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...

[sexconker]

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.

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.

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:In other words...

[Midnight Thunder]

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.

Re:In other words...

[cHiphead]

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?

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.

Re:Fuck scribd

[Qzukk]

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.

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...

Re:In other words, a software patent

[Theaetetus]

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