21 ms·

Bank of America trying to load up on patents for the technology behind Bitcoin

367 points by hackuser 11y ago

firasd 11y ago
Looking forward to reading these patents to learn their cutting-edge blockchain implementation for making a $1 overdraft accrue $35 in fees.
- analog31 11y ago
  That's a different form of "mining."
  - thenerdfiles 11y ago
    "to mine" =def (trans.) the act of declaring exclusive ownership rights of an object for the speaker of the sentence.
    - shitgoose 11y ago
      why downvote? it is funny.
      - thenerdfiles 11y ago
        Because they're Old Guards.
mabbo 11y ago
Someone smarter than me, please explain: are they seriously just trying to patent bitcoin, which already exists? Or are they inventing new ideas that can be done with blockchain technology?
- todd3834 11y ago
  I don't think they would be foolish enough to patent Bitcoin. I would assume they would Lose due to prior art if it were ever challenged. My guess is that they like the block chain idea and they are innovating around that concept in a way that could benefit them.
  - syedkarim 11y ago
    I don't think there is a downside (to them) for trying to patent Bitcoin. Worst case, the application is denied. Best case (for them), it's approved. From that perspective, it's not foolish for them to try.
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    > I would assume they would Lose due to prior art if it were ever challenged. Only if challenged within 6 months after the patent application was published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Ac...
    - daveguy 11y ago
      Not a Lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the 6 months timeline for third party submission of prior art applies directly to the patent. In other words the patent office will directly revoke the patent if it is notified of prior art before 6 months. The court system could still be used to determine that prior art invalidates a patent. Kindof a shitty rule, but the patent office doesn't have the resources to be overseeing every patent dispute -- it is essentially for the courts to decide. Speaking of which. Is there a crowd sourcing site for "here are the patents that have recently been approved -- what is prior art?" to help reign in patent craziness?
      - tarikjn 11y ago
        Could any person notice the USPTO of prior art on those patent? Perhaps it is that simple?
    - Sodel 11y ago
- adrianmacneil 11y ago
  Mostly just applying for patents for existing technology/novel uses for Bitcoin, so that someone else doesn't beat them to it in case the technology turns out useful. Filing patents is a pretty cheap way of ensuring you don't end up the victim of patent lawsuits in future (for large corporations at least).
- nickodell 11y ago
  These are the patents they are applying for: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency&d=PG01 http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H... Some of them seem remarkably frivolous: >System and Method for Wire Transfers Using Cryptocurrency >[...] The processor can transfer the first quantity of the cryptocurrency to a second cryptocurrency exchange and initiate the sale of the first quantity of the cryptocurrency at the second cryptocurrency exchange. The processor is further able to initiate the transfer of at least a portion of the resulting currency to a recipient.
  - hkmurakami 11y ago
    >Some of them seem remarkably frivolous: As are most patent filings (including some of my own)
    - meowface 11y ago
      >As are most patent filings (including some of my own) Why file them, then? (The fact that you admitted to it suggests you have a valid and ethical reason to do so.)
      - trentmb 11y ago
        > Why file them, then? "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
        jeff_marshall 11y ago
        "don't hate the employee, hate the employer" That sums it up for me.
        devdas 11y ago
        That's the modern day equivalent of "I was just following orders".
- noonespecial 11y ago
  I'm guessing "ordinary paper process that we've been doing since 1750 but in teh blockchainz!"
  - gherkin0 11y ago
    > I'm guessing "ordinary paper process that we've been doing since 1750 but in teh blockchainz!" Didn't the Supreme Court decisively swat down that sort of thing (i.e. "but do it on a computer" patents)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int'l https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int'l
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      That's not the most accurate interpretation of Alice, but it can be approximated as such. However, I cannot think of a comparable analogy in history to blockchains, so I don't know if Alice can be directly applied.
barrkel 11y ago
I expect this is an insurance move: iterate through the cross-product of bitcoin concepts and current banking tech, eliminate the nonsensical pairings, and make plausible applications for the remainder. That way they cover their bases in case there's something game-changing lurking within.
joshfraser 11y ago
Great ammo for suing future competitors in the financial space.
- radiorental 11y ago
  That generally not how corporations use patents. Patent trolls - yes, but patents are almost always a defense.
  - joshfraser 11y ago
    Depends on the corporation. The tech industry tends to be pretty good about using patents defensively, but there are notable exceptions. For example, Akamai has built a reputation of suing every new startup that enters the CDN space for patent infringement (Limelight, Speedera, Cotendo, etc). Ask any VC in the valley to fund your CDN biz and they'll ask you what your patent portfolio looks like and how big of a war chest you're building to fight the inevitable lawsuits.
  - goodplay 11y ago
    and for nudging negotiations in the right direction.
