Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Jun 2011 21:58 UTC
Permalink for comment 477808
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-09-25
I quickly read the patent, and it's obviously unrelated.
The patent talks the whole time about media files, like video or audio, and concentrates on "adaptiveness", which again, only makes sense on media files. For example, if the user has a slow connection, the server adapts to that and sends a lower quality version of the clip.
That's not something BitTorrent does; the contents are never "adapted", and can be anything, not necessarily media files.
Moreover, that concept is well understood in multimedia as QoS (or Quality of Service), which is very well studied in much more detail than that patent, and I don't think there's any patent on that.
I say not only it's totally unrelated, but seems to be invalid, as there's nothing there, just a bunch of buzzwords. They probably hope that something sticks to the wall.