Slashdot Mirror
Bittorrent and uTorrent Sued For Patent Violations
dutchwhizzman writes "Bittorrent and uTorrent have been sued for using certain techniques in their clients and the bittorrent protocol. From the article it appears technologies are being used that were submitted in a 1999 patent that was subsequently approved in 2007. This itself is not uncommon, but given the technologies involved, HTTP could very well be prior art, or it could violate at least part of the same protocol."
Software patents need to die. End of story.
Would this not also include Blizzard and their new way of updating/downloading games? They would seem to have far more wealth to go after than either of the two torrent providers.
I have a torrent... never mind!
They must be pretty confident that they'd win.
This is a real problem - much bigger than the usual story we hear about some big corporation maybe having to pay some amount of money.
Software, to be useful, *has to* be compatible with other software - exactly compatible for data formats, and a degree of similarity is needed in terms of interface and behaviour.
This is the real problem, and it can't be fixed by "reform" or higher standards (which are much talked about but never come).
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Interoperability_exceptions
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_with_neither_litigation_nor_threats
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patenting_around_what_will_become_essential
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Every company and community sued needs to follow a simple manta: WWLD?
That is What Would Larry (Ellison) Do (if sued over bullshit)?
He'd probably grind the patent troll into the ground until the CEO's family personally suffered for three generations.
The only solution to this behavior is to use the courts in such a way that patent trolls become personally afraid that someone is going to go so hard after their throat in court that even after they want to settle, they'll keep litigating until the troll is bankrupt and then go after the management's families and pick their bones clean in court.
... to infringe ("violate") *part* of a patent claim. Each claim at the end of a patent is separate. You either do everything one of the claims describes or you are missing something. If you do everything, you infringe the claim. If you are missing even one piece, you do not infringe.
HTTP may be prior art, but it is only *invalidating* prior art if it does everything that is described in the claims. New inventions necessarily build on old ones. There is nothing legally improper about claiming an invention that is based on something old. It is called an *improvement.*
The only one who created something from nothing was God. Everyone else has to work with what is already here.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
If this case is successful, I would think that many "managed file transfer" vendors and "WAN optimization" vendors might find themselves served next. In these industries, it is quite common to "serve up media files" using a file system, an optimized protocol and a separate database full of file information.
This is even worse than the usual bad patents I've seen. They have 20 pages of a very detailed description of their "preferred configuration". However, they say that it shouldn't be taken as a literal description of the system and that their patent is intended to be very broad. The claims are ridiculously broad and don't even reference the description of the system (apparently they were serious when they said that the description wasn't intended to be illustrative of their claims). The claims don't even make up half a page of text.
Look, I don't know much about patents, but surely there's no way such a bad patent can stand up in court... Can it?
Software patents need to die. End of story.
I can't access the article but, if I'm understanding this correctly, the part about the protocol is worse than a software patent. Protocol patents are very bothersome to me because in my mind they totally destroy the chance a competitor has to interface with your product. And in doing so it really hinders innovation and integration. It's very easy to see how a simple ploy can result in people being "bought in" to a line of products even though a better competing line may come along. This vendor lock-in or competitor lockout (whatever you want to call it) is a very serious problem in my line of work (ever had your boss demand that you "decrypt" .doc files from years ago?).
... but I think there have been many examples where this simply hasn't happened. Even now people don't realize/recognize this problem when they look for a solution to their needs. Massive companies seem fine with using proprietary protocols because they are of higher quality than the more open competition. I've seen cost/benefit studies where openness (protocol or software) doesn't even factor into the final scores of the products.
Now, the common counter argument is that people would simply just buy products without patent laden protocols
I think a good concrete example would be if Samuel Morse had patented not only the telegraph machine (his particular device design) but also the Morse Code protocol and sued anybody using that alphabet to send messages. Do you think telegraphy would have progressed as quickly if that had been the case?
My work here is dung.
Yes, there is lots of waffle in the Patent - this is actually good as it is often unusual for patents to offer this level of detail.
No, it has no reference to HTTP itself, which is a point to point data transmission system.
The claim to break/ challenge is the first one; all the others are dependent claims and moreover the dependent claims would all be regarded as obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art (of IT).
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 networkthroughput 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 networkthroughput; 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 requestingusers 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.
One way of breaking the claim is that the patent is only for 1 media file database and one distribution server in claim 1, and a second media file database and distribution server in claim 14. None of the actual claims are for 'n' media file databases and 'm' distribution servers where n != m or n equal to m and greater than two. If this idea is novel I've just published it and officially open source it ;-)
Incidentally, saying in the description that their patent is intended to be very broad don't make it so; only the specific claims matter, so you're right in that the initial waffle is not helpful to their patent.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Or that his name would still be so well known? Just imagine if what's-his-name - you know, the web guy - had attached his name to HTTP. I'd remember who he is without having to look it up via the web.