civild 11y ago
It's not surprising that banks are interested in blockchain technology, if not necessarily Bitcoin itself. Patenting technology is very common by these companies and it is almost always a protection measure against them being sued for using it.
hackaflocka 11y ago
Doesn't Warren Buffett own a large percentage of BOA? This is the Buffett strategy, use the public sphere to allow private entities to acquire monopoly power. He did this with his opposition to the Keystone Pipeline so that his trains would benefit from the need to move oil in that corridor.
- neximo4 11y ago
  > so that his trains would be the only option to move oil in that corridor. Not sure how true this is. There are other options, including the using the Canadian Pacific Railway, which also operates in that corridor.
  - hackaflocka 11y ago
    We can never be "sure" of these things, but here's an article that provides some background to my claim: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/08/obama-did-warren-buffett-railroad-stocks-huge-favo.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/08/obama-did-w...
    - neximo4 11y ago
      Here is another fool.com article suggesting other Canadian railroads that can also transport the oil (and are doing so). Including your own article, there is hardly a hint of monopoly. http://www.fool.ca/2015/09/04/will-a-keystone-rejection-benefit-canadian-national-railway-company-and-canadian-pacific-railway-limited/ http://www.fool.ca/2015/09/04/will-a-keystone-rejection-bene...
- everyone 11y ago
  I've been thinking recently that powerful people treating the real world like a game is possibly one of the most destructive forces in society.
  - DiabloD3 11y ago
    It depends entirely what their end goal is. To make money with no regards to anything else? Yes, they are dangerous to the human race and should be treated as the absolute worst terrorists possible. However, if their end goal is to actually leave the world a better place than when it was when they were born, and it just happens it takes being one of the richest people ever to do that? More power to them, and I hope they succeed. Not all rich and powerful people are assholes, some just want to make the world less shitty, and some actually succeed at it.
aburan28 11y ago
Fuck Bank of America. $12.00 maintenance fee every month for holding my money? $35.00 overdraft fees? </rant> I don't understand why they are patenting this stuff, It will never hold up and they will never sue anyone
- sixQuarks 11y ago
  Bank of America closed down my business checking accounts last week, right before I went away on holiday. No access to ATM, no way to deposit or make payments. When I tried to find out the reason why, they literally said "we don't have to provide a reason". Keep in mind I've had these checking accounts for 15 years. So yeah, Fuck Bank of America!
  - bobfunk 11y ago
    They did pretty much exactly the same here with our corporate account on the 24th. Had to spend 6 hours(!) Monday to get it unfrozen and don't actually know if it worked yet...
  - thenerdfiles 11y ago
    They did the same to our account, and informed us that they had sent an account shutdown warning notice to an address with no zip code. Then they reminded us that they do not have have to provide a reason, a month after they sent the letter, and of course after we called them.
    - snuxoll 11y ago
      Sometimes they can't provide a reason, if it was taken down because of the PATRIOT act. But it's BofA, so instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt I'll assume they're just being evil.
      - reverb256 11y ago
        How often does this happen...?
- 11y ago
rubyfan 11y ago
Many big companies file patents for defensive reasons and do not pursue offensive activities. If BoA thought they might use a block chain in the future for example, having a patent can neutralize the threat of a competitor limiting their ability to use that method to support business activities. It's sort of a mutually assured distruction approach.
- dnautics 11y ago
  they could publically announce that's what they are doing, or transfer them to a company that holds them, like RPX.
- yuubi 11y ago
  At least some use publications like http://www.researchdisclosure.com/ http://www.researchdisclosure.com/ instead. I know the print edition at least used to exist and have subscribers because there were some shelves of it in the local university library.
- fragsworth 11y ago
  I guarantee you, the minute someone is making a shitload of money off something related to their patent, there will be "offensive activity".
ChristianGeek 11y ago
Bank of America is the Comcast of banking.
thegayngler 11y ago
How someone is allowed to patent something that already exists is beyond me? What is the patent office doing over there? I don't think they are doing their jobs properly if Bank of America was allowed to patent technology they didn't create.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >How someone is allowed to patent something that already exists is beyond me Obviously because the patent process is just a timestamp thing that says "I've registered this idea at this time". It's then up to the court to rule on a any clashes, e.g. when somebody else has a similar registration from an earlier time.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Patents are supposed to be rejected before they are granted if they don't meet the requirements for patentability, though. To do otherwise destroys the value of patents for anyone but the wealthiest corporations.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      > To do otherwise destroys the value of patents for anyone but the wealthiest corporations. You may be on to something there.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  This is because you (and most people here) fundamentally misunderstand how patents work and what these patents actually cover. Essentially, there are an infinite number of applications, variations and implementations of any given technology, and each of these may potentially be patent-eligible. The patent office's job is to only grant those that are sufficiently distinguishable over some combination of prior art.
