4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoNot 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 agoCould any person notice the USPTO of prior art on those patent? Perhaps it is that simple?
- Sodel 11y agoFrom 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.