Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the mine-now dept.

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.

41 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. In other words... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 4, Informative

    In other words, something like this?

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    1. Re:In other words... by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Basically.

      Every decent peer-to-peer transfer thing for the past decade has been modeled off BT, and no one's really been enable to improve upon it in any real way in order to stand out.

    2. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is obviousness. Since we're technical, any solution is obvious to us. Patents just restricts what we can make from our own ideas, since someone else might have patented it without our knowledge about it. Patents should only be granted for non-obvious implementations, otherwise it's just another trick to raise the bar to enter the market.

      If someone sees technical people as scaremongers, they are simply ignorant of potential technical troubles that can be avoided in advance by proper architecture and design. All the incentives are for damage control after the fact, rather than designing systems that just work (hero-culture). However, companies that do focus on quality and innovation, tend to outperform others (Apple), in those periods they are lead by competent people.

    4. Re:In other words... by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

      I have a few patents. They look good on a resume. The greatest amount of enforcement I've ever done is "Hey, I have a patent on this, so be sure to give me credit on your website or in your product manual".

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    5. Re:In other words... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Patents shouldn't be provided for software, period. The quality of the patents are generally poor and they are often patenting something that already exists somewhere. In the end in fast moving field, patents are more of hindrance than a benefit.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    6. Re:In other words... by cHiphead · · Score: 2

      The only troll here is you, AC.

      Patents are blatantly not-good and it has been long demonstrated as a detriment to 'innovation' and progress in the threads of this very site. At what point is enough enough?

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re: In other words... by slazzy · · Score: 1

      Agreeded. Software patents should be eliminated entirly. Some reform is needed in the rest of the patent system as well.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    8. Re: In other words... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The best reform would be to reduce IP lawyers to a tenth their current number.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:In other words... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The problem is obivousness. The patent office will not only grant a patent on peeling a pear with a knife but using a knife horizatanally instead of vertically, of fixing to knife to a stand and turning the pear around, of using a handle to make spinning the pear easier, of using two knives to core the pear at the same time as peeling it, of using a refrigerator to make the pear cold to make it easier to cut, of using different types of blades to achieve different cutting effect, repeat all the above with different blades to achieve different cuts. Of replacing the metal blade with a cermanic blade. Of using a belt to load the pears onto the device above. Of using a computer to control it all.

      And I could go on. The patent office would rubber stamp all of them.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    10. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Patents cover how something is done.

      What I consider a good patent covers how something is done. The inventor considers a "good" patent to be one that covers what is done. Enjoy spending a million bucks proving that the inventor's means plus function patent is invalid.

      For example, you could have a patent on how to peel a pear.

      "What is claimed is 1. A device for peeling pears comprising a platform, bowl, grip, or stand for holding the pear and a knife, peeler, katana, or razor for removing the skin of the pear"

      Bonus points for s/pear/fruit/, why limit my patent to peeling one kind of fruit that nobody peels anyway?

      If you want to oppose this patent then you have to actually read it

      1. An electronic-device-implemented method, the method comprising:
      * using the electronic device, generating a symmetric encryption key associated with a content item;
      * encrypting the content item using the symmetric encryption key;
      * encrypting the symmetric encryption key using a public encryption key for a recipient to generate an encrypted symmetric encryption key;
      * providing the encrypted symmetric encryption keys and information specifying the recipient to a synchronization computer that communicates, via a shared network, with at least one electronic device associated with the recipient;
      * and communicating the encrypted content item to instances of a client application executing on the at least one electronic device via secure peer-to-peer distributed sharing.

      (bullets added for readability)

      It looks like the main thing that is added here is providing the encrypted symmetric key to a "synchronization computer" that (I assume) sends the key to "at least one electronic device" that has the private key to decrypt the key. The claim does not define HOW the encrypted content item gets to the client application other than a vauge hand-waved "secure peer-to-peer distributed sharing".

    11. Re:In other words... by perlface · · Score: 1

      That's kind of the point of IP protection. You patent one way of doing X so I need to either license your way of doing X or figure out a different way of doing the X. The incentive to Innovate works both ways -- first mover gets the patent, subsequent movers figure out different, possibly better, ways to accomplish the same thing. (Or, they get permission to use the patented idea.)