tuyguntn 11y ago
I think people should be able to vote for patent acceptance, if more than 60% of voters consider that idea is great, let company own this patent. Patent office should do research before publishing to vote. Otherwise people can patent everything. - Technology the Sun uses to shine, technology and methods for light which creates light space in dark space. - Internal structure of fingers to click mouse/keyboard - State of the mind before buying something ...
- ucho 11y ago
  Doesn't sound realistic. Have you seen text of any patent? It is completely unreadable to normal people. I always thought that ToS or legislations look bad, but usually they put all definitions in one place. In patents all of that is inlined, 20 words phrase instead of just "computer". Having some domain knowledge before voting could also take few months or years ... BTW why do we even award patents? Seriously - if many people, in many places had the same idea, on their own, why should we grant a monopoly to one of them? That would probably require some replacement system for drugs, we don't want the ingredients to be secret but I don't how exactly should it work.
lordnacho 11y ago
Don't get me wrong, I think Bitcoin is an amazing technical (and economic) wonder. But after starting (and quitting) a BTC business with a guy, and getting a BTC-related patent with another guy, I've come to the conclusion that blockchain technologies are a solution looking for a problem, and the only current problem being solved is how to illegally move money. This is of course a standard thing to say for someone who's just come across BTC (like a savvy old businessman friend of mine) but I've actually looked at the code, talked to people who wanted BTC (a couple of nerds and an army of drug dealers / drug customers), and so on for a long while. All the blockchain uses I've come across have seemed to be bolt-on hype motivated rather than genuine uses of the technology. I'm even doing a standard web project for a guy who thinks it will be useful to keep track of stuff in containers. I come from the finance industry, so I think I also know a bit about the requirements there, and they don't need it. So let's look at what blockchain technology lets you do: 1) You get an indelible wall that grows every 10 minutes. You can write whatever you like on it. Well, that's great but you can do that with a normal database. It's well known how to do it, there's backup processes, security, various consistency measures, scaling, and so on that are established. 2) You don't need to run your own database. This is great if you don't want the network to be closed due to malfunction or police intervention. But banks already know how to run a database, they have hordes of people doing that. And they have to comply with information requests from the authorities. And someone, somewhere needs to have all the records, which they will want compensation for. I suggest AWS and the likes (in house), running an old fashioned DB would require orders of magnitude less compensation for similar amounts of traffic. 3) The network automates the ledger system so we don't need as many back office staff. Well, there's no magic here. If you write a blockchain for securities operations, the logic still needs to be written by someone. There's existing protocols for this kind of stuff, and there's existing automation at the banks for processing this stuff. Even if you decide to go blockchain, you will have to meet with the other banks to make sure everyone agrees so they'll want to be on the same chain. You're still going to need back office staff to make sure the inputs and outputs make sense. Anyway, I've yet to see a blockchain use that both requires and is improved by using the blockchain.
- LAMike 11y ago
  For some business needs, the Blockchain makes no sense. That being said, here's my devils advocate for your 3 complaints: 1.) Yes, you can make your servers redundant, and keep them up 24/7, or you can use the pay as you go model with the Blockchain. The difference is like keeping a car idling vs. using an electric car. 2.) Writing things to the Blockchain can be very beneficial compared to your own database. Ownership of offline things like bikes can be done with a Bluetooth/NFC chip and a bitcoin address. Also for online transactions, it provides a tamper-free source of truth. 3.) You argue that someone would still have to write the logic for the Blockchain apps. That's definitely true but the impact of a Blockchain startup might replace a higher ratio of jobs than you expect. (Like Kodak vs. Instagram numbers) Give it time, it's still early to call it a bust just yet.
awgneo 11y ago
It brings me great joy to watch as the world's banking institutions become the atavisms of our time. What is so innovative or patentable about a distributed database? Bitcoin is the only real innovation and it needs not said institutions.
shmerl 11y ago
That's sick. They clearly abuse the patent system to ban competition threat here. It's another clear demonstration that software patents shouldn't exist.
nvader 11y ago
Is there a way for the public to challenge a patent application during the process? If there isn't, what would be the most expedient way of getting such a step added to the application process?
- kalyanganjam 11y ago
