BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A lawsuit has been filed against BitTorrent but, as hard as it may be to believe, it isn't a copyright suit. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, is actually for patent infringement. :eek:

BitTorrent Inc., the makers of uTorrent and the BitTorrent Mainline client, have been sued for infringement of a file-sharing related patent. According to the complaint, the BitTorrent clients infringe on the rights of San Francisco-based company Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network. The company demands compensation and if the court agrees, this case could have a disastrous impact on the BitTorrent landscape.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if the Lawyers are financed by the RIAA? We've seen weirder...
 
Once again proving how every single software patent is bullshit.
 
So they were granted a patent that is so broad that it could also describe every web browser that ever existed? or download manager, steam, etc...

Media file distribution with adaptive transmission protocols said:
“A server/client media file distribution system is provided in which the server system is adapted to receive transmission requests from clients, status information from a network, and protocol information from each client,” company writes in the patent abstract.

“The server, based upon this information, adaptively transmits a given media file stored therein to one or more clients using the optimal transmission speed and/or network protocol based on the network status information and protocol information,” the abstract adds.
Click to expand...
 
.... see how something that could've been good became bad when taken too far?

Prime example! *sigh*
 
Oh well, even if the clients are not distributed anymore, or even shut down, it's not like another 20 wouldn't pop up.
 
It just goes to show that patents on services such as software should not be legal.

Software developers need to decide if it's a product or a service. Currently they treat it as both when they see it advantageous. This duality needs to end.
 
Yup. Because what the hell. Bittorrent has only been out what? A decade now? And the patent was issued what? 4 years ago? They should have been suing then.

No due diligence.
 
Chas said:
Yup. Because what the hell. Bittorrent has only been out what? A decade now? And the patent was issued what? 4 years ago? They should have been suing then.

No due diligence.
Click to expand...

the article said that the patent application was filed in 1999. It took 8 years to get approved/completed/whatever.
 
Just a patent troll with probably some big financing (media companies) behind them most likely. Their patent (approved in 2007) as some have pointed out is just a fancy rehash of XMODEM/YMODEM protocols which date back to the 80's. BT originated in 2001 so prior art is a pretty reasonable defense here so let them throw away their money.
 
Licensed, cross licensed, the companies are cutting their own throats and innovation all at the same time. Eventually companies quit innovating because of this garbage thats going on and hope to keep making money by collecting royalties for the rest of their life span. What a sad state were in.
 
even if this troll wins the case, how do they purpose to stop the use of bittorrent? especially when the source code,etc is out in the wild. good luck with that
 
Thats the part I don't understand.... it seems to be just another example of the governments lacking knowledge in computer software.
 
messerchmidt said:
even if this troll wins the case, how do they purpose to stop the use of bittorrent? especially when the source code,etc is out in the wild. good luck with that
Click to expand...

you think they want to stop it? They want the royalties.
 
End software patents.

The point of patents is innovation, but so many companies have built patent farms that it now stifles innovation.
 
fattypants said:
End software patents.

The point of patents is innovation, but so many companies have built patent farms that it now stifles innovation.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong innately wrong with software patents in and of themselves. The issue in this instance is a general issue with the patent system itself in that patents are no longer doing what they were designed to do which was distribute knowledge and encourage the distribution of knowledge by allowing protections for those that chose to distribute knowledge.

The fundamental problem is that in a lot of cases, patents aren't useful. They went from describing things and how to make things to generalized obfuscated cryptology. You could make something out of this patent, hell this patent doesn't have enough useful content to do anything. It also isn't specific enough.

So the fundamental issue is that patents need to be specific and concrete enough to serve as a viable blueprint for creating something and we've gone very much far afield of that not only in software patents but in almost all patents currently.
 
eh, fuckers have probably been waiting for some big company to start doing releases as torrents so they could sue.
 
Absentee said:
So they were granted a patent that is so broad that it could also describe every web browser that ever existed? or download manager, steam, etc...
Click to expand...

“The server, based upon this information, adaptively transmits a given media file stored therein to one or more clients using the optimal transmission speed and/or network protocol based on the network status information and protocol information,” the abstract adds.
Click to expand...

Except in BT there is no server transmitting a given file, it is distributed by the users.
 
So, essentially, the patent is "for an internet that doesn't run slow as shit"

So everybody's servers have to serve up files in the most disorganized way, sucking up as much extra bandwidth as possible, or they are violating the patent.
 
They need to rework the patent laws.
Simple tests like "did company x steal something from company y?"
No? Fuck you.
 
Well in any case as someone already pointed out that patent fails vs Bittorrent on that very basic "there is no server per se on Bittorrent", and in general it fails on, well, just being stupidly broad and OBVIOUS ...

i mean honestly there was no innovation at all on that patent and was granted most surely because the patent office has no idea at all about programming.
 
Aside from the fact that 99.999999999% of software patents should never be granted, this one seems to describe a delivery system that isn't the same as bit torrent.
 
