD-FEC redundancy is optimally determined based on the description loss distribution determined from the network simulation. When M is large, MD-FEC can apply unequal error protection with finer granularity (because the same bit is split into more layers), thus requiring lower total redundancy and leaving more bits for source coding. Another reason is that when M is small, the rate r is large; since the uplink bandwidth is limited, some of the bandwidth will be wasted. For example, in the simulations with uplink bandwidth 250 kbps, when the total rate is 512 kbps and M=4, the r is 128 kbps. Thus each node can only serve one streaming session and the rest of the bandwidth 250−128=122 kbps is wasted. [0134] In FIG. 16, Q* (which is the maximum number of sessions that the network can support to meet the distortion constraint) is plotted as a function of the distortion constraint. The parameters M and r (to calculate the average distortion) are changed. Then for each calculated distortion, the maximum Q from 60, 80, 100, 120, 150 and 180, which is Q*, is chosen. As expected, Q* increases with dmax. Recall one possible design criterion is to maximize the acceptance probability while meet a target video quality constraint. For a given dmax, one can determine the Q*, which is the maximum number of sessions that the network can support to meet this distortion constraint. If a lower video quality is required, more sessions can be admitted into the network, or less sessions can be accepted, to obtain a better video quality. § 4.6 CONCLUSIONS [0135] Coding a video into multiple descriptions/sub-streams and distributing the descriptions/sub-streams to separate server peers in a manner consistent with the present invention has many benefits. First, when a video sub-stream server peer is lost, it only causes temporary loss of a single description/sub-stream, which has limited impact on received video quality. Second, each description/sub-stream has a rate much lower than the total rate of the video, thus reducing the required uplink bandwidth at each server peer. Note that for high-quality video streaming applications, the rate of an entire video may exceed the uplink bandwidth of most video sub-stream server peers. In such situations, splitting a video across multiple video sub-stream server peers not only helps to enhance system reliability, but also circumvents the problem of asymmetric bandwidth at the network access link. Third, streaming from multiple server peers helps spread the load of serving the video over the video sub-stream serving peers. Fourth, from the video publisher's perspective, it is undesirable to store an entire video on any one peer. This helps prevent a peer from having illegal and/or unauthorized access to the video (e.g., for purposes of unauthorized playing, copying, and/or distribution). Finally, another side benefit is that the use of multiple lower bandwidth sub-streams typically leads to improved multiplexing gains in the core Internet, thus allowing for an increased loading for a given Qualilty of Service (QoS) objective. Patent CitationsCited PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitleUS2720422 *Oct 5, 1954Oct 11, 1955Dave MercurDevice for mounting spray containersUS3229859 *Oct 23, 1964Jan 18, 1966Conroy Frederick MExtension toolsUS3716195 *Jul 29, 1971Feb 13, 1973Silva GExtension hand sprayer deviceUS3734357 *Sep 10, 1971May 22, 1973Adams JPortable holder for pressurized containersUS4089440 *Jul 1, 1976May 16, 1978Edward LeeHandle support and operating assembly for aerosol spray cansUS4092000 *Nov 22, 1976May 30, 1978Offutt Iii Harry CExtension spray deviceUS4579258 *Oct 17, 1983Apr 1, 1986Brown