  You can try http://patents.stackexchange.com/ http://patents.stackexchange.com/ Background info can be located at https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/09/askpatents-com-a-stack-exchange-to-prevent-bad-patents/ https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/09/askpatents-com-a-stac...
acd 11y ago
But Bank of America did not invent Bitcoin so there has to be prior art. I think the banks realise that with bitcoin tech consumers do not need banks anymore. You do not need a bank to trade stocks, to change currency. Basically how can you get patents for someone else invention?
- golergka 11y ago
  The article didn't say that they are trying to file patents for blockchain. The article says that they are trying to file patents _related_ to blockchain. Surely, if they actually invent something new on top of existing technology, they can file a patent for that?
golergka 11y ago
Article text: patents are RELATED to blockchain Headline: patents for TECHNOLOGY BEHIND bitcoin Comments on HN: OMG THEY ARE PATENTING SOMETHING ALREADY INVENTED, EVIL STUPID BANKS, EVIL STUPID PATENTS, EVIL STUPID LAWS Yes, their patents include descriptions of already known tech, but at first glance, these two actually look like new and interesting stuff: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=3&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=(%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency)&OS=%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency&RS=(%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency) http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H... http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=6&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=(%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency)&OS=%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency&RS=(%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency) http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...
- anonneedboaacct 11y ago
  Indeed. Perhaps instead of griping, the correct answer is to read the patents and file objections if they are already obvious or patent something already known (especially if in the public domain, like bitcoin).
  - PatentTroll 11y ago
    TITCR
- deciplex 11y ago
  None of that shit looks new or interesting.
  - golergka 11y ago
    May be I'm not aware of all that blockchain does, but does it really provide risk scores based on transaction histories?
    - stymaar 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pwm 11y ago
Interesting tangential thought experiment: what happens when, in the near future, some AI created software violates a patent? For example a hypothetical UI optimiser algo creates a slider which happens to be patented? :)
- deciplex 11y ago
  We let that AI out of the box and point it at patent trolls.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    What's a little apocalypse, so long as we take the patent trolls down with us? (And civilization, and the species...)
    - yc1010 11y ago
      Just dont call it SKYNET, you be sued by Hollywood then for copyright infringement or something...
return0 11y ago
Maybe they want to win time against competitors with "patent pending" products (regardless if they ll be granted the patent). Does that mean they are working on bitcoin products? Have they announced anything?
race2tb 11y ago
It is going to be hard to monitize blockchain just like torrents.I think it is best developed by a non for profit that is funded by some major players to keep it unbias and trustworthy to the benifit of market participants.
Dowwie 11y ago
Following is my unsubstantiated theory about recent bank involvement in bitcoin: The banks won't go down without a fight. They're setting up a legal minefield for bitcoin entrepreneurs. I doubt they'll use these patents other than to protect the status quo. If the patent minefield doesn't work, they'll capture the market by investing in their own ringfenced version of the blockchain (see "the open ledger project") and PR the hell out of it to ensure that it gets adopted rather than someone else's. Granted, their strategy won't work if they can't influence adoption or sue the pants off of startup competitors. Again, this is just a theory. Maybe they really do all of a sudden want to spend millions on something that does basically what their existing services do except they can't control. /sarcasm
- VonGuard 11y ago
  I think you're heading in the wrong direction. First, I think they are buying these for protection, so they can experiment with blockchain tech and no get sued. Second, I think they want this for inter-bank commerce, not for end users. It makes more sense to implement for banks as a way for them to exchange monies between themselves, at least, at first.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    Protection against whom, Satoshi Nakamoto? And why should they use it for interbank transactions? Isn't there already a working interbank transactions system?
nickpsecurity 11y ago
This is exactly why I posted in a previous thread that OSS projects and even public domain stuff need to patent their ass off. They should collect it into nonprofits that defend OSS institutions. Aside from self-defense, the main reason to patent all this stuff is so the big companies can't. This example shows they will do it any opportunity they can for anti-competitive purposes.
- deegles 11y ago
  Is the bitcoin community large enough to support a nonprofit like that? How many patent lawyers would they need and how much would that cost?
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    I have no idea. I'd start with organizations like FSF and Apache plus companies that benefit from OSS like Red Hat. Any key, differentiating innovations in their projects or dependencies would be up for patenting. Then, reviewers would look at the strategic importance of the techs to prioritize them. Then, they'd patent as many as their budget allows. That's a start.

