CDNs Battle for Patents

r

CDNs Battle for Patents
r

r

By Rawlson O’Neil King, theWHIR.com
r

r

This story appeared in the January/February 2004 issue of Web Host Industry Review magazine. Click here to subscribe for free.
r

r

February 2, 2005 — (WEB HOST INDUSTRY
r

REVIEW) — While content delivery networks aim to speed the transport
r

of Internet data, they also appear to be quick with the delivery of
r

legal action against competitors.
r

r

Almost since the time the technology was
r

popularized, the matter of just who owns some of the key concepts
r

behind content delivery networks has been a point of conflict. One of
r

the main disputes ended in December, however, as Cable & Wireless (cw.com) and Akamai Technologies (akamai.com) settled their intellectual property battle.
r

r

The two companies have argued over
r

content delivery patents since 2000, when Akamai claimed that Digital
r

Island, which C&W later acquired, used Akamai-patented technology
r

as part of its Footprint content delivery service. Digital Island
r

retaliated, claiming Akamai infringed on its Truename patent, which
r

determined methods for tracking data to ensure that the newest
r

information was delivered to Web sites and that duplicate information
r

was not stored in its CDN caches.
r

r

A flurry of court decisions and motions
r

ensued. A jury determined in late 2001 that Akamai did not infringe on
r

Digital Island’s patent, but that Digital Island was indeed infringing
r

on Akamai’s patent. While blame at this juncture was assigned, damages
r

were not, so in 2002 Akamai filed for an injunction with the aim of
r

squashing Digital Island’s Footprint service.
r

r

In 2002, Cable & Wireless continued
r

the battle, claiming that Akamai violated a patent that covered a
r

variety of content delivery algorithms and systems.
r

r

C&W sued Akamai again the same year,
r

charging that the firm also infringed the optimal-routing technology
r

patent that covered its host-to-host adaptive routing protocol.
r

r

The C&W patent for HHARP covered
r

technology that proactively detected Internet congestion and found
r

alternative routes to transport data. Because C&W considered its
r

patents the lifeblood of its business, it promised to pursue a
r

prolonged campaign to protect its intellectual property. That campaign
r

came to a complete end in December 2004, when a settlement between
r

Akamai and Cable & Wireless was reached.
r

r

The two companies settled their remaining
r

dispute, explicitly addressing the amount of damages to be paid to
r

Akamai as a result of the jury’s finding that C&W was infringing
r

Akamai’s intellectual property rights. The settlement included an
r

undisclosed cash payment to Akamai, although the settlement did not
r

make any explicit admission of guilt.
r

r

“We are very pleased by the resolution of
r

this long-standing dispute, because it reaffirms the value of Akamai’s
r

intellectual property and sends a strong message that we can and will
r

successfully defend our business against others who attempt to exploit
r

Akamai’s investments in innovation,” said Melanie Haratunian, an Akamai
r

vice president and the firm’s general counsel. “While we prefer to
r

demonstrate the superiority of our technology in the marketplace,
r

rather than the courtroom, we will continue aggressively to enforce our
r

intellectual property rights when necessary to protect shareholder
r

value.”
r

r

Indeed, Akamai currently is continuing with its legal efforts by pursing another lawsuit against Speedera Networks (speedera.com),
r

initiated in 2002. Scheduled to proceed to court in February, the
r

action claims that Speedera’s services infringed on the same Akamai
r

patents that were at center of the C&W suit.
r

r

To complicate matters, Akamai also
r

alleged that Speedera co-founder and chief architect, Richard Day stole
r

Akamai trade secrets from a protected database maintained by Web site
r

measurement service provider Keynote Systems, of which Akamai is a
r

customer. The data maintained by Keynote included Akamai customer
r

prospects and other technical information.
r

r

Akamai alleged that Speedera, on at least
r

30 different occasions beginning in February 2002, broke into Keynote’s
r

secure database and obtained private Akamai data. The suit says that
r

Day, using a high-speed connection from his home, broke into the
r

protected Keynote Systems database, from which he “illegally accessed,
r

stole and used Akamai’s confidential information and data to enable
r

Speedera to compete unfairly and wrongfully against Akamai.”
r

r

Speedera, also a Keynote customer,
r

countered that the data available from Keynote was not proprietary or
r

confidential. Consequently, the action will go to court, and Speedera
r

is expected to offer a vigorous defence since another intellectual
r

property action is pending against the firm.
r

r

Speedera will also have to defend itself
r

in court against Mirror Image Internet’s charges that Speedera is
r

currently infringing two patents. One patent relates to the use of a
r

collaborative server system and methods for efficient allocation of
r

delivery of content from multiple servers enabled by use of embedded
r

object references in Web pages. The other patent relates to methods of
r

using alternative addresses in distributed delivery of content to end
r

users, particularly in intercepting requests for content and
r

automatically serving requested content from alternative servers.
r

r

Not unlike Akamai, Mirror Image is taking
r

a hardened stand to protect its patents. Richard Buck, Mirror Image’s
r

chief operating officer says that, “by enforcing our patents, Mirror
r

Image stands confidently behind the innovative solutions we offer
r

leading retailers, advertisers, media and software companies.” Mirror
r

Image’s case against Speedera is expected to be heard in court in July.
r