OVERTURNING THE BARSTOW SPORT EVENT PATENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document contests the validity of 4 US patents, 5526479, 5671347, 6204862, 73773587, filed by Mr BARSTOW, in the 1990’s essentially for Baseball in the U.S. The patents are currently being used to file suits against some of the world’s top sports web site operators. The patents all ignore worldwide prior art of the 1980’s, developed in Europe, in Tennis, Cricket, Golf and Snooker. All 4 Barstow 1990’s patents state, “A live event may be broadcasted by producing a computer coded description of the sub-events that constitute the event. The coded description is stored in a centralized computer data base and the information thus stored is accessible by a viewer's computer. That viewer computer then produces a computer simulation of the live event using the coded description.” and proclaim that prior art “simulation techniques have not been utilized in conjunction with the broadcast of live events, which can be represented as a sequence of well-defined actions”. This document refutes the prior art statement vigorously, given that extensive European prior art existed from the beginning of the 1980’s using precisely the techniques claimed as new by BARSTOW in the 1990’s. In addition the document suggests that BARSTOW never took his full patent idea to market, because the patent omits fundamental steps necessary for a viable commercial system. Indeed, when he did get to the baseball market in 1995 with an event viewing process, he paradoxically appeared to rely on STATS, Inc. (Sports Team Analysis & Tracking Systems, Inc.) to enter the coded event descriptions at the different ballparks, and appeared never to attack STATS, Inc. for breaching this essential part of his patent. Accordingly, STATS, Inc. may also have prior art to invalidate the BARSTOW patent. The patents are currently the property of DDB Technologies, L.L.C., and have been recognised, for example, by a March 2010 settlement with MLB Advanced Media, L.P., and a license agreement with Sportsline.com Before I became aware of DDB patents in mid 2010, DDB had filed and settled multiple lawsuits in the U.S. against MLB Advanced Media, L.P., and other major sporting leagues and sporting news content providers. Defendants include Time Inc.; PGA Tour Inc.; Yahoo Inc.; NBA Media Ventures LLC; ESPN Inc.; NFL Enterprises LLC, AOL Inc.; NHL Interactive CyberEntreprises LLC; NHL Enterprises LP and NHL Enterprises Inc. More recently, DDB has re awakened, to charge additional media and sports companies: Fox Sports Interactive Media, LLC; NeuLion, Inc. et. al..; The Computer Information Network, Inc.d/b/a The Sports Network ("TSN"); SportsDirect, Inc.; Internet Consulting Services, Inc. d/b/a Sidearm Sports; PrestoSports, Inc.; Daktronics, Inc.; Major League Soccer, L.L.C.; Stat Crew Software, Inc.; CSTV Networks, Inc. d/b/a CBS Sports Network et al. According to LAW360, these complaints are “nearly identical” http://www.ipinvestmentsgroup.com/index_files/11.29.2011.pdf . European prior art using the methods patented by BARSTOW in the 1990’s, was proposed in 1980, prototyped in 1981 and operated commercially in 1982 with Tennis at the French Open, Roland Garros. By 1989, complete systems for international Tennis, Cricket, Golf and Snooker were operational, in Europe and Australia. Systems included live data capture, transmission to local Scoreboards/Displays, with onward transmission to Voice Servers, and TV broadcasts. The world wide Press Agencies (Associated Press, and Reuters) commenced receipt of their fully formatted proprietary feeds worldwide from 1989. It is for lawyers to take this document forward to render the BARSTOW patents invalid, and relieve sport of the DDB curse, if so judged.
Stephen Parry; 24 December 2011. Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 1 of 29
SUMMARY INDEX The essential claim is that an event can be expressed as a sequence of coded actions....................................................................................................... 3 The title of the first BARSTOW patent is for pattern matching techniques .......................................................................................................................... 4 The four subsequent patents, all have IDENTICAL abstract, field of invention, related art and summary invention texts................................................ 5 With detail as follows…........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 However the BARSTOW patents consistently ignore European prior art. ............................................................................................................................. 7 Additionally it is unlikely that BARSTOW implemented commercially his patents in full..................................................................................................... 7 The European prior art has covered top sports events worldwide, for over 30 years, using coding and event sequences since 1981.............................. 9 TENNIS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 CRICKET................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 GOLF ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Link to PRESS AGENCIES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 SNOOKER.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 The European prior art of coded data capture has thus progressively increased in number of sports and countries, such that by 1989, Tennis, Cricket, Golf and Snooker were all implemented. Cricket and Snooker additionally always used coded event sequence techniques. Golf scores are naturally a sequence of events – the score at each hole..................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 From 1982, coding was used to communicate Tennis sports scores to different locations. .............................................................................................. 17 From 1983, the Headingley Cricket scoreboard was driven by new, highly innovative software, which used coded sequences of events with extensive validity checking ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 The software was designed to use external validity checking definitions and software generation modules .................................................................. 18 Prerequisite: Knowledge of cricket scoring is a prerequisite to a full understanding of this approach............................................................................. 18 The User Interface was simple ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 The system outputs to display and remote devices ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Display devices ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Voice service......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 The core of the system was a Central Database .................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Error recovery was essential................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Operator/Input error ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Computer failure .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Link failure............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Recovery from unexpected circumstance was possible....................................................................................................................................................... 21 The Event system was documented EXTERNALLY to the software to achieve coherence and flexibility. ......................................................................... 21 By 1989, the Tennis and Golf data was sent to Press Agencies........................................................................................................................................... 24 Once the first “take” of the day is sent, Reuters send “ADDS” to the first “take”, so that their receiving clients are always in sync (as do Associated Press) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 The decoding files are different for each language. The software was permanently listening for results within the real time scores feed, and once the journalist received sufficient results, these were “batched” into “takes” and sent directly to the agency computer, where they appeared as if they had been typed by the journalist......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Additional Golf sends include “Cards” of the course and a “Classified” listing. ................................................................................................................. 27 The voice system varies between Tennis, Cricket and Golf. ................................................................................................................................................ 28 The display systems for Tennis, Cricket and Golf are completely different: ....................................................................................................................... 28 Contract information supports the dates given, together with accounting information.................................................................................................... 29