Philip MOperating handle for aerosol containerUS4660745 *Oct 28, 1985Apr 28, 1987Hess Jr LawrenceSpray actuatorUS4789084 *Aug 4, 1987Dec 6, 1988Kabushiki Kaisha Araki GomuTool for assisting spray work at high positionUS4886191 *Apr 5, 1988Dec 12, 1989Kabushiki Kaisha Araki GomuTool for assisting spray work at high positionUS5307959 *May 10, 1993May 3, 1994Bedore Robert JSpray can control apparatusUS6016938 *May 13, 1999Jan 25, 2000Eichorst; Lawrence G.Spray can trigger systemUS6029862 *Nov 23, 1998Feb 29, 2000Jones; Myra L.Selectable rate actuator for spray cansUS6173870 *Jun 9, 2000Jan 16, 2001Thomas A. TaylorOperating handle device for a pressurized cheese dispensing containerUS6789705 *Nov 14, 2002Sep 14, 2004Frank M. DrewAerosol dispenser spraying apparatusUS6851582 *Jun 17, 2003Feb 8, 2005Lawrence C. MeyerDeicing deviceUS20020174443 *Mar 30, 2001Nov 21, 2002Dennis BushmitchData sequencing method to improve transmission of self-similar data in a multi-node networkUS20030106257 *Dec 12, 2001Jun 12, 2003Keith SmithTelescoping device employing a spray insecticide for use with elevated insect nestsUS20040143672 *Jan 7, 2003Jul 22, 2004Microsoft CorporationSystem and method for distributing streaming content through cooperative networkingUS20070097885 *Dec 18, 2006May 3, 2007Traversat Bernard APeer-to-Peer Communication PipesUS20070174471 *Apr 28, 2004Jul 26, 2007Cedric Van RossumSecure, continous, proxy-optimized, device-to-device data download reception system and method of use* Cited by examinerReferenced byCiting PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitleUS7594231Jul 10, 2003Sep 22, 2009International Business Machines CorporationApparatus and method for assuring recovery of temporary resources in a logically partitioned computer systemUS7627506Jul 10, 2003Dec 1, 2009International Business Machines CorporationMethod of providing metered capacity of temporary computer resourcesUS7698451Mar 12, 2007Apr 13, 2010Vudu, Inc.Method and apparatus for instant playback of a movie titleUS7773813Oct 31, 2005Aug 10, 2010Microsoft CorporationCapture-intention detection for video content analysisUS7810647Mar 12, 2007Oct 12, 2010Vudu, Inc.Method and apparatus for assembling portions of a data file received from multiple devicesUS7877754Aug 21, 2003Jan 25, 2011International Business Machines CorporationMethods, systems, and media to expand resources available to a logical partitionUS7900060Feb 17, 2006Mar 1, 2011Vudu, Inc.Method and system for securing a disk keyUS7908389 *Jun 20, 2007Mar 15, 2011Patentvc Ltd.Methods and systems for retrieving fragments from peer clients and serversUS7937379Mar 9, 2005May 3, 2011Vudu, Inc.Fragmentation of a file for instant accessUS7975282Nov 1, 2007Jul 5, 2011Sharp Laboratories Of America, Inc.Distributed cache algorithms and system for time-shifted, and live, peer-to-peer video streamingUS7979419Nov 1, 2007Jul 12, 2011Sharp Laboratories Of America, Inc.Distributed search methods for time-shifted and live peer-to-peer video streamingUS7986372Aug 2, 2004Jul 26, 2011Microsoft CorporationSystems and methods for smart media content thumbnail extractionUS8015311 *Sep 22, 2008Sep 6, 2011Polytechnic Institute Of New York UniversityReducing or minimizing delays in peer-to-peer communications such as peer-to-peer video streamingUS8046453Sep 20, 2007Oct 25, 2011Qurio Holdings, Inc.Illustration supported P2P media content streamingUS8074223Jan 31, 2005Dec 6, 2011International Business Machines CorporationPermanently activating resources based on previous temporary resource usageUS8074225Jun 6, 2008Dec 6, 2011International Business Machines CorporationAssuring recovery of temporary resources in a logically partitioned