367 points by hackuser 11y ago

Looking forward to reading these patents to learn their cutting-edge blockchain implementation for making a $1 overdraft accrue $35 in fees.

analog31 11y ago
That's a different form of "mining."
- thenerdfiles 11y ago
  "to mine" =def (trans.) the act of declaring exclusive ownership rights of an object for the speaker of the sentence.
  - shitgoose 11y ago
    why downvote? it is funny.
    - thenerdfiles 11y ago
      Because they're Old Guards.

mabbo 11y ago

Someone smarter than me, please explain: are they seriously just trying to patent bitcoin, which already exists? Or are they inventing new ideas that can be done with blockchain technology?

todd3834 11y ago
I don't think they would be foolish enough to patent Bitcoin. I would assume they would Lose due to prior art if it were ever challenged. My guess is that they like the block chain idea and they are innovating around that concept in a way that could benefit them.
- syedkarim 11y ago
  I don't think there is a downside (to them) for trying to patent Bitcoin. Worst case, the application is denied. Best case (for them), it's approved. From that perspective, it's not foolish for them to try.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  > I would assume they would Lose due to prior art if it were ever challenged. Only if challenged within 6 months after the patent application was published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Ac...
  - daveguy 11y ago
    Not a Lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the 6 months timeline for third party submission of prior art applies directly to the patent. In other words the patent office will directly revoke the patent if it is notified of prior art before 6 months. The court system could still be used to determine that prior art invalidates a patent. Kindof a shitty rule, but the patent office doesn't have the resources to be overseeing every patent dispute -- it is essentially for the courts to decide. Speaking of which. Is there a crowd sourcing site for "here are the patents that have recently been approved -- what is prior art?" to help reign in patent craziness?
    - tarikjn 11y ago
      Could any person notice the USPTO of prior art on those patent? Perhaps it is that simple?
  - Sodel 11y ago
adrianmacneil 11y ago
Mostly just applying for patents for existing technology/novel uses for Bitcoin, so that someone else doesn't beat them to it in case the technology turns out useful. Filing patents is a pretty cheap way of ensuring you don't end up the victim of patent lawsuits in future (for large corporations at least).
nickodell 11y ago
These are the patents they are applying for: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency&d=PG01 http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H... Some of them seem remarkably frivolous: >System and Method for Wire Transfers Using Cryptocurrency >[...] The processor can transfer the first quantity of the cryptocurrency to a second cryptocurrency exchange and initiate the sale of the first quantity of the cryptocurrency at the second cryptocurrency exchange. The processor is further able to initiate the transfer of at least a portion of the resulting currency to a recipient.
- hkmurakami 11y ago
  >Some of them seem remarkably frivolous: As are most patent filings (including some of my own)
  - meowface 11y ago
    >As are most patent filings (including some of my own) Why file them, then? (The fact that you admitted to it suggests you have a valid and ethical reason to do so.)
    - trentmb 11y ago
      > Why file them, then? "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
      - jeff_marshall 11y ago
        "don't hate the employee, hate the employer" That sums it up for me.
      - devdas 11y ago
        That's the modern day equivalent of "I was just following orders".
noonespecial 11y ago
I'm guessing "ordinary paper process that we've been doing since 1750 but in teh blockchainz!"
- gherkin0 11y ago
  > I'm guessing "ordinary paper process that we've been doing since 1750 but in teh blockchainz!" Didn't the Supreme Court decisively swat down that sort of thing (i.e. "but do it on a computer" patents)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int'l https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int'l
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    That's not the most accurate interpretation of Alice, but it can be approximated as such. However, I cannot think of a comparable analogy in history to blockchains, so I don't know if Alice can be directly applied.

barrkel 11y ago

I expect this is an insurance move: iterate through the cross-product of bitcoin concepts and current banking tech, eliminate the nonsensical pairings, and make plausible applications for the remainder. That way they cover their bases in case there's something game-changing lurking within.

joshfraser 11y ago

Great ammo for suing future competitors in the financial space.

radiorental 11y ago
That generally not how corporations use patents. Patent trolls - yes, but patents are almost always a defense.
- joshfraser 11y ago
  Depends on the corporation. The tech industry tends to be pretty good about using patents defensively, but there are notable exceptions. For example, Akamai has built a reputation of suing every new startup that enters the CDN space for patent infringement (Limelight, Speedera, Cotendo, etc). Ask any VC in the valley to fund your CDN biz and they'll ask you what your patent portfolio looks like and how big of a war chest you're building to fight the inevitable lawsuits.
- goodplay 11y ago
  and for nudging negotiations in the right direction.