An Annex of selected software is also available. Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 2 of 29
All BARSTOW patents state that physical exertion events can be computer coded for interpretation at a remote location. After withdrawing initial 1990 patents, in early 1991, Mr BARSTOW filed patent 5189630 in the United States entitled “Method for encoding and broadcasting information about live events using computer pattern matching techniques”
The essential claim is that an event can be expressed as a sequence of coded actions. From 1992, BARSTOW filed 4 additional patents 5526479, 5671347, 6204862, 73773587 in the United States each identically entitled “Method and apparatus for broadcasting live events to another location and producing a computer simulation of the events at that location” also stating identically and categorically that: “A live event may be broadcast by producing a computer coded description of the sub-events that constitute the event”. It is these 4 patents that have been used to file suits against the various defendants. Furthermore, Mr Barstow claimed in the patent that once events had been coded, “simulation techniques had not been utilized in conjunction with the broadcast of live events, which could be represented as a sequence of well-defined actions.” Information provided later in this document and annexes would appear to contradict this claim, by showing that actions at sports events had been coded for simulation at a separate location as early as 1981. Only Patent Lawyers can establish whether the Barstow claim can be rendered invalid in the light of the information contained in this document. Only then may there be redress obtained by entities that have suffered from claims based on possibly false assertions. Patent Lawyers need to examine the European prior art, described later in this document and annexes, which is very extensive. It covers different sports worldwide. It was conceived at least 10 years prior to the BARSTOW filing. It directly contradicts the central claims of the BARSTOW the patents, namely that the use of coding and action sequences to define a sports event and associated actions for subsequent broadcast had no prior art.
Remember the Michael Lewis book "Moneyball", with a recent film of the same name? The book attempts to explain why the Oakland A's, on a shoestring budget, managed to successfully compete in 2002 against baseball teams with far bigger payrolls. The answer, in part, lays in the organization's use of statistical analysis as a means of finding undervalued players, be they prospects or established veterans. The worth of statistics is thus immeasurable…..
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 3 of 29
The title of the first BARSTOW patent is for pattern matching techniques Patent number 5189630; dated feb 23 1993; filed jan 15 1991; has the title: Method for encoding and broadcasting information about live events using computer pattern matching techniques, but the abstract, field of invention, related art and summary invention are similar to 4 subsequent patents Abstract A live event may be broadcast with a combination signal that includes a computer coded description of subevents that constitute the event and an audio or visual signal. The viewer's computer then provides an indication to the viewer of the occurrence of subevents of interest and allows the viewer of the event to search for such subevents in a recording of the event.
Field of invention Related art Summary invention The present invention relates to The broadcasting of live events is well-known. Most commonly The present invention is directed to a method for broadcasting a method for broadcasting live events are broadcast as audio information or a combination of live events which overcomes the shortfalls of radio and television information about live events. In video and audio information utilizing either radio transmission broadcasting. In particular, the present invention utilizes particular, the present invention techniques or television transmission techniques, respectively. computer simulation techniques to characterize the actions of a utilizes computer encoded There are limitations to both of these broadcasting techniques. live event, providing symbolic representations for the actions of Radio broadcasting provides no visual representation of the the event rather than direct audio or visual signals. According to techniques to represent the actions of a live event with code action being described. Video information of a television the method there is a broadcast of those characterizations. The symbols and broadcasts those transmission is restricted by the angle of the television camera live event can then be simulated at a remote location utilizing the encoded representations to selected for transmission of a particular action within the event. In characterizations or symbolic representations. Furthermore, the symbolic representations may be combined with other viewers who desire such addition, unless the observer video tapes a television information along with transmission or audio tapes a radio transmission, there is no information about the event, such as audio or visual signals. The additional information about the possibility for replaying actions that occur within the event and method makes it possible to use computer pattern-matching event. The encoded information there is no capability for the viewer to view or listen to only techniques to provide additional services to the viewer. is used to provide additional selected portions of the event, to review selected portions of the services. event, or to view the event at the viewer's leisure. Furthermore, the known broadcast techniques do not provide the viewer with the capability of quickly identifying and viewing subevents of interest or of being notified when a subevent of interest occurs.
This broadcasting method has a number advantages over other live broadcast techniques. First, the viewer may view the event at any time and may repeatedly view parts of the event. Secondly, the viewer can select a visual perspective for a given action within the event and can also choose to have information about the event displayed in graph or chart form rather than as visual images. Third, the user of the system is capable of monitoring a plurality of events simultaneously. Fourth, the method of the present invention results in using less bandwidth to broadcast a live event than is typically utilized for either radio or television broadcasts of such an event. Additionally, the viewer need not view the entire event in order to view subevents of interest. Instead, he may characterize subevents of particular interest and be notified when such subevents occur. Also, the viewer may record an entire event and then search it quickly for subevents of particular interest.