I think I comprehend your point but I must be missing your joke. I know who Sir Tim Berners-Lee is and every time he postulates about the future, it's a Slashdot headline. If you're referring to the licensing of the Gopher protocol (a topic I've often commented on) I can assure you nobody remembers nor cares who it was that attached their names to the Gopher protocol. All that's left of it is a torrent archive (that my recent findings picked out three hilariously old trojan/dialers from).
Perfect example of the futility and backwardness of patenting protocols. Quality debates aside, it would have been nice to get an earlier start on the early growing pains of the web.
My work here is dung.
The things mentioned are just programs ... a description of a process. Wouldn't they have to sue the individual users? After all, you can't be sued for having a copy of a patent. You have to have some sort of implementation to infringe.
Under US patent law, you can be liable for infringement for using the claimed invention (like the individual users), or for making or selling the invention, like the BitTorrent company.
Also, no, they aren't mentioning just programs. The claims recite "a media distribution system" including a media file database, distribution server, and computing device configured to perform specified functions. So there is an implementation there.
Incidentally, that also suggests a way out for BitTorrent: while they may provide a media file database and distribution server software, they don't provide a computing device... the user does. And joint infringement is really difficult to prove.
This suit isn't about money, exactly. Bittorrent, Inc. are not your typical "deep pockets", so it's not as though the troll hopes to make a lot of money by suing them. In fact, the only way this makes business sense is as an obstructive competition tactic. Let's see... who would stand to benefit by tripping up Bittorrent, Inc.? Hmmm...
If someone were to follow the money, it wouldn't surprise me much to find out that our good friends in the old-fashioned media offered to pick up the legal tab to prosecute this. That's about the only thing that makes sense.
Some googling revealed that BitTorrent is being sued by Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network from San Francisco, CA . They also have a public listed phone number and web address.
Its CEO is Scott Redmond, http://www.scottredmond.com/
His personal page is kind of LOL... this guys really thinks he is a genius who solved all the world's problems. What a douche.
He is also making an ass of himself in this article http://gizmodo.com/5737088/the-greatest-scam-in-tech-scott-redmond-would-like-us-to-clarify
From his site: (lolquotes incoming)
Few may know who Scott Douglas Redmond is, but his client's and
employers know he is the engine behind their most spectacular innovations
and projects.
+ According to the U.S. Patent Office and industry press; Scott Douglas Redmond's
efforts are always first-to-market with designs & products that are decades
ahead of the competition.
+ Mr. Redmond hold's an extensive issued patent and pending patent portfolio
of historically seminal patents.
+ Mr. Redmond has project managed or executive led projects with multi-million
dollar budgets and hundreds of thousands of end-users, for his client's and
employers.
+ Mr. Redmond's developments have become industry standards:
First to develop, patent & demo particulated file media delivery. Now the global
standard for large file delivery.
First to develop, patent & demo integrated VR, wearable simulation & immersive
network PC-based simulation/visualization.
First to develop, patent & demo mobile media device PDA form factor and architecture
and to demonstrate VOD on HP IPAQ PDA.
First to develop, patent & demo Internet movie/music-on-demand system for personal
computers.
First to develop, patent-author & demo online green home building design-to-build
technology.
First to show iPhone wearable VR headset.
First to present Internet VOD to the largest film studios in Hollywood.
(see product documentation & client references on this link)
+ World leader in conceptual blockbusting & innovation contracts.
+ Ricipient of multiple White House & Congressional commendations.
+ Awarded over 200 project contracts by Fortune 2000 & Government 100 leaders
since 1978.
+ Recipient of hundreds of letters of reference and acclaim (as shown in the
attached links) from industry and government leaders (Multiple
administrations), Mayors (multiple administrations), Fortune
1000 leaders, Government Agency heads, Community organization executives,
State assemblies, and many more...
+ Over 2000 radio, TV, newspaper and other media items have been generated
by our client's press offices to positively document our past projects for them. While
Few may know who Scott Douglas Redmond is, many have seen the successful projects
he has helped deliver for his client's and investors.
Canada probably could. Certainly have the space, the similar climate, the same language, and the food capacity to feed that many refugees.... but you'd have to learn to be polite, and to make fun of Americans for their silly backward laws.
He's a moron. He didn't read the patent at all. He just said "Suing BitTorrent? The only thing I know about torrents is they split files into chunks and do an error check on each chunk! XMODEM does that too! So clearly a patent on any part of BitTorrent must be on the only part I know anything about, so the patent MUST apply to XMODEM too!". The patent is about load balancing. BitTorrent load balances because you'll request chunks from peers that aren't busy, as opposed to ones that are saturating their link already. XMODEM doesn't do that at all. (How could it redirect the modem line to a different computer, anyways?)
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
The patent's abstract (a bit long to quote here) sounds like Akamai's business plan.
The patent was filed in October 1997. According to the company's history Akamai's founders were finalists in a 1998 MIT competition. Given that these things don't take shape instantaneously, there's a fighting chance they've got some documentation of prior art that would shoot down this claim forthwith.
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
Harper got a majority, you may want to reconsider.