5 ms·

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 don

by 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
    From that article, I get the impression that the 6-month limit only applies to direct submission of prior art to the Patent Office. Patents can still be invalidated by prior art in court.
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.

by 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
  From that article, I get the impression that the 6-month limit only applies to direct submission of prior art to the Patent Office. Patents can still be invalidated by prior art in court.

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.