  2. Oh look, a distributed object store. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just like IPFS. Or Freenet.

    1. Re:Oh look, a distributed object store. by sciengin · · Score: 1

      Or StorJ which is basically dropbox + p2p already.

  3. Fuck scribd by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:Fuck scribd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Fuck scribd by tepples · · Score: 1

      Right off the bat, [StumbleUpon users are] told to cough up your Facebook account or leave.

      I got "Or sign up with e-mail" below the Facebook button.

      It might depend on from what part of the world you are viewing the site, as I know another service (Gmail) makes a backup mobile phone number required or optional depending on the user's location. Where are you? I'm in the midwestern USA.

    3. Re:Fuck scribd by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      Fuck PDFs of blurry pictures that you can't even copy the text out of.

      So, for anybody who wants a link to the actually usable patent application text: Here's the actual text of the application.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  4. patent? by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    On this? Bittorrent Sync, anyone?

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    1. Re:patent? by suutar · · Score: 1

      depends if BTSync has the encryption stuff that's in all the claims of this patent. I suspect that's really the only novel part (if it is at all :)

  5. In other words, a software patent by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:In other words, a software patent by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      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.

      They're also banned in the US - there are no patents on pure software per se, which is the same rule used by the EU and everywhere else (including the AU and JP). Instead, this is a patent on a method of using an electronic device; a product that includes executable code; and a computer system including a processor, memory, and program module, and includes various additional limitations that apparently aren't taught or suggested by the prior art.

      Alternately, look at this and then come tell us again how software patents are banned in the EU.

      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.

      Copyright protects only that specific code. Rewrite the code, and it's not copyright infringement. TinyTower doesn't infringe the copyright of DreamHeights. Farmville doesn't infringe the copyright of FarmTown. Open Office doesn't infringe the copyright of Microsoft Office.
      Copyright is useful when someone wants that specific item: we want to see the latest Avengers movie, not some Bollywood "Revengers" knock-off (caveat: some of us want to see that). We want the latest Taylor Swift album, not Sailor Tift's album (caveat: some of us want neither). It's why movies and books and music are pirated - we want those exact items.
      But that doesn't apply to most software. In fact, copyright is generally useless for software, and particularly for business software: your average office worker doesn't care if they're using Numbers or Excel or Google Sheets, as long as the functionality is there and they're interoperable... and that means that the only way to really protect your business software, other than patents, is to require proprietary formats that aren't interoperable. And that's bad for consumers.

      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.

      As noted above, TinyTower/DreamHeights; Farmville/FarmTown; MS Word/Writer; Excel/Calc; etc., etc. Those all use the same exact ways to achieve the same effect, but because they don't actually involve copied code or graphics, they're not copyright infringements.

      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.

      Not at all - "software patents", like any patents, cover a specific implementation. In fact, claiming just the result - "the ends" - is unpatentable.

      In this case, the "ends" are sharing files. You claim that the patent covers every way to share files, right? Like "copying a file to disk and giving it to a friend"? Well, let's see... Nope. The word "disk" only shows up once in the specification and nowhere in the claims. Nor do the claims bear any relation to copying a file to a disk and sharing it. You couldn't possibly infringe the patent by copying a file to a disk and giving it to a friend, and therefore, no, the patent doesn't cover that.

      It seems like you don't actually understand what a patent is, or what parts of it are important. For example:

      So like the RIM patent debacle, this patent covers things unbelievably

    2. Re:In other words, a software patent by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      Yeah you're wrong on every point. That means you're trying.

      In the US software CAN be patented- purely virtual events which result in nothing more than a change in a computer screen or a change in state of a CPU can be the subject of a US patent. Exactly that is forbidden the EU.

      It is a well-worn talking point by patent lawyers, and a lame one, to assert as you did that since a computer is a machine and a computer screen is a machine then anything which effects those in a useful way are patents on machines and not software patents.

      >>that means that the only way to really protect your business software.

      Yeah, you protect your business by providing excellent software which is itself a natural barrier to entrance. It's a myth that anyone or any team can just rip a quick clone of any software. It's the kind f thing that people who don't know anything about software development think is true.