computer systemUS8078729 *Aug 19, 2008Dec 13, 2011Ntt Docomo, Inc.Media streaming with online caching and peer-to-peer forwardingUS8082358 *Sep 30, 2008Dec 20, 2011Microsoft CorporationISP-friendly rate allocation for P2P applicationsUS8086856Jan 7, 2009Dec 27, 2011International Business Machines CorporationDisabling on/off capacity on demandUS8098730Apr 3, 2006Jan 17, 2012Microsoft CorporationGenerating a motion attention modelUS8099511Jun 11, 2005Jan 17, 2012Vudu, Inc.Instantaneous media-on-demandUS8135795Apr 3, 2003Mar 13, 2012International Business Machines CorporationMethod to provide on-demand resource accessUS8180826Apr 14, 2006May 15, 2012Microsoft CorporationMedia sharing and authoring on the webUS8180906 *Mar 11, 2009May 15, 2012International Business Machines CorporationDynamically optimizing delivery of multimedia content over a networkUS8196032Nov 1, 2005Jun 5, 2012Microsoft CorporationTemplate-based multimedia authoring and sharingUS8219635 *Mar 9, 2005Jul 10, 2012Vudu, Inc.Continuous data feeding in a distributed environmentUS8239686Apr 27, 2006Aug 7, 2012Vudu, Inc.Method and system for protecting against the execution of unauthorized softwareUS8249427 *Jun 2, 2009Aug 21, 2012Sony CorporationContent playing device, content playing method, program, and content playing systemUS8260952 *Jan 31, 2008Sep 4, 2012Microsoft CorporationMulti-rate peer-assisted data streamingUS8279766Nov 19, 2007Oct 2, 2012The Hong Kong University Of Science And TechnologyInterior-node-disjoint multi-tree topology formationUS8289949Feb 19, 2010Oct 16, 2012SkypeOptimising communicationsUS8289979Feb 19, 2010Oct 16, 2012SkypeOptimising communicationsUS8296812Sep 1, 2006Oct 23, 2012Vudu, Inc.Streaming video using erasure encodingUS8312161Feb 3, 2010Nov 13, 2012Vudu, Inc.Method and apparatus for instant playback of a movie titleUS8316146 *Jul 13, 2007Nov 20, 2012Spotify AbPeer-to-peer streaming of media contentUS8321900 *Dec 12, 2009Nov 27, 2012At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.Limited chain relay with virtual peer for multimedia distributionUS8359369 *Feb 2, 2012Jan 22, 2013International Business Machines CorporationDynamically optimizing delivery of multimedia content over a networkUS8364792 *Nov 10, 2006Jan 29, 2013Vudu, Inc.Method and system for distributing restricted media to consumersUS8386629 *Dec 27, 2007Feb 26, 2013At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.Network optimized content delivery for high demand non-live contentsUS8402494Mar 23, 2010Mar 19, 2013Conviva Inc.Switching contentUS8407280Aug 14, 2011Mar 26, 2013Giraffic Technologies Ltd.Asynchronous multi-source streamingUS8418217 *Sep 6, 2006Apr 9, 2013Verizon Patent And Licensing Inc.Systems and methods for accessing media contentUS8458333Aug 30, 2007Jun 4, 2013Conviva Inc.Centrally coordinated peer assignmentUS8463929Feb 19, 2010Jun 11, 2013SkypeOptimising communicationsUS8477658 *Apr 25, 2007Jul 2, 2013The Hong Kong University Of Science And TechnologyIntelligent peer-to-peer media streamingUS8489923May 14, 2010Jul 16, 2013Conviva Inc.Detecting problems in content distributionUS8553596 *Oct 9, 2008Oct 8, 2013Clearwire Ip Holdings LlcSelection of peer-to-peer providers in a wireless networkUS8566436Mar 23, 2010Oct 22, 2013Conviva Inc.Data clientUS8589973Sep 14, 2006Nov 19, 2013At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.Peer to peer media distribution system and methodUS8589993 *Aug 29, 2008Nov 19, 2013At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.Distributing on-demand multimedia contentUS8626621 *Mar 2, 2010Jan 7, 2014Microsoft CorporationContent stream managementUS8689258 *Feb 18, 2011Apr 1, 2014Echostar Technologies