Methods and systems for reporting regions of interest in content files

• US 8,010,538 B2
• Filed: 05/08/2006
• Issued: 08/30/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 05/08/2006
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Software Integrity Group Incorporated
• Original Assignee: Black Duck Software, Inc. (Synopsys Incorporated)
• Inventors: Pedersen, Palle Martin
• Primary Examiner(s): Trujillo; James
• Assistant Examiner(s): Moser; Bruce M
• Application Number:
  US11/429,928
• Publication Number:
  US 20070260651A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,940 Days
• Field of Search: 707/204, 707/6, 707/999.006, 707/999.204, 707/758, 707/713, 707/749, 356/71
• US Class Current: 707/749
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/30 of unstructured textual data document management systems G06F16/93
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/93 Document management systems

Abstract

A content file is examined and compared against one or more comparison files. An indication is provided that the content file is similar to the one comparison file that is the best match with the examined content file.

Claims

1. A content management system having a computer-readable memory storing executable instructions therein to provide an indication of similar content, the computer-readable memory comprising:

instructions to examine a content file;

instructions to identify a first portion of the examined content file that is similar to a portion of a first comparison content file, and to identify a second portion of the examined content file that is similar to a portion of a second comparison content file;

instructions to determine whether one of the first portion and the second portion of the examined content file is a superset of the other, and if so, instructions to determine that the portion of the comparison file that matches the superset is a best match with the examined content file; and

instructions to provide an indication that the examined content file is similar to the comparison file that is the best match with the examined content file.

2. The content management system of claim 1, wherein the first portion is a contiguous portion of the examined file.

3. The content management system of claim 1 wherein the first portion of the examined content file is identical to the portion of the first comparison content file, and the second portion of the examined content file is identical to the portion of the second comparison content file.

4. The content management system of claim 1, further comprising:

instructions to identify a third portion of the examined content file that is similar to a portion of a third comparison content file; and

instructions to determine whether one of the first portion, the second portion and the third portion of the examined content file is a superset of one or more of the others, and if so, determine that the portion of the comparison file that matches the superset is a best match with the examined content file.

5. The content management system of claim 4, wherein the second comparison content file and the third comparison file are both determined to be a best match.

6. The content management system of claim 1 wherein the similarity is determined by one or more of the following techniques, alone, or in combination with others:

comparing tokens, comparing content, comparing data derived from content, comparing text strings, and comparing license text.

7. The content management system of claim 1 further comprising instructions to display information identifying the comparison file that is the best match.

8. The content management system of claim 1, wherein the first portion and the second portion of the examined file overlap.

9. The content management system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to determine comprise instructions to determine whether the first portion and the second portion of the examined content file are the same, and if so, instructions to determine which of the first comparison content file and the second comparison content file is a best match using additional information about the comparison files.

10. The content management system of claim 9, wherein the instructions to determine which of the first comparison content file and the second comparison content file is a best match comprise instructions to use information about other matches with the comparison files.

11. The content management system of claim 9, wherein the instructions to determine which of the first comparison content file and the second comparison content file is a best match comprises instructions to use information about other matches with a collection associated with the comparison files.

12. The content management system of claim 11, wherein the instructions to determine which of the first comparison content file and the second comparison content file is a best match comprise instructions to use information about other matches with the collection associated with the comparison files, and select the match with the collection that has the most matches with the examined file.

13. The content management system of claim 11, wherein the instructions to determine which of the first comparison content file and the second comparison content file is a best match comprise instructions to use information about other matches with the collection associated with the comparison files, and select the match with the comparison content file associated with a collection that has the most matches with the collection with which examined file is associated.

14. The content management system of claim 9, wherein the instructions to determine which of the first comparison content file and the second comparison content file is a best match comprise instructions to use information about at least one of directory and file names associated with the comparison files.

15. The content management system of claim 9, wherein the instructions to determine which of the first comparison content file and the second comparison content file is a best match comprise instructions to use date information associated with the comparison files.

16. The content management system of claim 9, wherein the instructions to determine which of the first comparison content file and the second comparison content file is a best match comprise instructions to use license information associated with the comparison files.

17. The content management system of claim 16, wherein the license information is used to determine which comparison file has a license that is most compatible with the license for the examined content file.

18. The content management system of claim 16 wherein the license information is used to determine which comparison file has a license that is most restrictive.

19. The content management system of claim 9, wherein the instructions to determine which of the first comparison content file and the second comparison content file is a best match comprise instructions to use an indicator that a comparison is believed to be an original.

20. The content management system of claim 9, wherein the instructions to determine which of the first comparison content file and the second comparison content file is a best match comprise instructions to use an indicator that a comparison is believed not to be an original.

21. The content management system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to determine comprise instructions to determine whether the first portion and the second portion are partially overlapping, and if so, instructions to identify the best matches for the portions that are different.

22. A content management system having a computer-readable memory storing executable instructions therein to provide an indication of similar content, the computer-readable memory comprising:

instructions to examine a collection of content files;

instructions to identify a first subset of a collection of comparison content files that are similar to a first subset of the examined content files;

instructions to identify a second subset of a collection of comparison content files that are similar to a second subset of the examined content files;

instructions to determine whether one of the matching first subset of comparison content files and the second subset of comparison content files are a superset of the other, and if so, to determine that the subset of the collection of comparison files that is determined to be a superset is a best match with the matching subset of the examined content files; and

instructions to provide an indication that the subset of the collection of the examined content files is similar to the best match.