It is also well known to utilize computers to simulate activities. In particular, computer simulation techniques to represent the testing of the operation of devices are well known. Thus, computer programmers familiar with simulation techniques are familiar with programs required for simulating activities on a computer. However, such simulation techniques have not been utilized in conjunction with the broadcast of live events, which can be represented as a sequence of well-defined actions.
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 4 of 29
The four subsequent patents, all have IDENTICAL abstract, field of invention, related art and summary invention texts. Patent number
Date of Patent
Date filed
Comment
5526479 jun 11 1996
jul 29 1992
5671347 sep 23 1997
jun 10 1996
Method and apparatus for broadcasting live events to another location and producing a computer simulation of the events at that location Method and apparatus for broadcasting live events to another location and producing a computer simulation of the events at that location This is a continuation of application Ser. No. Method and apparatus for broadcasting live events to another 07/920,355 filed 29 Jul., 1992, U.S. Pat. No. 5,526,479, which is a continuation-in-part of location and producing a computer simulation of the events at that application Ser. No. 07/542,990 filed Jun. 25, location
but not beyond expiry of 5526479 6204862 mar 20 2001 jun 9 1997
Title
1990, abandoned. 7373587 may 13 2008
apr 13 2000
This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/871,713, filed on Jun. 9, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,204,862, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/660,891, filed on Jun. 10, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,671,347, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/920,355, filed on Jul. 29, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,526,479, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/542,990, filed on Jun. 25, 1990, now abandoned, and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/641,716, filed on Jan. 15, 1991, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,189,630.
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Representing sub-events with physical exertion actions
Page 5 of 29
With detail as follows… Abstract
Field of invention
A live event may be broadcasted by producing a computer coded description of the subevents that constitute the event. The coded description is stored in a centralized computer data base and the information thus stored is accessible by a viewer's computer. That viewer computer then produces a computer simulation of the live event using the coded description.
The present invention relates to The broadcasting of live events is well-known. Most commonly The present invention is directed to a method for broadcasting a method for broadcasting and live events are broadcast as audio information or a combination live events which overcomes the shortfalls of radio and television viewing live events. In particular, of video and audio information utilizing either radio transmission broadcasting. In particular, the present invention utilizes techniques or television transmission techniques, respectively. computer simulation techniques to characterize the actions of a the present invention utilizes computer simulation techniques There are limitations to both of these broadcasting techniques. live event, providing symbolic representations for the actions of the event rather than direct audio or visual signals. According to to characterize the actions of a Radio broadcasting provides no visual representation of the the method there is a broadcast of those characterizations. The live event and broadcasts those action being described. Video information of a television computer characterizations to transmission is restricted by the angle of the television camera live event can then be simulated at a remote location utilizing the viewers who desire such selected for transmission of a particular action within the event. In characterizations or symbolic representations. information. The event is then addition, unless the observer video tapes a television simulated by the viewer's transmission or audio tapes a radio transmission, there is no computer, utilizing the computer possibility for replaying actions that occur within the event and simulation characterizations of there is no capability for the viewer to view or listen to only the actions of the event and selected portions of the event, to review selected portions of the known simulation techniques. event, or to view the event at the viewer's leisure.
Related art
It is also well known to utilize computers to simulate activities. In particular, computer simulation techniques to represent the testing of the operation of devices is well known. Thus, computer programmers familiar with simulation techniques are familiar with programs required for simulating activities on a computer. However, such simulation techniques have not been utilized in conjunction with the broadcast of live events, which can be represented as a sequence of well-defined actions.
Summary invention
This broadcasting method has at least four advantages over other live broadcast techniques. First, the viewer may view the event at any time and may repeatedly view parts of the event. Secondly, the viewer can select a visual perspective for a given action within the event and can also choose to have information about the event displayed in graph or chart form rather than as visual images. Third, the user of the system is capable of monitoring a plurality of events simultaneously. Fourth, the method of the present invention results in using less bandwidth to broadcast a live event than is typically utilized for either radio or television broadcasts of such an event.
