uTorrent / BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement

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.

utorrent By now we’ve become accustomed to copyright infringement lawsuits, where people are suspected of illegally distributing movies and music using BitTorrent.

However, according to a lawsuit filed at a U.S. District Court this week, BitTorrent is also an infringement in its own right.

Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network filed a complaint at the court this week where it alleges that BitTorrent is infringing on a patent originally filed in April 1999. The company claims to have suffered significant losses and wants to be compensated for the ongoing patent infringement.

“By making, operating, using and/or selling [uTorrent and BitTorrent Mainline] and or other software, BitTorrent has infringed and continues to infringe, contribute to the infringement, or induce the infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’944 patent,” the complaint reads.

The patent in question is titled “Media file distribution with adaptive transmission protocols” and was granted in November 2007. It describes a file-sharing system consisting of a file database, a transfer client and a distribution server.

“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.

The above is certainly not how most people would describe BitTorrent, but its is up to the District Court Judge to assess the validity of the patent infringement claim. Aside from BitTorrent Inc., Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network have also sued Kontiki Inc. on similar grounds.

Kontiki offers a media content delivery technology that is hybrid of central servers and P2P transfers. Unlike BitTorrent Inc, Kontiki’s user base mostly consists of businesses who can use the software to stream and distribute video. According to the complaint, this software also infringes on the aforementioned patent.

Although it’s not easy for an outsider to assess whether the case holds water or whether it’s classic patent trolling, the fall-out could spread far and wide.

Together, the two BitTorrent clients mentioned in the lawsuit have a user-base of more than 100 million users worldwide. If BitTorrent Inc. is suddenly required to pay royalties for each and every download, this will drastically impact the company’s operations. Not to mention the spill-over effect it may have on other BitTorrent software companies.

BitTorrent Inc. was asked for a comment on the lawsuit, but TorrentFreak was told that the company currently has nothing to add.

The complaint

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

BiBi

lol-rofl ahhhhh……
- Anonymous
  
  This sort of news infuriates me, don’t know what you are laughing about.
  “Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network” and all it’s workers and owners should be given the death penalty for crimes against humanity. They should die by hanging, the electric chair or drowning…. even burnt at the stake.
  Now… where did i put my clicker to launch the missiles towards their houses.
  - Anonymous
    
    lol calm down. This is just an attempt to kill uTorrent. Worst case scenario, uTorrent isn’t updated anymore…
    - Anonymous
      
      Their stupidity infuriates me. But they should still be jailed for crimes against humanity. People go to jail for stopping a train or airplane… what about stopping the human progress and evolution? Or plotting to stop it…
      
      First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
      
      Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
      
      Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
      
      Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
    - Barack Overseer Obama
      
      Trackers themselves may be infringing the patent.
      Utorrent’s updating system and data reaping seem to be on trial, for therein lies the patents description.
      It is like that company that sued google for having a hashed db and comparisons being made against an un-hashed list.
      IE you run a site and encrypt the passwords, or email addy’s, you broke the law.
      Has anybody patented the morse code transmission protocol?
      A vague description of binary and how to apply it, you could be a billionaire….
    - find the comic
      
      I believe a patent has been granted for breathing as well. Palmface…
      
      anyone care to tell me what the purpose of copyrights that last perpetually
      are / is?
      
      or why the patent office has high school dropouts reviewing technical papers.
      
      “i would be the funniest guy at nasa if it weren’t for math. how much fuel does the spacecraft need? ok, how many people are going up, 6? so… 6 people in the shuttle. ugh… 6 divided by some type of root… uuuh… I got fill it up. what’d you get” comic
  - curmudgeon
    
    If anybody understands technology, they’d be laughing too and loathe this patent troll.
    
    Let us evaluate the complaint
    
    “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 above patent is NOT original and is worthless. Why? Because what it described is a goal of every internet protocol ever invented or enhanced.
    
    “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,”
    
    This is also bullshit. If my ISP is shaping UDP traffic, it makes perfect sense to ask my application to try and use TCP if the network speed is good. A fucking moron can with half a brain would understand and program that.
    - Jon7272
      
      your asuming the judges have half a brain lol
    - http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja
      
      At least they succeeded with distinction in amusing us and making us rofl.
      
      I foresee a big epic fail from a big moronic patent troll. Reminds me when some Japanese company tried to patent a tree or some vegetable in Brazil that had particular properties that could be used commercially. They obviously failed.
  - Anon
    
    They should do all that to you first so that you don’t use up any more precious oxygen because you don’t deserve to with that vile mentality of yours.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PXX4S66KOUIGIKTTIMV3CBGO7Y Colin

While not knowing the merits or otherwise of Tranz-Send Broadcasting’s case, it’s worth remembering that patent trolls are out there to stifle competition and fatten up their bank accounts. They have almost as little morality as the MAFIAA.
I’ve never understood though, how software can be patented rather than copyrighted. After all, programs are WRITTEN, just like books and music
- Oeb201
  
  Because copyright protects originality or the author rather than the inventive aspect of coding.
  
  Analogy with business models, you can patent a business model, but just because you wrote it down doesn’t mean you can copyright it.
  - AB
    
    If you’ve developed, code copyrights make a lot more sense. It protects the individual without stifling the re-usability of code.
    - http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja
      
      That. Because a freak has invented one small piece of code that alone is complete and utter crap but along with a few tweaks it kicks ass then the company/individual that tweaked and made it truly useful has to pay for the half-assed work of the first moron as if the tweaked thing belonged to the moron, not the tweaker?
      
      Agreed. Re-usability is the word here.
  - merethan
    
    “just because you wrote it down doesn’t mean you can copyright it.”
    
    Nobody can copyright things. That’s why it is called a “right”, because your government grants it to you. You own the copyright on any original material you make.
    - Apsend
      
      Your government doesn’t “grant” rights. It violates them under prescribed circumstances. Copyright is government-granted privilege (the privilege to use the force of the state to protect your monopoly for a certain period of time).
- Anonymous
  
  Well its easy to get round just move to the UK software patents don’t do vary well here.
Mr.Afghanistan

say WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT ?????????? :)

Yea, No one was waiting for this SH!T :P
Sued UTorrent for ? UTorrent was/is created for legal propose, so if someone uses it for illegal file sharing, UTorrent is not blamed.

Car is for driving, if someone take the car and rob a bank, companies will sue Car companies ?

This is a really stupid move, can’t believe court even accepted this :P
- http://www.facebook.com/orfetheo Orfeas Theofanis
  
  they didn’t sue utorrent for infriging copyright through illegal media distribution, they sued them because they used a patent which “belongs” to those unknown guys.
  I don’t understand though, how could they lose profit because of utorrent? Do they have a bittorrent client which lost clients to utorrent?
  - Friend of the People
    
    It sounds like that might be the case. However, that isn’t really relevant here. The courts aren’t going to care whether anyone lost profits over the infringement, they’re going to care about the patent violation itself. I honestly have no idea if their claim has any merit, but I guess we’ll find out.
    - http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja
      
      Based on their generic description it’s more like “ARRRR, ALL OF THE INTERNETZ ARE BELONG TO US!!”
      
      But that’s for us, the people, to say that. Take the people away and the internetz is no more. Not as it is today at least.
  - Anonymous
    
    Their alleged damages were because bittorrent inc.
    a) has not paid them a licensing fee
    b) made the technology open and available for all to implement meaning
    c) lots of people can use the technology any time they want, without paying them a fee
    
    It’s fairly standard in patent troll cases
    - Lol
      
      if people have to pay ..wouldnt there be a cracked copy of utorrent on the net .
    - Anon
      
      It seems anything that anyone creates and tries to make money off is considered “trolling” in this site? Patenting a technology is very much legal and those who wish to use a patented technology must pay licensing fees. Standard practice!
      
      I guess you are the kind who feels as if you are the only person who should make any money and those who invent or create stuff don’t deserve to make any money and should be labelled as trolls.
    - Dinkydodo
      
      Show me the code. If they don’t have a working example of the concept they are claim ownership of, then how can they possibly patent it? If it’s truly possible to patent an ‘idea’ without ever implementing the idea in the real world (or even planning to), then anybody can patent ANYTHING.
    - http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja
      
      Anon lost the point. Epically.
- Haxor
  
  so the next gen is to make cars that you dont drive you tell where to go….and they all have built in cameras and you get in a car with a bag it wants to see in it.ELSE no go….thats the worold your going to live in not me.
http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

lol – another bunch of LOSr’s try the copywrong scam, but escalate it to Patent law instead.

“Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network…alleges that BitTorrent is infringing on a patent originally filed in April 1999.”

OK so it takes this Company a mere 12 years to realise they have competition, and instead of recognising that they go on the offensive because ….. why exactly?

Who are these people? I’ve never heard of them. Are they so famous and popular even a hermit like me has overlooked their superior position? Have I been missing out on their excellent service for so many years that I now need to cry myself to sleep at night?

I think not.

This stinks of yet another conspiracy and very possibly DoH/ICE-financed. Oh gosh, we all need to stop our torrents now and d/l these Trannies immediately – otherwise the USA’s jackboots will trade all over your rights without prejudice.
- Abunchofgibberish
  
  It’s just a blanket patent case. These are far from uncommon, and most of them don’t go anywhere. Calm down.
- Sdfsd
  
  Rob luvs it up the a$$. Queer drinks man cum.
Lksd

2007 – 2011, the company was waiting four years to sue BitTorrent, any ( right in mind ) judge will see this as an opportunistic behaviour for financial gain.

But I guess judge is already paid fucking huge ammount of money, and case is already lost.
- Ven
  
  Patent trolls tend to farm patents in hopes of something coming back around to them. It is quite possible that this company has tens of thousands of patents, and that this specific patent has been buried for years and only reread recently.
Guest

They would still have to prove that they were financially damaged in the past 6 years.
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Patent_infringement
- Friend of the People
  
  Not for a patent violation claim. All they have to prove to damage the bittorrent networks is that a violation happened. If they want money from it, they have to give some evidence of financial damages in the past 6 years, but given that the case originated from 2006 violations, that shouldn’t be a problem.
  
  You shouldn’t worry about the money the companies might have to pay; worry more about the damage that will be done to their networks if infringement is proved. Worry about the precedent it will set.
- Anonymous
  
  That’s easy to do in this case, assuming the judge finds the infringement valid. In publicly distributing the technology and encouraging others, they’ve effectively granted licenses for technology that wasn’t theirs.
Anonymous

Also, considering BitTorrent was around long before this patent was granted, uTorrent itself is prior art.
- Anonymous
  
  What?
  
  >Bram Cohen designed the (BT) protocol in April 2001 and released a first implementation on July 2, 2001
  
  How is that prior to 1999?
  - Anonymous
    
    Oops. I see, you said ‘granted’ not ‘filed’.
    
    Still, it was filed before the BT protocol was designed.
    - Nick_T
      
      I don’t know how the law works, but my guess is Bram didn’t wake up on July 2nd and begin coding the BT protocol, releasing it later that day. My guess is he was working on it for a few years prior to that – hopefully there is some documentation of that point – if it even matters.
    - Ven
      
      @Nick_T
      
      It would take a great deal of developmental history for a judge to decide that the BT protocol was evolved enough to officially pre-date the patent. In situations like this the courts tend to side with the patent. That being said, I don’t see this patent having any chance of nailing BT for infringement.
    - https://profiles.google.com/102432457445671616212 antoine
      
      The development process need to be public for it to be used as prior art. Did he ever publish a website or an article during his development process?
radioman

another nonsence in nonsence based world ;/
Abunchofgibberish

So can someone out there please just patent the idea of recorded music and sue the RIAA for infringing on it? I honestly don’t see how this hasn’t been done yet.
Phil Landry

This is complete bullscrap.
Zzzzz

Software patents are retarded.
- http://twitter.com/JessiDarko Jessica Darko
  
  I hear that a lot, but I don’t hear anyone calling for a constitutional amendment to change things. This leaves me with the impression that people want the disclosure of patents but aren’t willing to tolerate the compensatory exclusive use. If that’s not the case, start working for an ammendment, and propose something better.
  - ForegonedLogic
    
    “I hear that a lot, but I don’t hear anyone calling for a constitutional amendment to change things.”
    
    Uhhh….. wtf is the relevance?
    
    SOFTWARE PATENTS are a recent invention, that can be dealt with, and so without an outright constitutional amendment.
    - Ven
      
      They are still defined as intellectual property, entirely defended by the constitution. They will always be defined that way, so the change necessary would need to happen within the constitution.
      
      It’s almost impossible to change anything legally on any specific form of IP protection – it’s all or nothing.
    - Anon
      
      Why are software patents retarded? You haven’t given one compulsive reason in favor of that statement. Software patents are equally important as hardware patents for businesses to compete and survive. That’s why we have many proprietary technologies which are only offered by certain companies and its the main selling point of their products.
      
      Both software and hardware patents aim to protect technologies or unique devices invented by an individual/company so that other companies or individuals can’t cash in years worth of development, hard work and money that went into research, just like that. Sounds perfectly legitimate to me.
      
      Only freeloaders that don’t have what it takes to come up with an original concept or technology are against patents.
    - Ted Lemon
      
      The Constitution says “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” It never mentions “intellectual property,” and for good reason: patents and copyrights are not property. They are government grants (subsidies) to inventors and authors which serve to encourage them to invent or write.
      
      Software patents are an innovation on the part of the USPTO from the mid-80′s. Nobody except lawyers wanted them. They do not reward innovators. They reward lawyers. They have been hugely remunerative for people who suck money out of companies that do things that actually benefit people. They are simply a frightening headache for people who actually innovate, because we never know when we’re going to step on a land mine, but we do know that we are walking blindfolded in a mine field.
    - Travelman
      
      The fact that the patents often apply to methods that aren’t unique.
- http://openid-provider.appspot.com/collection60@googlemail.com Collection60
  
  I’ve invented a few algorithms… which unlike really simplistic methods of doing stuff that is obvious to anyone making a media server… well my algorithms are new and original and hard to make and useful and all that shit.
  
  I don’t mind people using my algorithms. As long as I get proper attributation.
  
  I would never stop someone using my algorithms, anymore than I would enjoy someone to stop me from learning algebra without having to pay them a few dollars each time I solve an equation.
  
  I should give thanks to those who invented algebra. But I shouldn’t be stopped from doing it or have to pay anyone to do it. Knowledge is free.
  
  On the other hand, knowledge can be stolen, if someone uses it and pretends they invented it :( So… thats where “proper attributation” comes in. :)
  - Anonymous
    
    “f someone uses it and pretends they invented it”
    
    That’s called lying. Calling lying stealing doesn’t prove knowledge can be stolen. :P
    
    /OverlyAnalyticalHere
r3loaded

It’s not a big deal, software patents have very little weight outside of the US, and are actually disregarded in the EU thanks to a directive passed a few years ago.
DoNotPrankJesus

So,.. they want to stop the bleeding by stopping the heart.. ??
Oh I see. no other way to stop this file sharing revolution.
Anonymous

I first heard about the many to many transfer method back in 1991 during higher education. It does not take much work to see a tracker is needed to put it all together.

So was my teacher the owner of this concept? No… when the idea has been about since network transfers have existed.

So to wait until 1999 to 2007 is much too little and much too late.

Even BitTorrent has been around longer than this patent. Just tell these greedy fuckers to stick it up their ass.
- Anon
  
  Patent violators are the ones who are greedy mofos. They can’t even pay licensing fees in exchange for using a technology invented by someone else.
  - Test
    
    You really can not see it? The patents are so general that they apply to anything,
    Take for example the squid proxy that was released as 1.0 in 1996, and used multicast for syncing media, and unicast to the client. Should they pay as well, even though they made their code several years before this patent.
    
    And then asking for a jury court is just even more proof that they know that the patent dont hold up, but they might be able to convince some people who knows nothing about computers that they have invented something at all.
    
    Though the greedy mofos are the attonies and members of the patent office who make money from leagal childs play with no real substance.
Fantastic

Hrmmm

Tranz Send Broadcasting Network

500 Pine St
San Francisco, CA 94108
415-263-0949

anyone want to see if they still have an active office at this given location? According to google maps its just a vacant lot but I know its accuracy is spotty sometimes.
coffeeright

Mehh, interesting. This reminds me of that movie, “The Social Network,” in a way. But lol. Wow.
Meh

Reeks of a “Patent Troll” scam. This’ll be old news by next week.
Donotreply

I believe this is another copy of the patent in question:

http://www.google.com.au/patents?id=pOmcAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false

Not a lawyer; Just my opinion.

My brief perusal of the patent indicates to me a system where the server communicates with each end user machine (after they accessed the server and paid for the files to be transmitted), works out what % of the files requested has been transferred then which packet (part of the file) to send it next. The purpose of the system overall being to transmit a single copy of pre-encrypted video/media files to many end users at once; of which the files are purchased by the end users who then download, decrypt and play them back on media players.

In an abstract view it is rather similar to the way a torrent operates (files can be pre encrypted/compressed and transmitted to several end users without the need of having multiple copies of the same file on the originating server, these files can then be decrypted and played bu the end users); however I haven’t seen any mention of a direct client to client (nor a tracker/announce server to make clients aware of each other and actively transferring parts of the same files [that is 2 client machines with the opposing 50% of a file on each of them being aware and transmitting to each other to complete the file on each PC]) transfer protocol present within the patent.

It mentions throughout the patent the requirement of the originating file being located on a central server, which is akin to a one-to-many network [an origin media server with the one file being shared to many users; where no file due to file removal or server failure taking it offline means users can not receive the file] as opposed to the many-to-many network [those 2 PCs with opposing halves of the same file making up the 1 file can proceed to obtain the opposing copy from the relevant PCs thanks to being reachable via announce URLs where the original seeder has removed the file or via DHT/non centralised user tracking within the bittorrent protocol itself] that we see with bittorrents atm ).

Above is just my opinion (I am not a lawyer) and would certainly be different than that which may be reached by yourselves (I rarely read patents) and even more so by the judge whom may in future pass down an end decision on the matter.

Interesting times await but in the meantime… could someone kindly pass me some popcorn please =P

/bad attempt at a humorous end of post
- Whatever
  
  You got the main point there.
  
  Bittorrent is “client to client” (W95 already did p2p on LAN) instead of a client-server scheme.
  
  Or you could just state they patented SMB protocol from Microsoft with restrictions.
  
  They would be more likely to be succesfull in sueing Steam, iTunes or some video service which are all more similar than anything with bittorrent. As the MAFIAA will do anything to destroy torrent it isn’t too far fetched they are trying a “SCO” (but then MAFIAA paid instead of Microsoft paid) type attack against torrent.
Izkata

Unfortunately, that sounds exactly like what the courts seem to think torrents do…
Guest

Their patent was originally filed in 1999, but wasn’t approved until 2007. I just did a quick search, and it looks like the “average” backlog is about 2-3 years for a patent to be approved after all the proper documentation is provided. Assuming that, it would seem that they weren’t able to get things in order/finalized until 2004 or 2005, over three years after Cohen released the initial BT version. So from 1999 until at least 2004, the best Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network could claim was “Patent Pending” which has no legal status in the US.

So if all the above is true, the question becomes: is the patent valid if it was granted after someone else had been making the subject of the patent for several years? My opinion? No. Can I go patent a “transportation device using a means of motion and a source of propulsion” and sue all the automotive manufacturers?

Even if the patent is valid, the fact that they’ve waited four years to claim damages seems sketchy. BitTorrent is widely known (especially in technology circles) so it’s unlikely they weren’t aware of it. Aren’t companies legally required to go after infringers quickly in order to protect their patents? Or am I thinking of trademarks or some other, similar legal construct?
- Ven
  
  “Even if the patent is valid, the fact that they’ve waited four years to claim damages seems sketchy. ”
  
  If the holder of a pending patent notifies the infringing party, and the infringement continues, then they can sue for damages and have them fined etc.etc… In the case of an awarded patent, no such notification needs to be made.
  
  So if the Judge decides that the BT protocol does not pre-date the patent, they will be held liable for those 4 years of damages.
  - ForegoneLogic
    
    Unless of course the patent is then challenged – I’m sure technologies from the 70s and 80s already can substantiate prior art.
    - Ven
      
      That is correct – I was merely shedding light on the waiting done by the patent holder.
- SashaK
  
  The patent has priority from the filing date, so if it is valid, then 1999 is the date. I think a big issue is, if bittorent was in existence pre-1999, then it can be used as prior art to invalidate the patent and the plaintiff has a big problem: if the patent covers utorrent,as they claim, then it is invalid because bittorent predates it. If it doesn’t cover utorrent, then there is no infringement. This is just a shakedown, they figure utorrent has some money and doesn’t want the publicity.
Momo

Please, this is ridiculous.

Looking at their shitty patent, they have more grounds against something like Skype instead of Bittorrent. In my opinion, they are patent trolling, pure and simple.

Moreover, “Tranz-Send Broadcasting” doesn’t even really exist. Google only returns about 80k results. It looks like they are a shell corporation that sells no products. Patent troll, I say. A stupid one too, by the sound of it — why are they not suing Skype?

Why are they suing Bittorrent? Perhaps we should be asking, who is behind “Tranz-Send Broadcasting”? A media company perhaps? That would explain their choice of target.

Anyway, bottom line? Software patents are evil and only good for patent trolling. Abolish them now.
- Ven
  
  A far better conclusion is that Tranz-Send Broadcasting is going after BT because BT won’t have the endless lawyers and funds that Apple, Microsoft, and Google do have. It may be less money, but it certainly seems to be an easier fight.
  
  We all know that this case will leave no dent in pirating, so I doubt the patent/copyright industries are that involved.
  - https://profiles.google.com/102432457445671616212 antoine
    
    I have a feeling that Tranz-Send is a shell organization acting as a face for RIAA
  - https://profiles.google.com/102432457445671616212 antoine
    
    I have a feeling that Tranz-Send is a shell organization acting as a face for RIAA
    - http://openid-provider.appspot.com/collection60@googlemail.com Collection60
      
      I thought something similar. Perhaps RIAA lawyers actually paid Tranz-Send to sue BT? (It’s normally the other way around, you are supposed to pay your lawyer.)
      
      I think the lawyers behind this should be investigated for legal malpractice!
Momo

Please, this is ridiculous.

Looking at their shitty patent, they have more grounds against something like Skype instead of Bittorrent. In my opinion, they are patent trolling, pure and simple.

Moreover, “Tranz-Send Broadcasting” doesn’t even really exist. Google only returns about 80k results. It looks like they are a shell corporation that sells no products. Patent troll, I say. A stupid one too, by the sound of it — why are they not suing Skype?

Why are they suing Bittorrent? Perhaps we should be asking, who is behind “Tranz-Send Broadcasting”? A media company perhaps? That would explain their choice of target.

Anyway, bottom line? Software patents are evil and only good for patent trolling. Abolish them now.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

patent on a protocol? hey, someone go patent driving on the correct side of the road, make everyone pay to do it.. it’s nearly the same thing…

no, no, I can think of something better, patent +, that’s a kind of protocol, right?
1+1=2, x+y=z, two values connected by the + sign will have a result ( = ) of the total sum of both values.. or something like that…
- Ven
  
  Driving laws are written and issued by government, and all such government materials are not able to be privately copyrighted.
  
  There is overwhelming evidence that arithmetic would pre-date the patent.
Brandon-is-a-spass

Patent trolling and I hope it will be dismissed!
http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

Nothing will change even if they win, torrenting will go on.
Mrc303

This sounds like a job for ANONYMOUS MAN!
- Anton
  
  What about Spider Man? I think he is feeling a bit left out of all the action.
- Anton
  
  What about Spider Man? I think he is feeling a bit left out of all the action.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1100028200 Michael Vario

Another copyright troll. another software patent that never should have been approved in the first place.
Predator

Another BS patent! The simple fact to have a application who work as a server and a client using a database is not only trivial but has a prior art way before 1999.

This is another way the corporate parasites and criminals are trying to dominate the human world and stiffle inovation.

We are going to kill them all!
Popo

dismissed without merit
Guest

In my country software cannot be patented. :D

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Software_Patents#Other_countries
Jmorse43508

Obvious patent troll is obvious.

I’m surprised they didn’t file in East Texas, which seems to be quite popular for those of their ilk.
Maht

Sounds how TCP works to me. If that’s the claim, case closed.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0675.txt

The TCP is responsible for regulating the flow of internetwork
packets to and from the processes it serves, as a way of preventing
its host from becoming saturated or overloaded with traffic. The TCP
is also responsible for retransmitting unacknowledged packets, and
for detecting duplicates. A consequence of this error
detection/retransmission scheme is that the order of letters received
on a given connection is also maintained [CEKA74, SUNS74]. To perform
these functions, the TCP opens and closes connections between ports
as described in Section 4.3. The TCP performs retransmission,
duplicate detection, sequencing, and flow control on all
communication among the processes it serves.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RRYM2J7GCHAQQPDQVWCXGOIPXI Crafty

DVD Decryptor totally disapeared!
- Reader
  
  Wasn’t that discontinued but then picked up by someone else and called ImgBurn?
http://www.facebook.com/wiredcivicex Clayton Johnson

I’d like to see this patent. From the way it sounds it could conceivably cover every file sharing client with a search function.
Pingback: uTorrent / BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement | Links Daily
Anonymous

OK wow thats kinda crazy when you think about it. Wow.

http://www.web-privacy.no.tc
Lulzsecfan

Sounds like LulzSec has homework to do. These patent trolls deserve the lulz.
Pingback: uTorrent / BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement
GODLiKE

When is somebody going to patent patents itself, and make every patent-troll pay money (huge amounts of) for having their “invention” patented?

That would surely erase patents from existence, having somebody prove patents are completely idiotic.
gae

“The server, based upon this information, adaptively transmits a given media file stored therein to one or more clients”

But bittorrent does not transmit files from servers, it transmits files from other clients… this does not make sense to me.
Haxor

OH and when was said patent filed …..cause bittorrrent was created late 2001 and i already had somehting at beginning of 2001 very similar…..should i sue too LOL
- Ven
  
  April 1999.
  - Haxor
    
    ya sorry sub 1999 in there and my version 6 months prior
    so should i sue them and opensource everything……
    - Haxor
      
      OH and in canada copyrights and patents exist at time of creation …..that means MAKE SOMETHING and its patented and copyrighted…..neat system eh?
    - Ven
      
      @haxor
      
      “OH and in canada copyrights and patents exist at time of creation …..that means MAKE SOMETHING and its patented and copyrighted…..neat system eh?”
      
      It works that way in the States too. And in both Canada and the U.S., when two parties go to court about who invented something first, the copyright or patent on file with the copyright/patent office is generally the deciding factor.
Platochampion

This is patent trolling; a waste of the taxpayers money, since the court system HAS to rule on it anyway.

That said, the notion of patents in the digital era is nebulous; unlike the industrial age where the inventor’s concept had to be literally sculpted into a physical workable form.

As for the alleged violation; again nebulous at best, since it is deliberate in it’s vague description and for all intent and purpose encompass many file transfer systems that use a network/router, cpu/server and user/client, and had existed well before the patent was filed and subsequently granted.
try

These vague and ambiguous umbrella-software troll patents are something that should be looked at seriously by governments.
Guest

@Crafty.

“DVD Decryptor totally disapeared!”

No it did not. I am still using it and you can still download it.

Beside it has many alternatives now that can copy even the few fucked by design DVDs from Sony and Disney that my video DVD Sansung component can not play but that can play the unprotected copy I am forced to make. Fortunately I don’t buy DVD I borrow them and when they are from Sony or Disney I keep a copy as a result for myself.
Steve

So something like AudioGalaxy started in 1998?
Anonymous

tinyurl.com/2df4ccp
Ophelia Millais

Quickly Googling to see who’s behind this: an old press release reveals that Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network, Inc.’s founder and CEO is “Scott Redmond. It’s a guy Gizmodo recently outed as a loony scammer. The guy’s apparently a real piece of work. This will go nowhere.
Ophelia Millais

[sorry, I messed up the link in my previous comment] Quickly Googling to see who’s behind this: an old press release reveals that Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network, Inc.’s founder and CEO is Scott Redmond. It’s a guy Gizmodo recently outed as a loony scammer. The guy’s apparently a real piece of work. This will go nowhere.
- Ven
  
  More Googling leads me to believe that, while he is full of crap, he is still quite the patent-farmer. He is also a very good scam artist at the least, so he will certainly have some kind of angle going into this.
Pingback: BitTorrent, uTorrent Sued for Patent Infringement
http://openid-provider.appspot.com/collection60@googlemail.com Collection60

I think the entire point of BT is that it’s a P2P system. There is no server. Just trackers. The media is sent from one peer, to another peer. Not from a server to a server.

But these idiots are trying to sue, because they patented the “server/client” relationship? that in itself is ridiculous because they could sue everyone making software. The whole “Adaptive media” thing doesn’t help much, seeing as all media want to be adaptive. But the fact that they targetted a group that doesn’t even use server/client is even more ridiculous.

I think some asshole lawyers from the RIAA /MAFIAA paid this company to sue. Always playing dirty tricks, those guys.
Sts

” “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.”

on this alone it states that the file that is being distributed needs to be on the Host server so uTorrent is safe! – as a torrent network works the server we look for things on is always and only a search engine, our clients connect through TCP/UDP connections which is transmitted via http (ipv4/ipv6) from many sources and not via a distribution server!
http://felipec.myopenid.com/ felipec

Bullshit.

The patent talks about adaptiveness while sending *media* files on-the-fly, which basically means recoding, or an already well known and used technique: QoS. That has nothing to do with BitTorrent, which transfers any kind of files without any modification, and certainly not in on-the-fly (you have to wait for the torrent to be finished).

Moreover, the supposed infringement says:

“The ’944 patent is directed to a software application to solve problems with sending large data over networks, accomplished by splitting data into smaller bits and spraying those bits accross the networks, where the bits of data will reside and/or get redistributed on any requesting or accepting server and/org computer.”

Which is hilarious. So they invented splitting. The whole Internet is violating that patent, not to mention butchers and what not.
http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

Well, I guess the makers of bittorrent did inspire their users afterall.
Pingback: uTorrent / BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement
Anonymous

Sure, try to patent a protocol that was made open source. That’ll work.
On a related note, anyone looking for a backup for (or open-source version of) uTorrent should check out qBittorrent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qbittorrent
- Ven
  
  If the patent is ruled to have predated the BT protocol, all infringing works will have their open-source status pulled.
  - Guest
    
    Not necesarily – say THAT patent is proven invalid by prior art?
- http://felipec.myopenid.com/ felipec
  
  You are confusing patents with copyrights. There is open source software that has patents, see OpenCORE for example.
Pingback: uTorrent / BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement | TorrentFreak | NotSoCrazyNews BETA
Anonymous

how long before 808chan or lulzsec dox this scott d redmond guy?
http://twitter.com/Amarr_09 Amardeep Yadav

Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network, Inc.’s founder and CEO is Scott Redmond.. lolzzzzzzz. .wohever is yet to learn and understand technology .. kinda rediculous and patent for what software and network.. or sharing and torrentiing…
R.

“The server, based upon this information, adaptively transmits a given media file stored therein to one or more clients”

a) This sounds like a patent troll.
b) This is a software patent and only enforceable in some certain countries, since it’s generally believed that software should not be patentable – see http://en.swpat.org. They’re not enforceable in Europe, which means there are plenty of countries that could host the development company/servers.
c) Even if the patent is valid, in BT the server doesn’t transmit the file, other clients do.
d) BT is not limited to media. I’m not so sure if functionality that is more general than the patent can infringe upon it.
R.

“The server, based upon this information, adaptively transmits a given media file stored therein to one or more clients”

a) This sounds like a patent troll.
b) This is a software patent and only enforceable in some certain countries, since it’s generally believed that software should not be patentable – see http://en.swpat.org. They’re not enforceable in Europe, which means there are plenty of countries that could host the development company/servers.
c) Even if the patent is valid, in BT the server doesn’t transmit the file, other clients do.
d) BT is not limited to media. I’m not so sure if functionality that is more general than the patent can infringe upon it.
Guest

one more job for Anonymous
mojo

They’ll settle this for attorney’s fees. P doesn’t have a case, but why pay the money to the lawyers to defend, and risk losing.
Pingback: unregistered.gr : ??? ????????? ??????? BitTorrent, ?Torrent ??? Kontiki
Snark

I hope/wish they have the resources fight this, although I doubt it :-/

It’s sad, because the patent shares absolutely nothing with the bittorrent protocol, apart from that which it shares with any file-sharing protocol. The patent describes a centralised system, and one which is meant for media-files. Bittorrent is _decentralised_, and meant for _any_ type of file.
AnarchyNow

Another software patent that doesn’t exist outside worse than nazi U$A, nothing to worry about, anyway, death to Bittorrent Inc. and to all the capitalists in the world!
Quinn

Significant losses on a patent registered over a decade ago? The law should say “You should have said something before. Your loss.”
Pingback: ?? ?????????? uTorrent ?????? ? ??? ?? ????????? ???????? ? ?????????? BitTorrent | AllUNIX.ru – ????????????? ?????? ? UNIX-????????
Pingback: uTorrent / BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement | Pixelbean
Pingback: uTorrent / BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement - techtime's posterous
Anonymous

tinyurl.com/2df4ccp
townie2

no sweat. even if UTorrent loses this case (which i highly doubt), so many programmers will be working on a new so fast it would be replaced within days. here’s a cheap, little tip for inventors with little money, write down all info about your product (date invented, what it does, how it does it, etc.) , seal it in an envelope (i would use Crazy Glue to prove it was never opened or tampered with), mail it to yourselg via Registered Mail, sign for it, then put it away somewhere safe without opening it, then you have your proof you invented it first and haven’t violated any copyright/patent if it ever goes to court. a Consumer Economics teacher told us that little trick many years ago.
LOLPATENTS

The USA is a FUCKING JOKE.

Enough Said….!
Pingback: uTorrent / BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement
http://profiles.google.com/mike.braedley Michael Braedley

It seems to me that Netflix is a better candidate for this lawsuit. The fact that Bittorrent fails (partially or completely) all of claim 1′s subclaims, and that all other claims refer, directly or indirectly, to claim 1, tells me that the patent doesn’t apply to Bittorrent. Netflix, however, seems to match all of claim 1, and probably many of the other claims.

Now I’m not a lawyer, so take this comment with the requisite amount of salt.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1262340724 Rich Clark

Nothing to see here, move along. This patent describes the YMODEM/XMODEM protocol nicely, which was developed back in the ’70s, and could be very easily refuted by this example of prior art.
- Ophelia Millais
  
  Speaking of contentious personalities overprotective of their technology, it would be awesome to see the catfight, were Chuck Forsberg to drag Scott Redmond into court. At least Forsberg’s technology is real.
Michael

Bram Cohen himself issued the patent and is now trying to get even more money off the system. (Check handwriting)
Anonymous

tinyurl.com/2bk3gkl
Noonecare

American TwaTTerry …
http://www.facebook.com/fredrikkarlsson1 Fredrik Karlsson

Blizzard is using this technology, Google sells Bittorrent clients on Android Market. Facebook(or was it twitter) I believe uses bitttorrent. Who will rise up to defend bittorrent?
Anonymous

“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.

So, basically a client-hub p2p setup that helps manage traffic based on feedback the server receives regarding network performance – something that existed (albeit primitively) before the date the patent was granted in 2007. In other words, it can be shown this “innovation” existed before the patent.

“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.”

The server doesn’t transmit the media file, if by “adaptively” they mean that they instigate a transmission of data between 2 3rd-party-clients, then they should state that clearly instead rather than using an adjective with a wide scope in implication and inference.

Additionally, in much of it’s use, BitTorrent’s software is not the tracker being used – for the majority of it’s use, 3rd party tracker software is used. This means, in it’s most typical use, BitTorrent/uTorrent does not infringe upon this bad patent anyway.

The real problem is US patent law which gives people the power to lock up and profiteer from ideas (sometimes unoriginal ones too!)

By locking up something that is likely to be a natural, expected evolution in technology, this serves to do nothing but stifle competition, growth and progress and instead create monopolies that restrain human evolution while stealing from other innovators who were capable of coming up with the same basic ideas on their own.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=32701445 Zach Stein

Why did it take them 12 years after they applied for the patent and 4 years after it was granted to finally take action? Lack of vigorous defense?

And that’s on top of an obvious patent.

Not only that, when BitTorrent was created, this patent wasn’t even on the books… I know it’s by invention time, but still this is a huge problem with our patent system. If something isn’t yet patented, you invent it, and then 8 years after the application was filed the patent is granted what are you supposed to do? Throw out your invention? It creates a huge amount of uncertainty about what actually is and isn’t patented.
Anonymous

I’ve read the claim 1 of US patent 7,301,944: a system employing “a distribution server” which is configured “to deliver a single (sic!) copy” is described — and I find it lacking at least the very principal feature of P2P file tranfer protocols and implementations: a system with or without a centralized media file database and a centralized request processing computing device, with a priori more than “first or second distribution servers” which are further tightly coupled to “clients” and thus able to serve fragments of incomplete downloads; there’s also not a sign of disclosing the entity we know as torrent hash file (claim 2 fails to even come close to describing a separate metafile); load balancing is also entirely different than what’s described.

They are picturing a very small server farm geared towards small-scale content delivery with optional codec optimization, multicast, DRM and ads, but not even a decentralized content delivery network, not to say peer-to-peer one. Being somewhat skilled in the art of both designing and writing software (and to some extent in reading patents as an expert), I’d describe this whole affair as an attempt to pull the half-baked limited and obsolete pay-per-play patent onto practically successful competitor’s technology which is rather entirely different, even the purpose is rather contrary to where claims 12 and 13 would go.

PS: just in case, a quick analysis of the handwriting used in half of the figures drawn tells that the person who made them was rather weak and possibly egoistic character (e.g. the particular variety of 2′s shape is quite noticeable in that regard).

PPS: I publish Linux ISO images as torrents, most (all?) of those including my work :)

–
Michael Shigorin
Skybuck2000

I already spotted two flaws with this lawsuit.

First flaw immediatly at start of patent text:

1. “…without the need to provide multiple copies of the same media file for each request of that file”.

Bittorrent works exactly the opposite and provides a copy per request.

2. The patent assumes multicast, the complaint claims damages, multicast doesn’t work over the internet, bittorent does. Case closed right there lol.
Pingback: BitTorrent, víctima de una demanda por patentes | Geekalt42
GUEST

Scott Redmond is a fraud and Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network does not really exist. The address is fake and there is no operation.

Scott Redmond registered a bunch of companies promising investors hard to pull or even impossible technologies who delivered nothing.

Scott Redmond is the equivalent of these fraudsters with their perpetual motion machine drawing money from the gullible investors.

Scott Redmond blind the technological impaired investors with technological mambo jumbo craps that does not make any sense at all!

The patent in question that is supposedly infringed by BT and u-torrent is a big pile of unrealistic BS and frankly I am amazed that the patent office granted this peace of crap. After all they also granted the patent for a bunch of perpetual motion machines too! as well. The patent office should be dismissed and replaced since obviously they are not doing their jobs.

I believe that this fraud has received money from the entertainment industry to try to shut down BT and u-torrent. Good try but these idiots did not realize who they were hiring I suppose. The odd for Scott Redmond to win this pattent law suit is zero.

Try again MPAA!
Guest

“A fucking moron can with half a brain would understand and program that.”

Except Scott Redmond because in despite the fact he is the author of the patent he has no fucking clue what he is talking about! I am serious!
Pingback: BitTorrent Sued for Patent Infringement
http://www.facebook.com/Kirion Karen Kazaryan

Prior art. GTFO
gst

prior art: FTP protocol, Oct 1985
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc959/
http://profiles.google.com/greygeek77 Grey Geek

I’m waiting for the “Blah” patent to appear. It will be a patent which literally states:
“Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.. for a couple dozen claims”.

It will allow the holder to sue anyone for anything and use lizard lawyers and complicit judges to “interpret” it to mean anything they want it to mean. Such is the broken state of the USTPO, Congress, and the Judicial system.
Pingback: Peer-Meme for June 20th, 2011 | The Peer Press Podcast
Pingback: Demandan a BitTorrent por infringir patentes - FayerWayer
Pingback: Demandan a BitTorrent por infringir patentes |
http://www.facebook.com/vcariello Vincent Cariello

I’m confused, isn’t this like suing companies who make DVD burners, for them to potentially have people burn games illegally or movies?
- Anonymous
  
  Not at all. Try again.
StevO

I created LOL I want to sue AOL and every text based client ever since for allowing LOL to be used. SO all you bastards can start giving me money. I will be sending letters to all of you and if you send me $1 i will not sue any of the users of LOL.
Pingback: uTorrent, BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement
DownWithBloatWare

Yay!.. No more bloatware
Pingback: Demandan a BitTorrent por infringir patentes | News of today world news every day
Anonymous

If you really think about this, I mean, get down to the very basics of this, you are trying to sue people on the way they are sending bytes across the internet. Unless they have some how made the EXACT same protocol in 1999 or whenever, they I say they need to screw off. A Protocol is not somthing that can be patented.
Pingback: BitTorrent demandado, ahora por violación de patentes (EN)
Pingback: Demandan a BitTorrent por infringir patentes | BitTecnologico.com
TerribellTony

Patent Fail. I hope the courts see through this patent trolls bullshit and awards uTorrent damages plus costs.
TerribellTony

Patent Fail. I hope the courts see through this patent trolls bullshit and awards uTorrent damages plus costs.
Anonymous

tinyurl.com/24n4nqb
Pingback: BitTorrent in patent dispute | TechnoLlama
Pingback: BitTorrent and uTorrent targeted by patent lawsuit | Howard Wills Insurance
Pingback: Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network demanda a BitTorrent por infracción de patentes | Gigle.net
Lawk

“this case could have a disastrous impact on the BitTorrent landscape.” -How sir?

The clients are out there. I don’t see this having any effect on the users.
Anonymous

tinyurl.com/24n4nqb
Anonymous

tinyurl.com/24n4nqb
Pingback: Random company sues BitTorrent for patent infringement; sounds awfully familiar…
Pingback: ITbende » Post Topic » ITbende podcast nr. 108: Kruisverhoor OV-chipkaart
Pingback: uTorrent / BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement | AppUnix - Linux, Mac OS e BSD
Nielk1

Patenting a software is nonsensical. A software is a collection of logical computations no different than a complex math equation. Math equations cannot be patented.

The only logical things to apply to software are copyright and trade-secret. A copyright would prevent someone from duplicating a software, but would not prevent someone from creating a competitor. A trade-secret would work on the same principle, preventing copies, but would also prevent anything too similar from appearing. Of course, trade-secrets are only as good as the protection given by the holder, they can be dissolved entirely by simple carelessness.

I am reminded of Apple’s patent for an ‘interface device that uses touch’ that they tried to use to stop anyone else from having a multi-touch display system.
- Nielk1
  
  As I reply to myself in addendum:
  
  Also, consider how ‘clean room reverse engineering’ works, where one group takes a program’s code (which should be ‘copyrighted’), creates an interface removing all actual logic, and then gives that interface to a second group that is able to program new code without ever seeing the original, thus never infringing on a ‘copyright’, even if (this part debatedly) they code it the same way again. This is legit, but if patents applied to software as they do to physical creations, this should not. The very legal presidents out there don’t make sense when you look at it as a patent.

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

uTorrent / BitTorrent Sued For Patent Infringement

The complaint

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

The Pirate Bay Moves to .SX as Prosecutor Files Motion to Seize Domains

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

Netflix Says It’s ‘Killing’ BitTorrent Traffic

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Search TorrentFreak

The complaint

Related Posts

NewsBits

MostDiscussed

CopyQuote

PopularArticles