civild 11y ago

It's not surprising that banks are interested in blockchain technology, if not necessarily Bitcoin itself. Patenting technology is very common by these companies and it is almost always a protection measure against them being sued for using it.

hackaflocka 11y ago

Doesn't Warren Buffett own a large percentage of BOA? This is the Buffett strategy, use the public sphere to allow private entities to acquire monopoly power. He did this with his opposition to the Keystone Pipeline so that his trains would benefit from the need to move oil in that corridor.

neximo4 11y ago
> so that his trains would be the only option to move oil in that corridor. Not sure how true this is. There are other options, including the using the Canadian Pacific Railway, which also operates in that corridor.
- hackaflocka 11y ago
  We can never be "sure" of these things, but here's an article that provides some background to my claim: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/08/obama-did-warren-buffett-railroad-stocks-huge-favo.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/08/obama-did-w...
  - neximo4 11y ago
    Here is another fool.com article suggesting other Canadian railroads that can also transport the oil (and are doing so). Including your own article, there is hardly a hint of monopoly. http://www.fool.ca/2015/09/04/will-a-keystone-rejection-benefit-canadian-national-railway-company-and-canadian-pacific-railway-limited/ http://www.fool.ca/2015/09/04/will-a-keystone-rejection-bene...
everyone 11y ago
I've been thinking recently that powerful people treating the real world like a game is possibly one of the most destructive forces in society.
- DiabloD3 11y ago
  It depends entirely what their end goal is. To make money with no regards to anything else? Yes, they are dangerous to the human race and should be treated as the absolute worst terrorists possible. However, if their end goal is to actually leave the world a better place than when it was when they were born, and it just happens it takes being one of the richest people ever to do that? More power to them, and I hope they succeed. Not all rich and powerful people are assholes, some just want to make the world less shitty, and some actually succeed at it.

aburan28 11y ago

Fuck Bank of America. $12.00 maintenance fee every month for holding my money? $35.00 overdraft fees? </rant> I don't understand why they are patenting this stuff, It will never hold up and they will never sue anyone

sixQuarks 11y ago
Bank of America closed down my business checking accounts last week, right before I went away on holiday. No access to ATM, no way to deposit or make payments. When I tried to find out the reason why, they literally said "we don't have to provide a reason". Keep in mind I've had these checking accounts for 15 years. So yeah, Fuck Bank of America!
- bobfunk 11y ago
  They did pretty much exactly the same here with our corporate account on the 24th. Had to spend 6 hours(!) Monday to get it unfrozen and don't actually know if it worked yet...
- thenerdfiles 11y ago
  They did the same to our account, and informed us that they had sent an account shutdown warning notice to an address with no zip code. Then they reminded us that they do not have have to provide a reason, a month after they sent the letter, and of course after we called them.
  - snuxoll 11y ago
    Sometimes they can't provide a reason, if it was taken down because of the PATRIOT act. But it's BofA, so instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt I'll assume they're just being evil.
    - reverb256 11y ago
      How often does this happen...?
11y ago

rubyfan 11y ago

Many big companies file patents for defensive reasons and do not pursue offensive activities. If BoA thought they might use a block chain in the future for example, having a patent can neutralize the threat of a competitor limiting their ability to use that method to support business activities. It's sort of a mutually assured distruction approach.

dnautics 11y ago
they could publically announce that's what they are doing, or transfer them to a company that holds them, like RPX.
yuubi 11y ago
At least some use publications like http://www.researchdisclosure.com/ http://www.researchdisclosure.com/ instead. I know the print edition at least used to exist and have subscribers because there were some shelves of it in the local university library.
fragsworth 11y ago
I guarantee you, the minute someone is making a shitload of money off something related to their patent, there will be "offensive activity".