……. Once accessed by a viewer these encoded descriptions of the actions of the event will then be utilized by the viewer's computer to reconstruct the actions of each sub-event of the selected event by using the parameter information associated with each action. The actions can be represented to the viewer either with visual images, audio images, or text, or some combination thereof. …………
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 6 of 29
However the BARSTOW patents consistently ignore European prior art. The BARSTOW patents may be rendered invalid because they all ignore the prior art in Europe, where coded descriptions and commercial broadcast of sports events started in 1982, extending to world wide communication of Tennis, Cricket, Golf and Snooker in 1989, using action sequences, which are shown thus to replicate the central 1990’s BARSTOW claim that “The actions can be represented to the viewer either with visual images, audio images, or text, or some combination thereof.” This document seeks to provide sufficient data to enable the BARSTOW patents to be successfully challenged, by supplying "clear and convincing" evidence of prior art, as required by U.S. law, confirmed as recently as June 2011 in a case affecting Microsoft, for US$239m. This document shows that starting in 1982 and by 1989, Europe had already seen systems for coding and broadcast of events using image, voice and text for Tennis, Cricket, Golf and Snooker, with the capture for Cricket and Snooker in the form of a sequence of events. It is however worthy of note that there are several functions that were in the Cricket system from 1983 which appear to be consistently missing from the BARSTOW patent filings: Full rewind/undo error correction of EVERY event entered The remote location can request synchronisation of its data from the observer events database, if transmission is lost (BARSTOW may use one-way communication - see Fig 8 5,526,479) An event can be retrospectively changed and the subsequent events replayed automatically All events are validated within the context of the match (e.g. cannot start match unless the teams are defined) The user controls result viewing content, with full preview before broadcast Additional views are pre defined for scripted moments, e.g. Player A has scored 100 runs Automated periodic backup of database Procedures in the case of hardware failure Ability to edit database directly in case of severe system failure Ability to use a copy of the database on a backup machine to continue recording and transmission of events Additional automated features missing from BARSTOW claim: Links to concatenated voice reconstitution of events at remote locations Links to Associated Press and Reuters news agencies, based on agency formats Links to Television Broadcast for production of captions to accompany Television viewing. It should also be noted the exact event coding system used by the BARSTOW observer computers appears to be missing (only “event identifiers” are explained generically. “symbolic descriptions” and “action descriptions” are referred to frequently but no examples are given. “action types” are NOT codes, but event short form descriptions)
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 7 of 29
Additionally it is unlikely that BARSTOW implemented commercially his patents in full. Given the extensive system absences cited above, it is highly likely that Mr BARSTOW NEVER completely implemented his Patent Claims as filed. This appears to be confirmed by the San Francisco Chronicle http://articles.sfgate.com/1996-0509/sports/17774771_1_browsers-today-s-games-fan, where it is stated that, like other sports services, BARSTOW on his site http://www.instantsports.com “is buying the game details from Stats, Inc., the Chicago-based number-crunching outfit that has a seat in every U.S. press box and among other things provides the Associated Press with box scores and ESPN with game-in-progress statistics for its Baseball Tonight.”, and THEN as stated in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/29/business/patents-owner-direct-mailcompany-creates-system-send-electronic-ads-specific.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm “The discreet-event simulator is driven by the raw data coming from the site of the game, in cryptic shorthand about baseball.” i.e. Stats, Inc., were tacitly and concurrently applying the BARSTOW Patent for “A live event may be broadcasted by producing a computer coded The BARSTOW Diagram in all four patents description of the sub-events that constitute the event.” (i.e. functions 2,3 of Fig. 1 5526479, 5671347, system as operated opposite). So the BARSTOW site http://www.instantsports.com is only a system for 6204862 & 73773587. in 1995/6/7 receiving, manipulating, allowing access to and storing the raw event coded data from each Baseball park (functions 4,5,6 of Fig. 1). The BARSTOW site is lacking much according to http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/10/business/taking-in-the-sites-play-ball-find-out-fast-who-s-on-first.html “there aren't any pictures or team statistics here -just season schedules, line scores and excruciatingly dry descriptions of every play, transmitted by observers stationed at each game.” It is also curious that BARSTOW deemed it necessary to subpoena Stats, Inc. in 2010 for its action against AOL. (STATS Inc. began operation in 1981 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=schwarz_alan&id=1835745 and thus may also have prior art to invalidate the BARSTOW patent) Various other web sites from 1996/7 confirm the story: From http://www.wbrogden.com/resume.html it is shown that William (Bill) Brogden (born 1939) was responsible for the user interface and animation of the 1996 and 1997 season versions of the "InstantBallpark" JAVA applet for Instant Sports. Alas, says Brogden, Instant Sports, like so many other dotCOM enterprises was unable to come up with a viable business plan to turn web traffic into cash. This story is repeated in http://www.coderanch.com/t/543904/java/java/Read-Data-webpage where Brogden also confirmed that once MLB (Major League Baseball) got an idea of how much they could get for the data, Instant Sports was priced and lawyered out. From http://www.tvpc.com/main_abouttvpc.html it is seen that Mark Gaither, worked for Instant Sports. From http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/1997/02/03/focus3.html?page=all, it was Barstow who developed the concept six years ago and brought it to life as a die-hard fan with a voracious appetite for technology. "Instant Sports," he says, "is based on technology I developed as one of those obsessive hobbies." http://www.austinchronicle.com/screens/1996-10-11/525407/ also has a more complete version of the same story. Then in http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/1997/08/11/story7.html?page=all it is announced in August 1997, the President of Instant Sports, Fornoff quits. “Instant Sports is struggling with a wave of consolidation within the online sports industry. Major media companies have acquired large stakes in the nation's top two Internet sports-related sites: CBS purchased a minority ownership in Sportsline for a reported $100 million; and the Walt Disney Co. acquired a controlling interest in StarWave. Bigger players are pumping millions into the online sports arena, making it harder for small firms to compete on their own.” Data from all ballparks, supplied by STATS, Inc.,
Stored by BARSTOW
Accessed from BARSTOW
By 1997, Instant Sports was perceived as being “tiny”, and unable to adapt to the newfound insatiable web appetites for great looking sites, containing up-to-theminute unique information. Also the Appeal court had ruled that Motorola and STATS, Inc. did not infringe NBA's copyright when they reproduced only facts from the broadcasts, not the expression or description of the game that constituted the broadcast. A new era had begun but it seems, without Instant Sports. Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 8 of 29
The European prior art has covered top sports events worldwide, for over 30 years, using coding and event sequences since 1981. TENNIS In 1981, a system for Table Tennis, Squash and Tennis scoring was demonstrated. An essential first step was to produce a prototype device (see image opposite). This device coded the various events to represent the event recorded by the device, which were then transmitted and decoded at a receiving computer. In 1982, the Squash system was implemented at the “Front de Seine” club in Paris 15eme, and the Table Tennis system at the Val-d’Oise Championships in Pontoise. The Tennis system went directly to Roland Garros, where all the courts were cabled up to a central location, next to the Referee’s office. (see photo bottom right).
