The patent essentially covers all the basic features of a professional online video platform. The relatively generic scope of Brightcove's patent is not a valid argument for dismissing its significance. Indeed, the case of Tivo - which holds a generic patent for dual-tuner STB architectures - leaps to mind, given the firm's recent settlement with Dish Network and Echostar. Though the result of a protracted legal battle, Tivo will receive $500m, and the firm is currently involved in litigation with AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, and Motorola.

Having received its patent, should Brightcove choose to claim infringement of its IPR, and should Brightcove succeed in establishing meaningful legal precedent, the implications are potentially wide reaching.

Most immediately, the patent affects Brightcove's competitors in the online video platform services, such as Ooyala and Kit Digital. Online platforms developed in-house, such as those of broadcasters (e.g. ITV), are also potentially within the patent's remit.
For the emerging multiscreen segment, Brightcove's IPR touches upon the prevailing methods used by DRM schemes to secure content, and upon the server-based approaches employed by pay-TV operators to maintain a UI across connectable CE devices. The potential to subject these methods to legal scrutiny - and monetary penalty - may in some instances serve as a barrier to the broadest possible adoption of multiscreen services.