      If you look at the world of IDEs, people have very strong preferences for one over the other. There are no software patents involved protecting anyone. In fact, even giving away the stuff for free is NOT enough to make enough people switch from IntelliJ to Eclipse, for example, to put IntelliJ out of business. All with no software patents.

      Just as with extremely fecund and vigorous software ecosystem which existed in the 70s to the 90s caused the Cambrian explosion of software innovation which gave us the internet, word processes, spreadsheet, drawing programs, browsers, hyperlinks HTML etc. etc., the above case proves no one needs software patents to have a successful defensible business, not in the past and nto now.

      >>That's a figure from the patent, it's not what the patent covers. The only part of the patent that has legal weight are the claims

      The information provided in the drawings is exactly isomorphic tot he information provided in the claims. Patent lawyers know people have a hard time reading claims (by design.. patent language is a product of a priesthood which self-consciously seeks to protect itself by bartering in obscuritanism ) and like to make this argument also. If you read the claims and look at the diagrams, they are describing the same set of affairs, encryption keys and all.

      You're just undermining your position by revealing that a humdrum and natural application of encryption keys (what else are they for except exchanging information securely over a public network) is now off limits to everyone but Dropbox.

      >>Now the part that you seem to be confused about is that patents cover any way of doing that implementation - so, it's no different if you code it in C or C# or Swift or COBOL or Java, or if you make it big-endian rather than little-endian,

      You're minimizing the damage by presenting the scope of the limitations being imposed on other developers to only the most narrow (implementing language, big- endian etc) while in fact they are very much broader than that. To wit: there is no set of classes, no interaction between any objects and no alternative architecture of any kind which is permitted by this patent. Any implementation, no matter how different, which achieves the same effect by using the humdrum, run of the mill technique of exchanging encryption keys in ways which they were designed to be exchanged in circumstances and for reasons which make use of these keys a natural fit, is now forbidden. The use of encryption in this manner is now the personal property of Dropbox.

    3. Re:In other words, a software patent by perlface · · Score: 1

      EU does grant "software patents" (not that there is such a thing a "software patent") Many big software companies file patent applications for all their patents in US, EU, JP, DE, and China -- usually using the exact same application as they file in the US. http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Europ...

    4. Re:In other words, a software patent by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      What you're citing is an imperfection in the execution by the EU of the EU's own stated policy, not a public policy position by the EU. Big difference. Here is the EU's statment on software patents:

      Here's an example of a public statement from the EPO. This is from 2009:

              The EPO does not grant "software patents". The term itself is a misleading concept. Under the EPC a computer program claimed as such is not a patentable invention (Art. 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC). Inventions involving computer programs that implement business, mathematical or similar methods and do not produce technical effects (e. g. because they solve a business problem rather than a technical one) are not patentable, and no patents will be granted for such inventions in Europe.[1]

      Now compare that description of exclusions to Dropbox's patent. Dropbox's patent solves a business problem.

      Elsewhere, the EU explicitly states that software whose only effect is on a screen or CPU or other computer or part of a computer is NOT eligible. Their intent is clear.

      What you're doing is taking the existence of policy anomalies and presenting them as normative. They're not.

    5. Re:In other words, a software patent by perlface · · Score: 1

      I guess we almost agree.

      There really is no such thing as a software patent. Patent applications are rejected in the US all the time for trying to claim abstract ideas. Many of these applications are even more likely to be rejected in the EU, JP, and CN.

      However, US patent applications that many folks here would characterize as "software patents" are often allowed in the US and many of them get allowed in EU, JP, and CN virtually unchanged.

    6. Re:In other words, a software patent by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Yeah you're wrong on every point. That means you're trying.

      ... says the guy who cherry-picked and only responded to a few points here and there. You're conceding that I'm right on all the other ones, yes? For example, did you follow that link to Google Patents and see all of the thousands and thousands of issued European software patents? Or are you still a "denier==terrorist" per your signature?

      >>that means that the only way to really protect your business software.

      Yeah, you protect your business by providing excellent software which is itself a natural barrier to entrance.

      I notice you quoted me out of context and even modified the quote. Let's see the whole thing:

      ... that means that the only way to really protect your business software, other than patents, is to require proprietary formats that aren't interoperable. And that's bad for consumers.