L.L.C.Apparatus, systems and methods for accessing an initial portion of a media content eventUS8713194Nov 18, 2011Apr 29, 2014Peerialism ABMethod and device for peer arrangement in single substream upload P2P overlay networksUS8719373 *Dec 13, 2012May 6, 2014International Business Machines CorporationDynamically optimizing delivery of multimedia content over a networkUS8738743Jan 30, 2013May 27, 2014At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.Network-optimized content delivery for high demand non-live contentsUS8739231Aug 23, 2005May 27, 2014Vudu, Inc.System and method for distributed video-on-demandUS8745675Oct 1, 2010Jun 3, 2014Vudu, Inc.Multiple audio streamsUS8751662 *Aug 23, 2007Jun 10, 2014Sony CorporationSystem and method for effectively optimizing content segment downloads in an electronic networkUS8752100 *Aug 29, 2008Jun 10, 2014At&T Intellectual Property Ii, LpSystems and methods for distributing video on demandUS8762461Jun 13, 2010Jun 24, 2014China Mobile Communications CorporationMethod, system and device for searching active peer in P2P streaming media systemUS8799498Nov 18, 2011Aug 5, 2014Peerialism ABMethod and device for peer arrangement in streaming-constrained P2P overlay networksUS8806049May 20, 2011Aug 12, 2014Peerialism ABP2P-engineUS8838823 *Jun 27, 2006Sep 16, 2014Thomson LicensingPerformance aware peer-to-peer content-on-demandUS8873568Sep 14, 2012Oct 28, 2014SkypeOptimising communicationsUS8874725May 14, 2010Oct 28, 2014Conviva Inc.Monitoring the performance of a content playerUS8881217 *Apr 8, 2013Nov 4, 2014Verizon Patent And Licensing Inc.Systems and methods for accessing media contentUS8892625Dec 14, 2007Nov 18, 2014Thomson LicensingHierarchically clustered P2P streaming systemUS8898327 *Oct 5, 2011Nov 25, 2014Peerialism ABMethod and device for arranging peers in a live streaming P2P networkUS8904463Jul 31, 2007Dec 2, 2014Vudu, Inc.Live video broadcasting on distributed networksUS8942225Sep 13, 2012Jan 27, 2015SkypeOptimizing communicationsUS9001804Jun 16, 2011Apr 7, 2015Qualcomm IncorporatedSharing multi description coded content utilizing proximate helpersUS9027046Jun 30, 2009May 5, 2015Thomson LicensingMethod and apparatus for peer-to-peer streaming of layered contentUS9053754Jul 28, 2004Jun 9, 2015Microsoft Technology Licensing, LlcThumbnail generation and presentation for recorded TV programsUS9066156Aug 20, 2013Jun 23, 2015Echostar Technologies L.L.C.Television receiver enhancement featuresUS9100288May 14, 2010Aug 4, 2015Conviva Inc.Augmenting the functionality of a content playerUS9113222Oct 22, 2013Aug 18, 2015Echostar Technologies L.L.C.Electronic programming guides combining stored content information and content provider schedule informationUS9130762Oct 16, 2014Sep 8, 2015At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.Network-optimized content delivery for high demand non-live contentsUS9176955Apr 1, 2006Nov 3, 2015Vvond, Inc.Method and apparatus for sharing media files among network nodesUS9197678 *Dec 11, 2008Nov 24, 2015SkypeMethod and system for data transmissionUS9203913May 14, 2010Dec 1, 2015Conviva Inc.Monitoring the performance of a content playerUS9210451 *May 19, 2011Dec 8, 2015The Chinese University Of Hong KongReplication decision in P2P VoD systemsUS9258145 *Jun 23, 2010Feb 9, 2016Stmicroelectronics S.R.L.Method and system for distribution of information contents and corresponding computer program productUS9264779Dec 3, 2013Feb 16, 2016Echostar Technologies L.L.C.User interfaceUS9264780Jul 12, 2011Feb 16, 2016Conviva Inc.Managing synchronized data requests in a content delivery networkUS9355684Jun 8, 2015May 31, 2016Microsoft Technology Licensing, LlcThumbnail