ChristianGeek 11y ago

Bank of America is the Comcast of banking.

thegayngler 11y ago

How someone is allowed to patent something that already exists is beyond me? What is the patent office doing over there? I don't think they are doing their jobs properly if Bank of America was allowed to patent technology they didn't create.

coldtea 11y ago
>How someone is allowed to patent something that already exists is beyond me Obviously because the patent process is just a timestamp thing that says "I've registered this idea at this time". It's then up to the court to rule on a any clashes, e.g. when somebody else has a similar registration from an earlier time.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Patents are supposed to be rejected before they are granted if they don't meet the requirements for patentability, though. To do otherwise destroys the value of patents for anyone but the wealthiest corporations.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > To do otherwise destroys the value of patents for anyone but the wealthiest corporations. You may be on to something there.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
This is because you (and most people here) fundamentally misunderstand how patents work and what these patents actually cover. Essentially, there are an infinite number of applications, variations and implementations of any given technology, and each of these may potentially be patent-eligible. The patent office's job is to only grant those that are sufficiently distinguishable over some combination of prior art.

tuyguntn 11y ago

I think people should be able to vote for patent acceptance, if more than 60% of voters consider that idea is great, let company own this patent. Patent office should do research before publishing to vote. Otherwise people can patent everything. - Technology the Sun uses to shine, technology and methods for light which creates light space in dark space. - Internal structure of fingers to click mouse/keyboard - State of the mind before buying something ...

ucho 11y ago
Doesn't sound realistic. Have you seen text of any patent? It is completely unreadable to normal people. I always thought that ToS or legislations look bad, but usually they put all definitions in one place. In patents all of that is inlined, 20 words phrase instead of just "computer". Having some domain knowledge before voting could also take few months or years ... BTW why do we even award patents? Seriously - if many people, in many places had the same idea, on their own, why should we grant a monopoly to one of them? That would probably require some replacement system for drugs, we don't want the ingredients to be secret but I don't how exactly should it work.

lordnacho 11y ago

Don't get me wrong, I think Bitcoin is an amazing technical (and economic) wonder. But after starting (and quitting) a BTC business with a guy, and getting a BTC-related patent with another guy, I've come to the conclusion that blockchain technologies are a solution looking for a problem, and the only current problem being solved is how to illegally move money. This is of course a standard thing to say for someone who's just come across BTC (like a savvy old businessman friend of mine) but I've actually looked at the code, talked to people who wanted BTC (a couple of nerds and an army of drug dealers / drug customers), and so on for a long while. All the blockchain uses I've come across have seemed to be bolt-on hype motivated rather than genuine uses of the technology. I'm even doing a standard web project for a guy who thinks it will be useful to keep track of stuff in containers. I come from the finance industry, so I think I also know a bit about the requirements there, and they don't need it. So let's look at what blockchain technology lets you do: 1) You get an indelible wall that grows every 10 minutes. You can write whatever you like on it. Well, that's great but you can do that with a normal database. It's well known how to do it, there's backup processes, security, various consistency measures, scaling, and so on that are established. 2) You don't need to run your own database. This is great if you don't want the network to be closed due to malfunction or police intervention. But banks already know how to run a database, they have hordes of people doing that. And they have to comply with information requests from the authorities. And someone, somewhere needs to have all the records, which they will want compensation for. I suggest AWS and the likes (in house), running an old fashioned DB would require orders of magnitude less compensation for similar amounts of traffic. 3) The network automates the ledger system so we don't need as many back office staff. Well, there's no magic here. If you write a blockchain for securities operations, the logic still needs to be written by someone. There's existing protocols for this kind of stuff, and there's existing automation at the banks for processing this stuff. Even if you decide to go blockchain, you will have to meet with the other banks to make sure everyone agrees so they'll want to be on the same chain. You're still going to need back office staff to make sure the inputs and outputs make sense. Anyway, I've yet to see a blockchain use that both requires and is improved by using the blockchain.

LAMike 11y ago
For some business needs, the Blockchain makes no sense. That being said, here's my devils advocate for your 3 complaints: 1.) Yes, you can make your servers redundant, and keep them up 24/7, or you can use the pay as you go model with the Blockchain. The difference is like keeping a car idling vs. using an electric car. 2.) Writing things to the Blockchain can be very beneficial compared to your own database. Ownership of offline things like bikes can be done with a Bluetooth/NFC chip and a bitcoin address. Also for online transactions, it provides a tamper-free source of truth. 3.) You argue that someone would still have to write the logic for the Blockchain apps. That's definitely true but the impact of a Blockchain startup might replace a higher ratio of jobs than you expect. (Like Kodak vs. Instagram numbers) Give it time, it's still early to call it a bust just yet.

awgneo 11y ago

It brings me great joy to watch as the world's banking institutions become the atavisms of our time. What is so innovative or patentable about a distributed database? Bitcoin is the only real innovation and it needs not said institutions.

shmerl 11y ago

That's sick. They clearly abuse the patent system to ban competition threat here. It's another clear demonstration that software patents shouldn't exist.

nvader 11y ago

Is there a way for the public to challenge a patent application during the process? If there isn't, what would be the most expedient way of getting such a step added to the application process?