The prototype scoring device 1981 In May 1982, a system was implemented for Tennis at Roland Garros, with purpose built data capture devices on all courts. This system used coding techniques within the scoring device and simultaneous scores transmission to a central computer, for viewing in the Referee’s Office. The coding was essential at the time because of slow data transmission speeds from the court. The last 6 “events” were stored, (due to RAM limitations), and could be undone with the “REVerse” button.. Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
A general view of the Roland Garros office 1982 Page 9 of 29
In 1984, the Roland Garros data capture devices were updated to record additional statistics. These results and statistics were then printed centrally for all finished matches, to supplement the live real time scores on TV’s.
The same system was extended to the Wimbledon Championships in June 1984. They had their own set of purpose built devices, containing the same internal hardware and software as Roland Garros, each connected to the real time scores’ TV’s. At first, the net cord judge entered only game scores, but from 1985 onwards, a dedicated team of scorers entered point scores. Wimbledon capture 1984-1999 In 1985, the live tennis scoring system was also connected to the official French Federation minitel service, for Roland Garros. This was extended to Wimbledon, and the Masters Bercy (first held at the new indoor venue (POPB) in Paris) in 1986. This service decoded the scores information and name events from all the courts, into an acceptable format for display on the Minitel device (a rudimentary keyboard/screen/telephone device allowing database consultation – a forerunner of the Internet site). Over 1 million minitels were in service in France in 1986. France Minitel 1980; 1990 Following a manual system in 1984, in 1985, the live tennis scoring system at Roland Garros was connected to a voice server, called “Suzie”, equipped with 150 dedicated telephone lines and 700 unique voice recordings. It repeatedly assembled (“concatenated”) the different voice recordings in the sequence corresponding to the players and the scores on the courts, so as to give the up-to-date scores of the main matches in progress and selected results. There were hundreds of thousands of callers during the event. Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 10 of 29
In 1986, for both Roland Garros and Wimbledon, Tennis data was sent off-site to a specially equipped telephone switchboard capable of decoding the scores and selecting appropriate voice elements from a voice database, so as to supply the live scores of the event site to a worldwide telephone audience, in multiple languages. Once collected at a central location, the scores for all courts were processed by software which, by language: Received the names and scores automatically from all courts Allowed the important matches to be entered on a keyboard, for that language Processed scores for those “important” matches Selected the voice elements required to represent the players Selected the voice elements required to represent the score At all times the voice elements were selected in a sequence that represented the scores, and were continuously streamed onto a leased telephone line to a telephone exchange with simultaneous access by thousands of callers.
The UK Sunday Times (circulation 1,300,000) carried the story of the 1986 Wimbledon implementation.
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 11 of 29
By 1988, PC’s were an essential part of the Tennis system, with databases for Entries, Draws, Scheduling, and Statistics and Results all networked together. 3 video channels were also prepared: Scores of all courts, Today’s schedule, and Current Results. By 1989, fully automated systems for capturing scores on all courts were in place in France, England and Australia.
In 1988, Tennis TV captions were demonstrated at the French Open, at Roland Garros. At Wimbledon, successful trials were held with the BBC, using the BBC microcomputer to produce real-time TV captions.
In 1991, following trials at Monte Carlo earlier in the year, the Roland Garros Tennis data capture device was completely redone to include full statistics gathering and scoreboard driving. The software was also completely rewritten to benefit from more powerful technology options. It also included a PC version, which mirrored the data capture device software, thus vastly reducing development time, (see software in Annex), a technique used currently to develop Smartphone “Apps”. Statistics data was entered after each point to include forehand, backhand, volley, smash, lob, service return, net, passing shot, drop shot, as winners or errors, whilst keeping the original buttons for simple operation…. “point”, “reverse”, “ace”, “double fault”. Totals of all the different statistics were maintained by set, and sent to the central systems after each point. All this data was fed to downstream systems for use by Press and TV.
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 12 of 29
CRICKET In 1983, the Briggs Cricket Scoreboard system at the Headingley Cricket Ground, England, used a sophisticated “event” definition mechanism and user interface allowing ease of event correction. A database was used with robust recovery procedures, linked to flexible output formatting. This system is explained in much more detail later. Headingley scoreboard 1983-1996 In late 1988, the Briggs system was adapted to supply the scores from all grounds to a central voice server capable of handling up to 8 simultaneous venues. This service was initially implemented for all 6 first class venues and international cricket matches in Australia using Alan McGilvray’s voice – a veteran commentator (see extract opposite from the Sunday Telegraph, January 29, 1989). This was further extended to all 16 grounds in England in 1991. This required substantial training of the Briggs software at all 16 grounds during the winter of 1990, and the painstaking recording and precise editing of all possible players names and score situations prior to going “live”, so that when the computer re assembled the voice elements (“concatenation”), they appeared to be perfectly continuous. Commencing in 1989, live TV captions were prepared for first-class and international Cricket, starting at Old Trafford, England versus Australia. Coded scores were received from the Honeywell Bull TV scoring service, and “viewed” as part of the full transmission. Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 13 of 29
GOLF In 1988, TV captions were prepared for golf at the Paris Open, at Golf la Boulie. Below is the photo of the TV production team. (note the presence of Messrs Charles Biétry, Bernard Pascassio and André-Jean Lafaurie)
The photo above shows the TV captions team with the link to the producer.