generation and presentation for recorded TV programsUS9357000Feb 3, 2010May 31, 2016Thomson LicensingMethod for providing incentive mechanisms for out-of-order download in communication networks dedicated to the distribution of video-on-demand contentUS9379908 *Oct 18, 2012Jun 28, 2016At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.Limited chain relay with virtual peer for multimedia distributionUS9386056Nov 8, 2007Jul 5, 2016Arris Enterprises, Inc.System, method and computer readable medium for providing media stream fragmentsUS9407494 *Aug 30, 2007Aug 2, 2016Conviva Inc.Reassigning source peersUS9413823 *Mar 15, 2013Aug 9, 2016Hive Streaming AbMethod and device for peer arrangement in multiple substream upload P2P overlay networksUS9420333Dec 23, 2013Aug 16, 2016Echostar Technologies L.L.C.Mosaic focus controlUS9426516 *Dec 20, 2013Aug 23, 2016Echostar Technologies L.L.C.Apparatus, systems and methods for accessing an initial portion of a media content eventUS9462339May 5, 2014Oct 4, 2016At&T Intellectual Property Ii, L.P.Systems and methods for distributing video on demandUS9549043Jul 12, 2011Jan 17, 2017Conviva Inc.Allocating resources in a content delivery environmentUS9565240 *Sep 30, 2011Feb 7, 2017Google Inc.Media file accessUS9565474Sep 23, 2014Feb 7, 2017Echostar Technologies L.L.C.Media content crowdsourceUS9578288 *Jun 8, 2007Feb 21, 2017At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.Peer-to-peer distributed storage for internet protocol televisionUS9602875Mar 7, 2014Mar 21, 2017Echostar Uk Holdings LimitedBroadcast content resume reminderUS9609379Jun 28, 2016Mar 28, 2017Echostar Technologies L.L.C.Mosaic focus controlUS9621959Aug 27, 2014Apr 11, 2017Echostar Uk Holdings LimitedIn-residence track and alertUS9628861Aug 27, 2014Apr 18, 2017Echostar Uk Holdings LimitedSource-linked electronic programming guideUS9635318Oct 30, 2014Apr 25, 2017Vudu, Inc.Live video broadcasting on distributed networksUS9674190 *Dec 20, 2012Jun 6, 2017Vudu, Inc.Method and system for distributing restricted media to consumersUS20050010502 *Jul 10, 2003Jan 13, 2005International Business Machines CorporationApparatus and method for providing metered capacity of computer resourcesUS20050022184 *Jul 10, 2003Jan 27, 2005International Business Machines CorporationApparatus and method for assuring recovery of temporary resources in a logically partitioned computer systemUS20050044228 *Aug 21, 2003Feb 24, 2005International Business Machines CorporationMethods, systems, and media to expand resources available to a logical partitionUS20060021842 *Jul 27, 2004Feb 2, 2006Michael BerhanDual clutch assembly for a motor vehicle powertrainUS20060026524 *Aug 2, 2004Feb 2, 2006Microsoft CorporationSystems and methods for smart media content thumbnail extractionUS20060173730 *Jan 31, 2005Aug 3, 2006International Business Machines CorporationAdjusting resource activation based on a manufactured date of a computerUS20060206889 *Mar 9, 2005Sep 14, 2006Vvond, LlcFragmentation of a file for instant accessUS20060218217 *Mar 9, 2005Sep 28, 2006Vvond, LlcContinuous data feeding in a distributed environmentUS20060218277 *Mar 24, 2005Sep 28, 2006International Business Machines CorporationActivating on-demand computer resourcesUS20070027957 *Apr 28, 2004Feb 1, 2007Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.Identical recordings on p2p network mapped onto single query resultUS20070056002 *Aug 23, 2005Mar 8, 2007Vvond, LlcSystem and method for distributed video-on-demandUS20070101387 *Apr 14, 2006May 3, 2007Microsoft CorporationMedia Sharing And Authoring On The WebUS20070112811 *Oct 20, 2005May 17, 2007Microsoft CorporationArchitecture for scalable video