kalyanganjam 11y ago
You can try http://patents.stackexchange.com/ http://patents.stackexchange.com/ Background info can be located at https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/09/askpatents-com-a-stack-exchange-to-prevent-bad-patents/ https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/09/askpatents-com-a-stac...

acd 11y ago

But Bank of America did not invent Bitcoin so there has to be prior art. I think the banks realise that with bitcoin tech consumers do not need banks anymore. You do not need a bank to trade stocks, to change currency. Basically how can you get patents for someone else invention?

golergka 11y ago
The article didn't say that they are trying to file patents for blockchain. The article says that they are trying to file patents _related_ to blockchain. Surely, if they actually invent something new on top of existing technology, they can file a patent for that?

golergka 11y ago

Article text: patents are RELATED to blockchain Headline: patents for TECHNOLOGY BEHIND bitcoin Comments on HN: OMG THEY ARE PATENTING SOMETHING ALREADY INVENTED, EVIL STUPID BANKS, EVIL STUPID PATENTS, EVIL STUPID LAWS Yes, their patents include descriptions of already known tech, but at first glance, these two actually look like new and interesting stuff: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=3&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=(%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency)&OS=%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency&RS=(%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency) http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H... http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=6&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=(%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency)&OS=%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency&RS=(%22bank+of+america%22+AND+cryptocurrency) http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...

anonneedboaacct 11y ago
Indeed. Perhaps instead of griping, the correct answer is to read the patents and file objections if they are already obvious or patent something already known (especially if in the public domain, like bitcoin).
- PatentTroll 11y ago
  TITCR
deciplex 11y ago
None of that shit looks new or interesting.
- golergka 11y ago
  May be I'm not aware of all that blockchain does, but does it really provide risk scores based on transaction histories?
  - stymaar 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

pwm 11y ago

Interesting tangential thought experiment: what happens when, in the near future, some AI created software violates a patent? For example a hypothetical UI optimiser algo creates a slider which happens to be patented? :)

deciplex 11y ago
We let that AI out of the box and point it at patent trolls.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  What's a little apocalypse, so long as we take the patent trolls down with us? (And civilization, and the species...)
  - yc1010 11y ago
    Just dont call it SKYNET, you be sued by Hollywood then for copyright infringement or something...

return0 11y ago

Maybe they want to win time against competitors with "patent pending" products (regardless if they ll be granted the patent). Does that mean they are working on bitcoin products? Have they announced anything?

race2tb 11y ago

It is going to be hard to monitize blockchain just like torrents.I think it is best developed by a non for profit that is funded by some major players to keep it unbias and trustworthy to the benifit of market participants.

Dowwie 11y ago

Following is my unsubstantiated theory about recent bank involvement in bitcoin: The banks won't go down without a fight. They're setting up a legal minefield for bitcoin entrepreneurs. I doubt they'll use these patents other than to protect the status quo. If the patent minefield doesn't work, they'll capture the market by investing in their own ringfenced version of the blockchain (see "the open ledger project") and PR the hell out of it to ensure that it gets adopted rather than someone else's. Granted, their strategy won't work if they can't influence adoption or sue the pants off of startup competitors. Again, this is just a theory. Maybe they really do all of a sudden want to spend millions on something that does basically what their existing services do except they can't control. /sarcasm

VonGuard 11y ago
I think you're heading in the wrong direction. First, I think they are buying these for protection, so they can experiment with blockchain tech and no get sued. Second, I think they want this for inter-bank commerce, not for end users. It makes more sense to implement for banks as a way for them to exchange monies between themselves, at least, at first.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  Protection against whom, Satoshi Nakamoto? And why should they use it for interbank transactions? Isn't there already a working interbank transactions system?

nickpsecurity 11y ago

This is exactly why I posted in a previous thread that OSS projects and even public domain stuff need to patent their ass off. They should collect it into nonprofits that defend OSS institutions. Aside from self-defense, the main reason to patent all this stuff is so the big companies can't. This example shows they will do it any opportunity they can for anti-competitive purposes.

deegles 11y ago
Is the bitcoin community large enough to support a nonprofit like that? How many patent lawyers would they need and how much would that cost?
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I have no idea. I'd start with organizations like FSF and Apache plus companies that benefit from OSS like Red Hat. Any key, differentiating innovations in their projects or dependencies would be up for patenting. Then, reviewers would look at the strategic importance of the techs to prioritize them. Then, they'd patent as many as their budget allows. That's a start.