One of the Groklaw commenters asserted how FTP and even "TCP-IP" are prior art (OK, he corrects himself to say they are listed as 'related art' - whatever.) But the commenter is missing the fact that the patent discusses distribution of smaller parts of the file by "spraying" it around. FTP and HTTP can transfer large files, but your HTTP client doesn't download a single large file in small chunks from several servers.<p>The more accurate prior art are the methods for transmitting large files via usenet: split large file, uuencode parts, distribute parts to several usenet hosts (where there's also some kind of negotiation about swapping parts between hosts.) Finally client obtains, decodes, and reassembles those parts.
How about this:<p>1) Describe a system similar to the patent that is compatible with chunked-HTTP downloading from multiple mirror sites ( which has been around since before the patent )<p>2) Ask for declaratory judgement that such a system does not infringe on the patent<p>3) The troll will fight back, let them 'win', i.e. make them prove the system you describe is the same as their patent<p>4) Reveal the system is prior art => invalidate the patent<p>5) Profit?<p>EDIT: IANAL, but just thinking out loud....
From the patent abstract I have a hard time imaging that they will win this lawsuit.<p>It's sort of like BitTorrent if you squint. Just BitTorrent provided by several central servers run by one company that wants to include DRM in every download from the system.
I'm surprised that the bittorrent patent issued because the patent looks like it claims what the digital fountain patents (now owned by qualcomm) claimed several years previously.<p>google "digital fountain".