In 1989, a voice service was extended to golf in England, commencing at the Open, Royal Troon, Scotland. This service was able to give the leaderboard and the score made by every player on every hole. Link to PRESS AGENCIES From 1989, Tennis and Golf systems were additionally extended to be compatible with the world wide Associated Press “Agate” reporting layouts to include the “box scores”, by additional decoding of live data. Reuters also received a feed in their formats in both French and English. Such a process corresponds to the “viewing” process of steps 4,5,6 & 7, of Fig. 1 in the 1990’s BARSTOW patents, because these direct outputs are just an additional decoding process into a text format of the same score events, but to fit the Press Agencies’ standards. This automation saved the agencies priceless time and checking, and is still doing so today. Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 14 of 29
SNOOKER Following a successful demonstration in late 1990, TV captions were prepared for snooker in January 1991 showing the succession of balls potted (events), by colour. The scoring system for Snooker was also linked to the Television transmission, so as to show the build up of the balls that constituted the “break” of the player at the table. To help the Television viewer, the value of the colour was placed inside the ball of that value when sent to the broadcast…. Each ball that was potted was recorded to a database, after checking of valid sequences. (e.g. you pot a colour after a red, and the colours in their correct sequence) to record the “events”. "RED","YELLOW","GREEN","BROWN","BLUE","PINK","BLACK","EXTRA BLACK","FINISH","ANY"
Totals were kept of “reds balls remaining”; Maximum number of points on the table, and other TV requirements Time of match Time at table for the two players Safety success Snooker escape rate. Just like the cricket system, all the “events” could be “undone”. Valid Codes were: "s(A)fe (M)iss Re-rac(K) Free-(B)all (P)rint Br(E)ak" "(R)everse(F)oul(S)nooker (-+)No reds (Z)ap match t(I)me" "(C)onfirm frame end (T)oggle start at table e(X)tra Red"
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
The broadcast extracted above shows that the 140 points of the score in the current frame was made up of 15 reds (15 points), with 15 blacks (105 points), a yellow (2 points), a green (3 points), a brown (4 points), a blue (5 points) and a pink (6 points). The last black, for 7 points, would make the maximum 147 break.
Page 15 of 29
The European prior art of coded data capture has thus progressively increased in number of sports and countries, such that by 1989, Tennis, Cricket, Golf and Snooker were all implemented. Cricket and Snooker additionally always used coded event sequence techniques. Golf scores are naturally a sequence of events – the score at each hole. BARSTOW CLAIM, IMPLEMENTED IN EUROPE
Year
Combine with Use computer other pattern information matching e.g. audio or Tennis Cricket Golf Snooker Tennis Cricket Golf Snooker visual signals techniques for additional [Notes [Notes 1,2] [Notes [Notes 5] [Notes [Notes 1,2] [Notes at remote services 1,2] 1,2] 1,2] 1,2] location
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
X X X X X X X X X X X [Note 4]
Coded events at a live event
X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X
Transmitted to remote location, and view result
X X X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
NOT NOT APPLICABLE, APPLICABLE, not not implemented implemented X X X
Notes (as defined by BARSTOW) 1 An event can represented by a sequence of sub-events each described by a sequence of characterizations of a plurality of actions in terms of parameters which are entered into an event file of a centralized data base computer which is accessible by the observer. 2 A sporting event includes status variables for the names of the players, the current score, and the current game situation 3 X = this sport operational in this year in Europe and/or Australia 4 This sport operational in this year worldwide with a sequence of events captured, so as to print a scorecard, after the match (Dana Loconto system) 5 Status variables of the current score, and the current game situation are stored and accessible for the last 6 events, at Grand Slams
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 16 of 29
From 1982, coding was used to communicate Tennis sports scores to different locations. The first implementation of coding techniques was in Tennis in 1982 at Roland Garros, where the points score was expressed as either 0,1,2,3,4, to represent 0,15,30, 40, Advantage, and the courts were coded 1 to n representing Centre to (n-1). By 1984, the names were sent linked by a Match code. This is a 5character match code identifier formatted as EENNN, where EE is the event code, and NNN is the match code e.g. “MS002”. This format is still in use today in the vast majority of professional tennis matches in the world, day in, and day out.