      You completely disregarded the entire point about proprietary formats, which are bad for consumers. It's almost like you don't actually care about the public... a funny position for someone allegedly arguing against giant corporations.

      If you look at the world of IDEs, people have very strong preferences for one over the other. There are no software patents involved protecting anyone. In fact, even giving away the stuff for free is NOT enough to make enough people switch from IntelliJ to Eclipse, for example, to put IntelliJ out of business. All with no software patents.

      And what do those have? Proprietary formats! Just like I said, and you excised from my quote. Most people recognize that those are bad, and would prefer to freely be able to port their work between competing products.

      That's a figure from the patent, it's not what the patent covers. The only part of the patent that has legal weight are the claims

      The information provided in the drawings is exactly isomorphic tot he information provided in the claims. Patent lawyers know people have a hard time reading claims (by design.. patent language is a product of a priesthood which self-consciously seeks to protect itself by bartering in obscuritanism ) and like to make this argument also. If you read the claims and look at the diagrams, they are describing the same set of affairs, encryption keys and all.

      Translation: "You're right, Theaetetus. I was wrong when I claimed they were patenting a flow chart. They're actually patenting an implementation recited by the claims, and I don't know how to read those, so I was confused and pointed to the block diagram instead."

      No problem, and I'm happy to help you learn to read patent claims. They're actually not confusing at all, if you take your time. Honestly, the only words you may need to learn are "comprising" and "consisting".

      You're just undermining your position by revealing that a humdrum and natural application of encryption keys (what else are they for except exchanging information securely over a public network) is now off limits to everyone but Dropbox.

      Nope, I'm tearing apart your allegation that the patent prevents all file-sharing. You've now moved those goalposts to "a natural application of encryption keys" which certainly wasn't anywhere in your original post. Don't worry, we can all see the holes in the turf from where they used to be and will avoid tripping over them.

      Maybe you'll eventually even move the goalposts to what the patent actually covers, rather than claiming it covers the world... Oh, wait:

      To wit: there is no set of classes, no interaction between any objects and no alternative architecture of any kind which is permitted by this patent.

      You're now claiming this patent covers any "interaction between objects".
      Oooookay. Well, give you credit for doubling down. Not sure if it's going to actually convince anyone, though.

  6. Ahoy there! by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Ahoy there! Maties I'd say foorsooth that there Pirate Bay has prior art hard to starboard.

    Also software patents are of course far more stupid than even this post. Boiled down and removing "on a computer" maybe even the Enigma machine would be prior art to sending coded messages without going through a central point after being told how to send the messages by the central point.

  7. Who ever needed dropbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Transferring or syncing files over a network is easy enough. And I never ever needed a "third party" like dropbox. ftp, scp, rsync, http and others - take your pick.

    What will be next idiot thing - a "cloud service" for enabling "local storage" ?

    1. Re:Who ever needed dropbox? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Quite. This seems like a painfully obvious idea who's time perhaps has finally come. Aren't there already network file systems that do this kind of thing and have for perhaps decades already?

      I've always thought that every household PC should be part of some sort of backup cluster where every important file is copied to every machine. Most people don't use what space they have. So there's plenty of this "empty space" to exploit.

      I've done this for years myself on my own machines using relatively crude methods (rsync and cron).

      Multi-master replication is old news in some industries. So those algorithms are already available for anyone that wants to implement a local TimeMachine-Dropbox hybrid.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Who ever needed dropbox? by Imazalil · · Score: 1

      This lowers the bandwidth/data requirements for places that are already using Dropbox. Surely a terrible thing. Never have I heard of a company improving their product to the benefit of it's customers.

      Should they be getting a patent on this, probably not, but that is the game that is being played for the time being. Better them, who will actually use it, than some patent holding company who will hold it hostage.

      If you cannot see the benefits of network storage like Dropbox (or Google Drive / Skydrive / Box / OwnCloud) then I think you must just now be waking up from a coma.

  8. Re:git by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

    You may find git-annex useful as well (https://git-annex.branchable.com/).