coding applicationsUS20070280255 *Apr 25, 2007Dec 6, 2007The Hong Kong University Of Science And TechnologyIntelligent Peer-to-Peer Media StreamingUS20070294422 *Jun 20, 2007Dec 20, 2007Gal ZuckermanMethods and systems for push-to-storageUS20080060038 *Sep 6, 2006Mar 6, 2008Verizon Data Services Inc.Systems and methods for accessing media contentUS20080086754 *Sep 14, 2006Apr 10, 2008Sbc Knowledge Ventures, LpPeer to peer media distribution system and methodUS20080134258 *Aug 9, 2006Jun 5, 2008Stuart GooseMulti-Source and Resilient Video on Demand Streaming System for a Peer-to-Peer Subscriber CommunityUS20080228644 *May 31, 2008Sep 18, 2008International Business Machines CorporationProviding metered capacity of computer resourcesUS20080244609 *Jun 6, 2008Oct 2, 2008International Business Machines CorporationAssuring recovery of temporary resources in a logically partitioned computer systemUS20080282036 *Mar 12, 2007Nov 13, 2008Vvond, LlcMethod and apparatus for instant playback of a movie titleUS20080282298 *Mar 12, 2007Nov 13, 2008Prasanna GanesanMethod and apparatus for supporting file sharing in a distributed networkUS20080294788 *May 21, 2007Nov 27, 2008Hong Kong Applied Science And Technology Research Institute Co., Ltd.Systems and methods for p2p streamingUS20080307107 *Jun 8, 2007Dec 11, 2008At&T Knowledge Ventures, LpPeer-to-peer distributed storage for internet protocol televisionUS20090006583 *Nov 10, 2006Jan 1, 2009Vvond, LlcMethod and system for distributing restricted media to consumersUS20090019174 *Jul 13, 2007Jan 15, 2009Spotify Technology Holding LtdPeer-to-Peer Streaming of Media ContentUS20090019468 *Jan 10, 2006Jan 15, 2009Vvond, LlcAccess control of media services over an open networkUS20090019489 *Sep 13, 2005Jan 15, 2009Vvond, Inc.Method and apparatus for displaying movie titles based on distributed objectsUS20090025046 *Nov 7, 2005Jan 22, 2009Wond, LlcHybrid architecture for media servicesUS20090031143 *Feb 17, 2006Jan 29, 2009Vvond, Inc.Method and system for securing a disk keyUS20090034434 *Nov 19, 2007Feb 5, 2009The Hong Kong University Of Science And TechnologyInterior-Node-Disjoint Multi-Tree Topology FormationUS20090055461 *Aug 23, 2007Feb 26, 2009Sony CorporationSystem and method for effectively optimizing content segment downloads in an electronic networkUS20090055471 *Aug 19, 2008Feb 26, 2009Kozat Ulas CMedia streaming with online caching and peer-to-peer forwardingUS20090083412 *Sep 20, 2007Mar 26, 2009Qurio Holdings, Inc.Illustration supported p2p media content streamingUS20090083433 *Sep 22, 2008Mar 26, 2009Yong LiuReducing or minimizing delays in peer-to-peer communications such as peer-to-peer video streamingUS20090116640 *Nov 1, 2007May 7, 2009Jeonghun NohDistributed search methods for time-shifted and live peer-to-peer video streamingUS20090119734 *Nov 1, 2007May 7, 2009Deshpande Sachin GDistributed Cache Algorithms and System for Time-Shifted, and Live, Peer-to-Peer Video StreamingUS20090144417 *Oct 30, 2008Jun 4, 2009Andrey KiselResilient service quality in a managed multimedia delivery networkUS20090144431 *Oct 30, 2008Jun 4, 2009Andrey KiselGuaranteed quality multimedia service over managed peer-to-peer network or ngnUS20090177792 *Jun 27, 2006Jul 9, 2009Yang GuoPerformance Aware Peer-to-Peer Content-on-DemandUS20090198829 *Jan 31, 2008Aug 6, 2009Microsoft CorporationMulti-Rate Peer-Assisted Data StreamingUS20090248886 *Dec 27, 2007Oct 1, 2009At&T Labs, Inc.Network-Optimized Content Delivery for High Demand Non-Live ContentsUS20090260046 *Jun 17, 2009Oct 15, 2009Tao YangMethod, apparatus, and system for redundancy backup of video servicesUS20090297128 *Jun 2, 2009Dec 3, 2009Sony CorporationContent