Is Avigilon HDSM Actually Patented? Do They Have Any?

HDSM is a registered trademark. but the software patent for which they refer to could be for just a small portion of any part of the system. A simple file access algorythm would qualify to claim a patent. I highly doubt the entire mechanism are applied for as any IP software patent MUST standalone as a design document and leave nothing to chance for a skilled coder. So the patent is likely a small portion of their technology, and it will be in review for some time. Meanwhile trade secrets are their friends.

“If you capture the very best image and then you record that image faithfully, then you can do that CSI kind of zooming-in stuff — and we can do that.”

- Alex Fernandes

Btw, certainly Avigilon has patents via the VideoIQ acquisition. See all the VideoIQ patent filings.

Ok. So you found Avigilon patents granted for HDSM? Please share. Thank you.

Drawing conclusions, and passing along legal commentary from experiences with IP / Trademark law based our own experiences. I believe the original sensors in the JP2K cameras were Aptia, and the Pro is Kodak, and if the secret sauce is in the camera then one of these companies could have helped co-develop Jp2k scanning / streaming, or had the patents, and AV bought them.. It's really insignificant if a patent exists, but HDSM is a trademark at this time that applies to anything they do with technology. Protected by Patent or not.

I'm well aware of the diferences, and in the case of NBA, NFL, Coke, I'd like to own the trademarks.

You won't find a Patent on Viagra either, only a trademark. you will find a patent on Sildenafil

HDSM - you will find a trademark

HDSM - you won't find a patent on HDSM as it does't exist as a define patented process describing how they do what they do.

I'm certain some, and it only takes one, element of JP2K streaming from the sensors, writing it to disk, is a real patent that was developed, purchased, and used with JP2K technology. doesn't matter now, HDSM is the trademark, regardless if they use dirivative work based on GPL, it's still gonna be called HDSM..

A smart Man tells the truth - A wise man doesn't always tell all the truth. Nobody is lying...

how is the JDS - Milestone Case coming along? [IPVM Update: News on the Milestone VMS Patent Lawsuit]

Here's where I'm at:

Whatever HDSM is or was, AV has invested significant r&d$ into it.

AV considers HDSM a trade secret and would move to protect it.

With the resources AV has they would be able to acquire some patents revolving around 'HDSM' even if not exactly the ones they want.

AV, even if holding multiple valid applicable patents, may still wish to bury the patent docs themselves, as much as possible from prying eyes like a competitors or John's.

Therefore, I think there are some patents issued, or at the very least pending, for that secret and in-homogenous sauce known as HDSM.

My guess is that they are "hidden", either by a founder or better yet, held by an IP holding company which grants a perpetual license to AV, thereby increasing their "security thru obscurity". The patent most likely doesn't even contain the acronym HDSM to avoid simple discovery.

Now that they are publicly traded one would think this in some way would be disclosed and there would be a trail to follow in their annual report.

As for undisclosed A's assertation:

It's really insignificant if a patent exists, but HDSM is a trademark at this time that applies to anything they do with technology. Protected by Patent or not.

This is true if there is no 'secret sauce', i.e. no applicable/substantial/enforceable/patentable technology. Then as A implies the actual letters H D S M are more valuable than any actual underlying technology and the trademark is needed to protect the real asset.

That would make it on a par with the "Retsyn" in Certs. No offense.

I found an Avigilon patent application. It was filed under the names of two of their top technology people (both who left the company in the past year or so). I cross referenced this for other US applications or patents but did not find anything else. I also searched for patents filed under names of 5 other Avigilon senior engineers but could find nothing else.

It's definitely about stream management, so this looks to be 'it'. However, it does not explain the repeated references to it being 'patented' as this is an application, not a granted patent.

Anyone who has studied the details of the patent, please comment. I will review more tomorrow.

I have a pair of Patent Leather shoes, as I guess would some of the mucky-mucks at Avigilon. Perhaps that is what they are referring to?

Here's the abstract of the 2008 / 2010 Avigilon patent application for image capture, analysis, and transmission. I've segmented it into the 3 main parts they discuss:

(1) A link aggregation method involves identifying controller network ports to a source connected to the same subnetwork; producing packets associating corresponding controller network ports selected by the source CPU for substantially uniform selection; and transmitting the packets to their corresponding network ports.

(2) An image analysis method involves producing by a camera an indication whether a region of an image differs by a threshold extent from a corresponding region of a reference image; transmitting the indication and image data to a controller via a communications network; and storing at the controller the image data and the indication in association therewith. The controller may perform operations according to positive indications.

(3) A transmission method involves receiving user input in respect of a video stream and transmitting, in accordance with the user input, selected data packets of selected image frames thereof.

(3) makes sense though for an application in 2008, one has to wonder what prior art exists here on something so basic. (2) is basically what CODECs do. (1) I am not sure relates to video streams.

If you compare this to what Avigilon is actually doing with H.264 cameras (their own or via ONVIF), it's not this at all. It's vanilla multistreaming. Compare to the multistreaming patent and lawsuits there.

Avigilon has retracted the reference to HDSM being patented on their website (the one that Rukmini found the other day).

Here's what it looked like originally:

And here's it afterward:

I am sure some Avigilon dealers will say this is a concidence and it had nothing to do with IPVM's discussion. Feel free.

And for those dealers who think IPVM is bullying Avigilon, get a clue.

Avigilon is a publicly traded company, knowingly lying about one's products being patented can cause all types of legal issues, including with investors. Now Avigilon can simply say it was a clerical error of a low level marketing person and that they immediately corrected it as soon as it was brought to their attention.

And now we have confirmation that it is not patented.

Here's an interesting expert discussion of the benefits/drawbacks of patents and trade secrets, as well as the mechanics of the patent application process, that might help to shine some light...or not...for the topic at hand.

"HDSM combines good features and great marketing but no real trade secret or unique technology."

So why are there so many discussion threads on the topic? Interesting!

As for that Hawk patent, it's very generic and a non-starter. They dropped litigation attempts against Avigilon long ago. Maybe they'll try their luck with the rest of the major players in the video surveillance market if they haven't hit on most of them already.

"Hawk has vintage (13 years older) and is fundamental, not a hodge podge of things."

I wish them luck and hope for them they have a lot of time and money to invest in trying to have it enforced. They've never made any attempt at manufacturing or marketing the technology and courts everywhere seem to be less and less inclined to play into the game of patent trolls.

A patent is the execution of an idea - not the idea itself. Henry Ford made that clear when he beat the Seldon patent issued in the late 1800 for gasoline vehicles were cars, and subject to the patent. Can this issue go away? - Uh, I guess I'm guilty too.

After reading the catalogue link, comments made nearly year ago seem to point to some sort of vendetta against a player in and industry where all players are poised to do well. I joined this forum (paid) in hopes of finding relevent and useful information.

Unsubscribed, and it's ok to pro-rate my membership and close the account.

I see from that linked discussion thread that you made the following offer to the defenders of the Avigilon marketing video:

I will pay you $10,000 USD if you can deliver a 98% accuracy rate over a 24 hour period for the conditions shown in the Avigilon LPR video (30+ mph, 50+ wide FoV and car turning at 90 degree angle ALL AT THE SAME TIME).

There were 3 members, Alex, Frank Finne Kristensen and "The Wire Guys", that all claimed that Avigilon cameras/software could deliver that accuracy under those conditions. Were any of them ever actually able to deliver those results and take your money?

This may help explain the secret sauce in HDSM: