3 ms·

so they've patented a password-protected network filesystem? how did they miss the prior art on THAT one?

epistasis 16y ago
If you read the post, it doesn't appear that they've patented anything like that. Just because something is used in an invention doesn't mean that component is now part of the patent; for example if somebody uses a gear in their patented design, it's OK for others to use gears.
- pyre 16y ago
  After Apple's patent lawyers got a description from their engineers, I'm sure they found a way to word it so that having customers that breath oxygen is part of the technology, and patentable.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- pedalpete 16y ago
  Could you please elaborate on what you see as being patented then? I agree a patent on a gear does not allow others to use the same gear, but said gear would need to have a uniquely defining quality which differentiates it from the other gears already in existence.
  - epistasis 16y ago
    I'm not going to go trawling through patents (I'm superstitious), but based on only the figures in the linked article, there's at least a password protected file-system and the interface for accessing it. And going on the text, there's going to be something about the security implementation as well that's in the patent. This sounds very similar to DropBox, but this is just a high-level description. It's extremely unlikely that they could describe their system in sufficient detail without distinguishing it from DropBox in some way. There's a tendency to hear the title of a patent and think that it covers all systems that could possibly be described by that particular title. This is not the case! Also, there's a tendency to hear about a patent and think that because your system does something similar, it would be infringing against a patent, but that also is not necessarily the case. The patent system can be abused horribly, but not every instance of a patent is an instance of abuse, and each patent should be evaluated on its own merits rather than the abuses of others.
    - psykotic 16y ago
      > Also, there's a tendency to hear about a patent and think that because your system does something similar, it would be infringing against a patent, but that also is not necessarily the case. Right. You can often dodge patent claims by doing just one little thing in a different way. When you see a very specific claim, it means the patent lawyer was forced to write it that way by the examiner. A patent application starts out as generic as possible and becomes increasingly specific in response to push-back. Of course, non-infringement is no guarantee against getting dragged into a costly legal battle.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mbreese 16y ago
They didn't apply for a patent on that (and this is just an application)... From my reading of the claims, it looks like they are applying for a patent for: An animated "safe deposit" box icon that you can drag a file onto, and it will then be encrypted, and stored in a secondary location (such as the cloud). They were pretty specific about the animated icon too... (claims 1-4) Actual patent application (20110040980): http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110040980%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110040980&RS=DN/20110040980 http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
- _delirium 16y ago
  In theory, Claim #1 is a standalone claim (though it might only in practice be upheld in conjunction with later claims), and that one is pretty broad. Basically claims to patent the idea of dragging files to an icon, which results in the files being copied elsewhere. Not even specifically backup-related; the description appears to be of any network filesystem that supports GUI drag-and-drop.
  - DTrejo 16y ago
    Having originated a patent doesn't sound so impressive now.

If you read the post, it doesn't appear that they've patented anything like that. Just because something is used in an invention doesn't mean that component is now part of the patent; for example if somebody uses a gear in their patented design, it's OK for others to use gears.

pyre 16y ago
After Apple's patent lawyers got a description from their engineers, I'm sure they found a way to word it so that having customers that breath oxygen is part of the technology, and patentable.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
pedalpete 16y ago
Could you please elaborate on what you see as being patented then? I agree a patent on a gear does not allow others to use the same gear, but said gear would need to have a uniquely defining quality which differentiates it from the other gears already in existence.
- epistasis 16y ago
  I'm not going to go trawling through patents (I'm superstitious), but based on only the figures in the linked article, there's at least a password protected file-system and the interface for accessing it. And going on the text, there's going to be something about the security implementation as well that's in the patent. This sounds very similar to DropBox, but this is just a high-level description. It's extremely unlikely that they could describe their system in sufficient detail without distinguishing it from DropBox in some way. There's a tendency to hear the title of a patent and think that it covers all systems that could possibly be described by that particular title. This is not the case! Also, there's a tendency to hear about a patent and think that because your system does something similar, it would be infringing against a patent, but that also is not necessarily the case. The patent system can be abused horribly, but not every instance of a patent is an instance of abuse, and each patent should be evaluated on its own merits rather than the abuses of others.
  - psykotic 16y ago
    > Also, there's a tendency to hear about a patent and think that because your system does something similar, it would be infringing against a patent, but that also is not necessarily the case. Right. You can often dodge patent claims by doing just one little thing in a different way. When you see a very specific claim, it means the patent lawyer was forced to write it that way by the examiner. A patent application starts out as generic as possible and becomes increasingly specific in response to push-back. Of course, non-infringement is no guarantee against getting dragged into a costly legal battle.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mbreese 16y ago

They didn't apply for a patent on that (and this is just an application)... From my reading of the claims, it looks like they are applying for a patent for: An animated "safe deposit" box icon that you can drag a file onto, and it will then be encrypted, and stored in a secondary location (such as the cloud). They were pretty specific about the animated icon too... (claims 1-4) Actual patent application (20110040980): http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110040980%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110040980&RS=DN/20110040980 http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

_delirium 16y ago
In theory, Claim #1 is a standalone claim (though it might only in practice be upheld in conjunction with later claims), and that one is pretty broad. Basically claims to patent the idea of dragging files to an icon, which results in the files being copied elsewhere. Not even specifically backup-related; the description appears to be of any network filesystem that supports GUI drag-and-drop.
- DTrejo 16y ago
  Having originated a patent doesn't sound so impressive now.