playing device, content playing method, program, and content playing systemUS20100042668 *Dec 14, 2007Feb 18, 2010Thomson LicensingHierarchically clustered p2p streaming systemUS20100058403 *Aug 29, 2008Mar 4, 2010Vaidyanathan RamaswamiDistributing On-Demand Multimedia ContentUS20100058405 *Aug 29, 2008Mar 4, 2010At&T Corp.Systems and Methods for Distributing Video on DemandUS20100082838 *Sep 30, 2008Apr 1, 2010Microsoft CorporationIsp-friendly rate allocation for p2p applicationsUS20100146094 *Mar 30, 2008Jun 10, 2010Unison Play Ltd.Method And System For Compressing Files Based On Their Popularity In A NetworkUS20100153496 *Dec 11, 2008Jun 17, 2010Ahti HeinlaMethod and system for data transmissionUS20100235520 *Mar 11, 2009Sep 16, 2010International Business Machines CorporationDynamically optimizing delivery of multimedia content over a networkUS20100254675 *Feb 3, 2010Oct 7, 2010Prasanna GanesanMethod and apparatus for instant playback of a movie titleUS20100257573 *Dec 26, 2007Oct 7, 2010Zte CorporationContent publishing and storing method for the interactive personal television media delivery systemUS20100260191 *Feb 19, 2010Oct 14, 2010Skype LimitedOptimising communicationsUS20100260192 *Feb 19, 2010Oct 14, 2010Skype LimitedOptimising communicationsUS20100262709 *Feb 19, 2010Oct 14, 2010Skype LimitedOptimising communicationsUS20100332671 *Jun 23, 2010Dec 30, 2010Stmicroelectronics S.R.L.Method and system for distribution of information contents and corresponding computer program productUS20110023072 *Oct 1, 2010Jan 27, 2011Edin HodzicMultiple audio streamsUS20110072143 *Jun 7, 2010Mar 24, 2011Industrial Technology Research InstituteScheduling method for peer-to-peer data transmission and node and system using the sameUS20110145870 *Dec 12, 2009Jun 16, 2011At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.Limited Chain Relay With Virtual Peer for Multimedia DistributionUS20110218897 *Mar 2, 2010Sep 8, 2011Microsoft CorporationContent Stream ManagementUS20120124178 *Sep 30, 2011May 17, 2012Google Inc.Media file accessUS20120143988 *Feb 2, 2012Jun 7, 2012International Business Machines CorporationDynamically optimizing delivery of multimedia content over a networkUS20120203828 *Apr 17, 2012Aug 9, 2012Amol ShuklaVariable fidelity media provision systemUS20120216234 *Feb 18, 2011Aug 23, 2012Echostar Technologies L.L.C.Apparatus, systems and methods for accessing an initial portion of a media content eventUS20120297432 *May 19, 2011Nov 22, 2012The Chinese University Of Hong KongReplication decision in p2p vod systemsUS20120303834 *May 25, 2012Nov 29, 2012Stellatus, LLCSeamless digital streaming over different device typesUS20130074135 *Oct 18, 2012Mar 21, 2013At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.Limited Chain Relay with Virtual Peer for Multimedia DistributionUS20130091294 *Oct 5, 2011Apr 11, 2013Peerialism ABMethod and device for arranging peers in a live streaming p2p networkUS20130103800 *Dec 13, 2012Apr 25, 2013International Business Machines CorporationDynamically optimizing delivery of multimedia content over a networkUS20130232520 *Apr 8, 2013Sep 5, 2013Verizon Patent And Licensing Inc.Systems and methods for accessing media contentUS20130283389 *Dec 20, 2012Oct 24, 2013Vudu, Inc.Method And System For Distributing Restricted Media To ConsumersUS20140109155 *Dec 20, 2013Apr 17, 2014Echostar Technologies L.L.C.Apparatus, systems and methods for accessing an initial portion of a media content eventUS20140165118 *May 9, 2012Jun 12, 2014Telefonica, S.A.Method and end point for distributing live content stream in a content delivery networkUS20140280563 *Mar 15, 2013Sep 18, 2014Peerialism ABMethod and