They need to start requiring a specific implementation in patents. You should have to show how something is done and not just submit a broad random ass idea.
 
txaggies07 said:
They need to start requiring a specific implementation in patents. You should have to show how something is done and not just submit a broad random ass idea.
Click to expand...

Trouble is in the past, anything sounds exciting until the future, then you're all thinking "wow, that's too broad".

It's hard to predict the future. Patents that's unpredictable should be denied - to a point anyways.
 
Considering how many Bittorrent users there are out there, these people could make BILLIONS! I mean, we all know how eager BT users are to pay royalties...

Right?
 
Helicopter said:
Except in BT there is no server transmitting a given file, it is distributed by the users.
Click to expand...
So you've never used bittorrent...

There is definitely a server tracking the various users, and an initial server seeding the content to get the ball rolling.
 
Menelmarar said:
So you've never used bittorrent...

There is definitely a server tracking the various users, and an initial server seeding the content to get the ball rolling.
Click to expand...

I see you've never used bittorrent ...

There is no server hosting the file, your peers have the file(s) on their computers, and your BT client request pieces of that file from them, downloads those pieces from other users. There's no single server hosting the file. The tracker tracks, and connects the users that downloaded the torrent file, but it does not contain the file itself. The intial seeder is not a server, it's a user, and once the file has been downloaded by one or more people, the original uploader doesn't have to continue uploading for people to get the file.
 
Absentee said:
So they were granted a patent that is so broad that it could also describe every web browser that ever existed? or download manager, steam, etc...
Click to expand...
The "Claims" determine infringement, the abstract is less important.
1. A media distribution system, comprising:
a media file database configured to store media files, wherein one or more of the media files have been compressed prior to storage in the media file database;
a computing device configured to receive user requests for delivery of the one or more of the media files stored in the media file database,
-the computing device further configured to:
--identify average network throughput between computing device and the requesting users; and
--route the user requests for delivery of the requested one or more media files to a distribution server capable of servicing the user requests based upon at least the average network throughput;
and a distribution server coupled to the media file database,
-the distribution server configured to simultaneously deliver a single copy of the requested one or more of the media files identified in the routed user requests to the requesting users in less-than-real-time, wherein the distribution server automatically adjusts delivery of the requested one or more media files to the requesting users based on current average network throughput between the distribution server and the requesting users.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with how bit torrent stores its data. From the patent, it looks like this claim would require that the "media file" (MP3, etc) be stored in the "media file database." To me it sounds like this would require duplicate storage, i.e., you would have both an MP3 for your media player and a separate copy stored in the database. Does bit torrent create a new database with your MP3s or media files?
 
This is a huuge joke. Their distribution system matches larger web sites much better-- multiple servers with identical data in different parts of the world, if a user goes to their site they are routed to the closest server to get the webpage. Replace the word webpage with media file and the two systems are now the same.

Bittorrent is very different, its a huge stretch to compare them. The only thing in common is really it can be used to distribute a media file, LOL. Otherwise bittorrent really only has a single server (unlike their description of multiple servers), it has no data (unlike their description of duplicated data), clients do connect ot hte server (which is like their description and everything else about computers), clients then are directed to other clients (not other servers as they describe), but are not directed to some network-optimal client as they describe.

b;asldphgkas
 
black_b[ ]x;1037415804 said:
The "Claims" determine infringement, the abstract is less important.

I'm not familiar with how bit torrent stores its data. From the patent, it looks like this claim would require that the "media file" (MP3, etc) be stored in the "media file database." To me it sounds like this would require duplicate storage, i.e., you would have both an MP3 for your media player and a separate copy stored in the database. Does bit torrent create a new database with your MP3s or media files?
Click to expand...

No, BT doesn't store anything other that the torrent file. There is no server that is storing the files. Files are stored on users computers, and the BT client connects to the tracker, which coordinates the uploading, downloading, and management of the pieces of the files between peers.
 
not just software patents, all patents. People talk about how a laissez faire economy would fail because of monopolies

its hard to have monopolies without patents
 
cj3waker said:
not just software patents, all patents. People talk about how a laissez faire economy would fail because of monopolies

its hard to have monopolies without patents
Click to expand...
1. Who says monopolies are bad?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/25/new_heroes_vs_old_108645.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/18/enough_money__105615.html

But today we seldom even know the names of those who have made these monumental contributions to human well-being. All we know is that some people have gotten "rich" and that this is to be regarded as some sort of grievance.

Many of the people we honor today are people who are skilled in the rhetoric of grievances and promises of new "rights" at someone else's expense. But is that what is going to make a better America?
Click to expand...

2. It's not unheard of to have monopolies without patents.
 
Helicopter said:
No, BT doesn't store anything other that the torrent file. There is no server that is storing the files. Files are stored on users computers, and the BT client connects to the tracker, which coordinates the uploading, downloading, and management of the pieces of the files between peers.
Click to expand...

A tracker actually doesn't even need the torrent file, it just needs the hash and a list of peers. :p

An index site would host the torrent file.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top