SCORES Cara Nø CONTENT 1 F7 (own court) or F5 (other courts) 2 No. Court 3 LENGTH (=98) CAN BE REQUESTED FOR RESEND 4-8 MATCHID CODE 9 CUMULATIVE SET SCORE 11 1ST SET GAMES 13 2ND SET GAMES 15 3RD SET GAMES 17 4TH SET GAMES 19 5TH SET GAMES 21 CURRENT GAMES POINTS (=0,1,2,3,4 ....0,15,30,40,Ad) 23 1ST SET TIE BREAK 25 2ND SET TIE BREAK 27 3RD SET TIE BREAK 29 4TH SET TIE BREAK 31 5TH SET TIE BREAK
NAMES Cara Nø
Description 1 FD (your court), or F6 (other courts) 2 No. Court 3 LENGTH (=107) 4-8 MATCHID CODE 9 No Sets 10 Statistics Type F=none, T=level 1, R/S=level 2 11-50 TEAM 1 51-90 TEAM 2 91-94 MATRICULE 1 (TEAM1) 95-98 MATRICULE 1 (TEAM2) 99-102 MATRICULE 2 (TEAM1) 103-106 MATRICULE 2 (TEAM2) 107 Checksum 108 F0
other statistical data, then: 94 95
CONTROL CARAS (server, starting tie break) SERVER/DEUCE/TIE BREAK INDICATOR BIT 7= TIE BREAK (0=NO TIE BK, 1=TIE BK) BIT 1= SERVER (0= TEAM1, 1 =TEAM2) 96 SET NUMBER;0=NOT STARTED;6/7=FINISHED;8/9=ABANDON BY WINNER TEAM 1/2 97 COURT NUMBER (REPEAT OF CARA 2) 98 HASH TOTAL (RESIDUE AFTER DIVIDING ALL THE ABOVE BY 128) 99 F0
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 17 of 29
From 1983, the Headingley Cricket scoreboard was driven by new, highly innovative software, which used coded sequences of events with extensive validity checking The software was designed to use external validity checking definitions and software generation modules The Briggs Cricket Scoring System (1983), adapted for automated telephone commentary (1988), is a computer program that records, stores and transmits the full scorecard of a cricket match. The scoring information that it keeps can be presented on an electronic scoreboard or any other connected device on site or remotely. Each event sequence is defined using a simple language, linking the event codes and the checking needed. Prior to finalising the software, the event sequences are defined. Innovative software is then used to generate the user program, thus minimizing the need to code all the checking software. Published Information on the Headingley scoreboard system can be found on the web http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~briggsj/pubs.htm starting in 1984. Additional innovative software generates multiple event situations, allowing very thorough testing of the core scoring software.
Prerequisite: Knowledge of cricket scoring is a prerequisite to a full understanding of this approach The User Interface was simple The system requires an operator to input the events of a cricket match as they occur. The events are input in the form of keywords typed at a keyboard. For example, to indicate to the program that the umpire has called “over”, the operator types the keyword “over”. If the batting team declares, the operator types the word “declare”. To record each delivery as it is bowled, the operator types in a delivery description. Delivery descriptions are similar to the usual notation used in scorebooks. For example, if nothing happens (no runs are scored, no wicket falls) on a particular delivery, the operator simply types “. (dot)”. Typing in the number of runs scored indicates runs scored, wickets by typing “.w” followed by a description of the dismissal. All modes of dismissal and all categories of extra, in all possible combinations are accepted. The program will only accept a command if the precondition to the implied event is acceptable. If a command is inappropriate for the circumstance, the program reports this to the operator, and the operator must try again. For example, “new bowler” event is entered as “bowler”, which can be abbreviated to “bowl” or “b”. The keyword must be followed by the identity (name) of the bowler in question. Once a syntactically correct command has been entered, an appropriate event description is constructed and passed to the rest of the program. (It may be semantically incorrect, but a precondition for accepting a new bowler is that this person did not bowl the previous over.) Input validation prevents the operator entering an inappropriate command - for example, a new bowler can normally only be specified when a new over is about to start (or an injured bowler has left the field), though there is an override mechanism, in case the validation itself is incorrect. If a completely wrong command is entered, it is rejected (in the example above it would remind you to enter an "end of over" command). If you enter an unusual command (such as the seventh ball of an over), it asks you "are you sure?” All validation processes are expressed in a form of meta language that is used to generate the equivalent software.
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 18 of 29
The system outputs to display and remote devices Display devices Display output from the program is of two types. Firstly, the operator has information relating to the state of the game and what is typed on a screen. Secondly, messages can be sent to a display device connected to the computer. These messages can be used to drive any connected device to show whatever the customer requests. This can be a display device, or a downstream receiving device. The information that can be displayed is largely dependent on the device available. The program is designed so that different display modules can be slotted into place to control different types of display device. The operator has full control over what information is displayed on the output device. “Preview” displays are presented and can used to copy the contents to the display device. One preview display is normally used to show the current score, another is used for special displays such as bowling figures, information about a batsman’s innings at the fall of a wicket or when 50 or 100 is reached, comparisons between the present score and the score at a similar stage in a previous innings, analyses of the scoring rate in the innings etc. Many of the displays can be generated automatically (i.e. without the operator having to ask for them). For example, the information about a batsman’s century is presented to the operator on one of the preview displays as soon as the 100th run is recorded. All of the displays can be generated upon command of the operator at any time using software which accesses the whole event database and selects what is required by the “viewer”.
