Dropbox Obtains Peer-To-Peer File Sharing Patent (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Cloud-based file hosting giant Dropbox has patented a new synchronization technology which could allow users to use a peer-to-peer network to securely share and collaborate on documents without the need to store them in the company's centralized servers. The patent application details how the system could allow back up to a range of media to multiple devices simultaneously, cutting the need for users to constantly upload and download from remote hardware. Dropbox argues that the development of peer-to-peer distributed sharing could boost content download speeds, eliminating bottlenecks, therefore increasing the speed at which content can be shared among individuals.

Comments

In other words...

[EmeraldBot]

In other words, something like this?

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents cover how something is done. Not what is done. For example, you could have a patent on how to peel a pear. If the patent said "use a knife and go round and round the pear" then it would be valid, even if someone else had already explained "peel the pear by using a knife making repeated strokes down the pear".

If you want to oppose this patent then you have to actually read it and see if someone else has already published something which uses the same method to achieve peer to peer synchronisation as the method that Dropbox's patent uses.

It's very dangerous when some opponents of patents get this wrong because then everyone characterises us as ignorant of the patent system. We seem like scaremongers because we are claiming that "nobody will be able to peel pears" when it's obvious to people with knowledge that peeling pears with strokes down is not patented. In fact the problem is different. If you accidentally make a machine which peels round and round, then the person with the patent can sue you even though you had no benefit from or knowledge of their patent.

Oh look, a distributed object store.

[SuricouRaven]

Just like IPFS. Or Freenet.

Fuck scribd

[NotInHere]

Fuck scribd, I can't even really read in their interface. A third of my screen is covered by their various bars etc. And on android (where I've originally read it) they only let me "read further" if I install their app. So, I've tried to download it as pdf, but what happened? They asked me to create an account. With facebook. Man, it seems like every bad thing about the startup age accumulated.

So, for anybody who wants a link to an actually readable pdf: http://www.freepatentsonline.c...

Re:Fuck scribd

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally find it is becoming more and more difficult to simply browse websites. Before we even get into the new trend of awful "UX" innovation, sites themselves are larger, and thanks to the explosion of CSS scripting, take several seconds to render. This is most noticable when switching to older PCs or less powerful notebooks, but really everything is affected. The deliberate delays induced by ad software only compounds this.

Now, more and more sites require Facebook logins or emails on the main pageStumbleUpon. Right off the bat, you're told to cough up your Facebook account or leave. This isn't a new trend, but it is accellerating. The "app" version of this on mobile, combined with rubbish UX design, effectively make web browsing on mobile devices an unrewarding chore.

Reflecting on it, it's shocking how far backwards the basic interface of the internet has gone over the last, say, nine years. The principal point of departure was undoubtedly the arrival of the iPhone in 2007, accellerating with the iPad in 2010. I keep hoping this is all just a phase that tech will grow out of, but now that an entire generation of programmers and designers has come of age knowing little else, it's going to be a lot harder to get the web back to the way it used to be.

In other words, a software patent

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Yeah, otherwise known as a "software patent". It's worth clarifying what a software patent is not, the better to understand what it is and why it's so pernicious and why they're banned (yes, they are) in the EU and pretty much everywhere else in the world except AU. and JP.

Software patents are not patents on specific ways for causing a machine to perform a useful function. That type of IP is the IP we call "copyright". Copyright does prevent your code, your (virtual) machine, from being ripped off.

So with copyright you're not issued a patent on the concept of any wheel, you're issued a patent on your wheel's unique and specific implementation. If you stop and think about it, it's a really amazing how well copyright serves as the natural vehicle for IP in the computer industry. You cannot just steal another person's original work. Stealing includes *near copying with just a few things changed*. You have to find a relatively original way to achieve the same effect, but the *idea* of what you're doing is not patentable. Copyright naturally delivers all that to computer IP.

Software patents are patents on all ways to cause a machine to perform a generally describable function. It's not the specific implementation performing the useful function that is being protected- it's the ability to achieve the same ends in any way whatsoever.

So like the RIM patent debacle, this patent covers things unbelievably abstract and covers things like this:

http://torrentfreak.com/images...

For people who don't follow links, it's a picture of little labeled boxes representing computers, with arrows being drawn between the little boxes to signify what info gets passed between what computers and when. That's what they're patenting. That's what the patent in the 750 million dollar RIM/NTP case did- took THIS info out of a data base NOW and sent it to THAT computer who did THIS with that info.

That's right folks, we are patenting flowcharts. Read it and weep-

https://www.scribd.com/doc/294...

This is exactly why in the EU computer-related inventions must control some physical, industrial process and then only that physical industrial process is patented, not the code which drives it. Otherwise you're patenting processes defined by flowcharts. You're patenting results. You're patenting ideas.

We know for a fact we don't need these patents for software to progress and for companies to becomes powerful, even monopolistically so, since prior to 1987-1990 or so very few software patents were permitted. Yet we had the invention of EVERYTHING and we had gigantic corporations reaping huge profits also.

This is about regulatory capture and the corporate coffers it fills (with what would have otherwise been your money).

https://news.vice.com/article/...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

https://www.techdirt.com/artic...