Ftp-WG: ANN: Invention to increase FTP upload times on high bandwidth, high latency connections by 400%

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ftp-wg-owner [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of Fastream Technologies
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 6:01 AM
> I did not think it was pure advertisement as could be 
> considered more as an
> announcement (see the subject).

You were trolling for buyers for a scheme that you're planning on patenting.
That's seriously counter to the purpose of the discussion here, which is to
provide _open_ extensions to the FTP standard.  This is _not_ a "general
purpose FTP developers' group", and even if it were, I suspect your messages
would still not be received well.

> I think your method is similar to ours but our invention 
> includes many more
> details and enhancements.

I suggest you make this information known to your patent lawyers - they may
tell you that this is evidence of "prior art" as well as "obviousness".
Obviously, there are more details to go into, but it's quite simple to use
multiple streams to create multiple files, then use a proxy transfer method
along with the APPE or REST commands to merge them together.  If all you're
adding is details, then you don't have anything to patent.

> We first had to develop a C++ 
> program to do a
> quick transfer and then came up with the idea to apply to the 
> patent office.

Why not - they patent plenty of obvious things on a day to day basis.  The
patent office is too lazy to spot what's obvious, they prefer to have people
spend lots of money on lawsuits defending the obvious.  Are you looking
forward to the day that, say, Microsoft decides to implement this?  Do you
have the pockets to defend your patent, given that it's clear that others
have previously had the same idea, and view it as "obvious"?

What next, you're going to claim that you've "invented" the idea of throwing
more than one command down the FTP control connection pipe at a time?

> None of the patents we researched have used the same idea and 
> there was no
> such public information.

Published information is generally for non-obvious things.  Most developers
who come up with this sort of idea are ethical enough to realise that it's
an abuse of the server's bandwidth and processor time.  [Note, also, that
it's liable to break on most secured servers, since they don't accept
transfers from anyone but the client.]

> We will also provide full support and source code (Borland C++ Builder
> Implementation with 100Mbps performance on a CPU AMD P2000) to the
> prospective licensors/buyers.

Big whoop.  If your implementation is any good, you'll be able to make money
selling that - since all you're doing is RFC-compliant FTP operations, I
personally find it very offensive that you step into a group designed for
discussing open extensions, and declare that you're about to define a series
of those operations as closed.  The only thing you didn't do that would piss
the list members off further was to give a price list.

You're insulting us.  Go away.

Alun Jones, MS MVP (Windows SDK / Security)
President, Texas Imperial Software
-- 
Texas Imperial Software   | Find us at http://www.wftpd.com or email
1602 Harvest Moon Place   | [email protected].
Cedar Park TX 78613-1419  | WFTPD, WFTPD Pro are Windows FTP servers.
Fax/Voice +1(512)258-9858 | Try our NEW client software, WFTPD Explorer.