Voice service. The program can also output to a telephone service, equipped with a compatible receiver, and voice reconstitution hardware and software. This enables the remote voice system to automatically “say” the current score and statistics via a telephone switchboard. Such a remote voice system receives all the “events” from the scoring computer, selects the events required by the “viewer” who in this case is a telephone caller, thus creating the desired automated “commentary” e.g. Gary Sobers has just come on to bowl at the Stretford Lane end. Geoff Boycott is out, bowled Hall, for 93 runs, hitting one six, and 13 fours. England lead by 73 runs. At the end of the over from Foster, West Indies need 4 runs to win with 10 wickets remaining. Haynes is 25 not out and Dujon is 36 not out. Foster has bowled 7 overs one maiden no wickets for 36 runs. The voice system has over one thousand pre recorded “voice” files representing every event and every player. Each voice file is coded to be compatible with the scoring system. However to avoid the stuttering of simplistic voice reconstitution services, all events were recorded as full sentences, and the sound content representing the individual “events” was extracted using sophisticated voice editing techniques. The individual files were then output contiguously (concatenated) to create a smooth live stream based on the scoring information from the match at the event location.
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 19 of 29
The core of the system was a Central Database All the information about the match is held in a central database within the program. This includes: • • •
Details of both teams (names, career records etc); Details of the state of the match (who is batting, who won the toss, the result, etc); Details of the score in each innings of the match.
For each innings the following details are kept (up to date in the case of an innings in progress, up to the end of the innings in the case of a completed innings): • • • • • • •
Total runs scored and wickets fallen; Number of overs and odd balls bowled (including overs since new ball taken and overs in last hour of match); Details of each batsman (runs scored, how out, balls faced, minutes batted, fours and sixes hit, etc); Details of each bowler (overs and balls bowled, maidens, runs, wickets, no balls and wides bowled, etc); Details of each fielder (catches and stumpings made, whether on field of play and if not for how long absent, etc); Totals at the end of each over of the innings (to facilitate comparisons with previous innings) All events
Error recovery was essential Operator/Input error An important feature of the program is the “undo” event command, which enables the operator to go back and re-do a command. If the batsmen run 3 runs, but 2 is typed in, then the operator can “undo” the 2, and substitute 3. A scheme such as this greatly reduces the potential for operator error. Even if the operator makes a mistake, it is not fatal, and can be corrected. This system increases operator confidence and leads to better, speedier and more efficient operation. The “undo” mechanism is implemented with full generality by making the actions of each event on the database completely reversible. In addition to the primitive reversal operation, it is possible to implement more complex error correction facilities. For example, the operator can go back and insert, delete or alter any of the previous events. To do this the program “undoes” all the events back to the appropriate point in time, placing them on a stack as it does so. The operator makes the change and the program replays the modified/inserted event and all subsequent events. The change is only accepted if all subsequent events continue to meet their precondition as they are replayed. Otherwise, the game is restored to its original state.
Computer failure The program makes a copy of its database on disk at the end of every over (or more often if desired). This can be recovered if the program stops, or the disk transferred to a backup computer in the case of more serious problems.
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 20 of 29
Link failure In the event of the link going down between the event location and the voice service, on reconnect the voice computer sends a “message” to the event location program to request a resend of the current total state of the match.
Recovery from unexpected circumstance was possible Two further comments: Firstly, cricket does not always follow the normal pattern of events. Occasionally unexpected things happen - for instance, an umpire may mis-count the number of balls in an over, or the batsmen may by accident swap ends during a drinks break. Secondly, the program is unlikely to be completely bug free. Some unforeseen circumstance is always likely to turn up. It is essential therefore in a program that operates so closely under the public’s eye that there be mechanisms for quick recovery from unexpected circumstances. This program includes two such schemes. The operator can, by giving a command, instruct the program to waive the precondition test before performing the actions associated with an event. Obviously, the operator must be careful in doing this, and must be certain that to be right and that the program is wrong. The ultimate error correction mechanism is the ability to alter the value of any variable in the central score database. The database editor allows the operator to traverse the database (which is tree-structured) to make a change.
The Event system was documented EXTERNALLY to the software to achieve coherence and flexibility. The heart of the software is the storing of the game of cricket as a sequence of “events”. Examples of events are: the toss; the decision as to which side is to bat first; the start of an innings; a ball bowled; a bowler coming on to bowl; the end of an over; a batsman coming out to bat; the end of an innings; an interval; rain stopping play; the game ending. To achieve the required correctness (as per the laws of cricket), a scoring system can be based on the events that can happen. Each event can also be specified in terms of the preconditions that must hold for the event to be legal, and the effect that the event has on the score. By storing the current state of the match in a database, preconditions for subsequent events can be related and checked for validity.
Scoring Art – Stephen Parry – 24 December 2011
Page 21 of 29
Many events have attributes. For example, the event “new bowler” must have associated with it the identity of the person who is coming on to bowl. As an example of the specification, here is the “end of over” event. endover: ‘end of over’ ‘ovr’ WITH CI PRECONDITION UNLESS MS[started] REPORT ‘Game has not started’ IF MS[gamended] REPORT ‘Game has already finished’ IF MS[raining] REPORT ‘Play not in progress due to rain’ IF MS[eating] REPORT ‘Interval in progress’ IF MS[overended] REPORT ‘Already at end of over’ IF MS[endinnings] REPORT ‘Innings not started yet’ # Cater for long or short overs IF (oddballs > CONFIG.ballsinover) MAKESURE ‘Long over’ IF (oddballs < CONFIG.ballsinover) MAKESURE ‘Short over’ ACTION # Count maiden overs for bowler IF maidenover THEN INC BOWLER.maidens BY 1 ENDIF # Count overs since start of innings INC overs BY 1 # Count overs since new ball last taken INC newball BY 1 # Record score at end of first “maxoverscore” overs for later comparisons
IF overs