  9. Re:Sampling bias by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Bullshit.

    We can appreciate how damaging this could be in other fields. Although you couldn't possibly be more clueless in terms of "how fast" other fields move. The problem with software is that nearly anything that gets patented is something that's already being done by 5 or 10 people or the entire f*cking industry.

    That said, trivial sh*t does get patented in other industries and it's bullsh*t too.

    If a medicore junior professional manages to come up with something in the course of their professional duties, that's not patent worthy. It's basically a variation on "undergrads could have re-invented it".

    With software it's especially problematic since software "inventions" are more likely to be disseminated and embedded on consumer products. Software is a more vulnerable and visible target.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  10. Not a patent - just an application by perlface · · Score: 1

    This is just a published application - not an issued patent. It hasn't even been examined yet. During prosecution the claims in this application are going to be significantly narrowed if this application is going to result in an issued patent.

  11. Re:Sampling bias by perlface · · Score: 1

    Intellectual Property/Patents have always been a cost/part of doing business. Traditional industries patent the hell out everything and they sue each other like crazy. Just because it isn't front page news like "Apple v. the World" doesn't mean it doesn't happen a lot. Not to mention Bio and Pharm. They are also very aggressive in protecting their IP.

  12. Step back from the ledge by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    Take a deep breath. This is only an application, not a patent. YOU still have an opportunity to participate in the process. A few hundred dollars and three little words, "I claim fire." get you a useless application for fire. Very broad claims in an initial application are not unusual and are often just the starting point for negotiating with the examiner. Hopefully the examiner will push back and get them to reality. The first claim is:
    1. An electronic-device-implemented method, the method comprising: using the electronic device, generating a symmetric encryption key associated with a content item; encrypting the content item using the symmetric encryption key; encrypting the symmetric encryption key using a public encryption key for a recipient to generate an encrypted symmetric encryption key; providing the encrypted symmetric encryption keys and information specifying the recipient to a synchronization computer that communicates, via a shared network, with at least one electronic device associated with the recipient; and communicating the encrypted content item to instances of a client application executing on the at least one electronic device via secure peer-to-peer distributed sharing.

    Note that every feature in a described claim must be present in your method before your method violates the patent. If you have specific prior art you should share that information by contacting the general counsel of DropBox at (415) 986-7057 and the USPTO Commissioner of Patents at 800-786-9199. Be sure to mention the application publication US20150358297 attached to applications 62008940 & 14/448972 and provide specific prior art citations (websites, brochures, publications, patents, industry standards, etc) that the patent examiner should consider. Be polite, get to the point and don't rant.

    General Counsel
    DropBox, Inc.
    185 Berry St #400,
    San Francisco, CA 94107

    and

    Commissioner for Patents
    P.O. Box 1450
    Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    Stop whining and write a letter. Seriously, if you don't participate, don't whine. Once a patent is issued it get much harder to make changes.

    1. Re:Step back from the ledge by perlface · · Score: 1

      link to USPTO preissuance prior art submission by efiling. http://www.uspto.gov/patent/in...

    2. Re:Step back from the ledge by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

      Great link periface, thanks.

  13. Re:Sampling bias by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    I get a kick out of Slashdot because it's mostly software developers who can see how destructive patents are in their own field, but not every other field. Every field is "fast moving" if you're actually paying close attention.

    I mention software because this is the field I know and understand the impact in. While it may be true in other fields too, I put in my vote where I see the damage. I'll let the experts in the other fields identify the damage that patents may or not be doing for their line of work.

    That being said, anything that doesn't have a physical element or specific physical implementation should probably also be red flags in the patent process.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  14. Er.. don't we already have that? by doccus · · Score: 1

    Frankly it simply sounds like the speil I heard for Bit Torrent when it first came out. I mean Word for Word.. not just *like* it. MAybe we do nead another similar format though.. if dropbox keeps this protocol below the radar. After all BT has just caught too much flac and it's not safe from prying eyes..

  15. Re:Sampling bias by Bengie · · Score: 1

    Software is very similar to art in its ability to quickly evolve. Software is entirely an exercise of the mind, and nearly all works builds from prior work. This makes it uniquely different than all other patent-able areas. Patents are meant to protect an implementation of an idea, but due to the abstract nature of software, software patents are used to protect the idea instead of the implementation.