Device for Peer Arrangement in Multiple Substream Upload P2P Overlay NetworksUS20150172779 *Aug 2, 2013Jun 18, 2015Zte CorporationMethod and Device for Preventing Interruption of on-Demand Service in Internet Protocol Television SystemCN102307218A *Mar 15, 2011Jan 4, 2012广州泛网视讯科技有限公司Stream media data request transmission method for multimedia telephone peer-to-peer (P2P) video-on-demandCN103152434A *Mar 27, 2013Jun 12, 2013江苏辰云信息科技有限公司Leader node replacing method of distributed cloud systemEP2015542A1Jun 24, 2008Jan 14, 2009Spotify Technology Holding Ltd.Peer-to-peer streaming of media contentEP2015542B1 *Jun 24, 2008Jan 16, 2013Spotify ABPeer-to-peer streaming of media contentEP2056247A1Nov 2, 2007May 6, 2009Alcatel LucentGuaranteed quality multimedia service over managed peer-to-peer network or NGNEP2056562A1Nov 2, 2007May 6, 2009Alcatel LucentResilient service quality in a managed multimedia delivery networkEP2099222A1 *Aug 6, 2008Sep 9, 2009Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.A method, apparatus and system for performing redundant backup on video serviceEP2099222A4 *Aug 6, 2008Apr 14, 2010Huawei Tech Co LtdA method, apparatus and system for performing redundant backup on video serviceEP2216940A1 *Dec 2, 2008Aug 11, 2010Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.Method, system and device for switching sourceEP2216940A4 *Dec 2, 2008Apr 27, 2011Huawei Tech Co LtdMethod, system and device for switching sourceWO2007021725A3 *Aug 9, 2006Jul 26, 2007Siemens Tech To Business CtA multi-source and resilient video on demand streaming system for a peer-to-peer subscriber communityWO2008118186A1 *Sep 6, 2007Oct 2, 2008Zattoo Inc.Method and system for communicating media over a computer networkWO2009056217A2 *Oct 13, 2008May 7, 2009Alcatel LucentGuaranteed quality multimedia service over managed peer-to-peer network or ngnWO2009056217A3 *Oct 13, 2008Nov 5, 2009Alcatel LucentGuaranteed quality multimedia service over managed peer-to-peer network or ngnWO2009056218A1 *Oct 13, 2008May 7, 2009Alcatel LucentResilient service quality in a managed multimedia delivery networkWO2010145199A1 *Jun 13, 2010Dec 23, 2010China Mobile Communications CorporationMethod, system and device for searching active nodes in p2p streaming media system* Cited by examinerClassifications U.S. Classification709/231, 375/E07.011, 375/E07.019, 709/234International ClassificationG06F15/16Cooperative ClassificationH04L65/607, H04L65/4084, H04L29/06027, H04N21/482, H04N21/632, H04N21/4788, H04N21/2668, H04N21/8405, H04N21/6473, H04N21/64792, H04L67/1046, H04L67/1085, H04L67/1048, H04L67/104European ClassificationH04N21/647M1, H04N21/63P, H04N21/482, H04N21/8405, H04N21/4788, H04N21/2668, H04N21/647P1, H04L29/08N9P3C3, H04L29/08N9P, H04L29/06C2, H04L29/06M6E, H04L29/06M4S4Legal EventsDateCodeEventDescriptionApr 27, 2006ASAssignmentOwner name: POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, NEW YORKFree format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:PANWAR, SHIVENDRA S.;ROSS, KEITH W.;WANG, YAO;REEL/FRAME:017550/0285;SIGNING DATES FROM 20060320 TO 20060321Aug 27, 2007ASAssignmentOwner name: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES HOLDING 19, LLC, NEVADAFree format text: LICENSE;ASSIGNOR:POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY;REEL/FRAME:019750/0527Effective date: 20060413Nov 9, 2010CCCertificate of correctionMar 18, 2013FPAYFee paymentYear of fee payment: 4May 25, 2017FPAYFee paymentYear of fee payment: 8RotateOriginal ImageGoogle Home - Sitemap - USPTO Bulk Downloads - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - About Google Patents - Send FeedbackData provided by IFI CLAIMS Patent Services