7 ms·

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=

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".
      - mikestew 11y ago
        Yes, having your employer file a patent on your work (whether you want them to or not) is very much like taking part in the killing of humans through starvation, experimentation, and gas chambers.
        dclowd9901 11y ago
        While his comparison was clumsily drawn from Nazi participants, I think we can agree that the idea of blind participation is something worth criticizing. The reason corporations wield so much power is because everyone is willing to undercut everyone else.
        mikestew 11y ago
        Fair enough (enough to click the up arrow for a point well made), though I don't think participation in the patent system is quite as clear-cut. Gassing Jews? The vast majority would agree that this goes to the far end of the "evil" scale, if not defining the maximum of that scale. Having your employer patent your work? Meh, I'm pretty sure opinions will fail all over the scale, including the "good" end or at least the "still better than kicking puppies" part of the scale. For instance, I personally find software patents to be pointless and perhaps suppressing of innovation, but I don't get terribly rabid about it. But you're right, blind participation is certainly worthy of criticism, even if I don't necessarily agree that any participation is wrong.
        coldtea 11y ago
        How about drug patents, resulting in thousands of deaths because people in the developing world can't make and afford cheap alternatives? And no, those patents (and the inflated prices) don't happen just to overcompensate for the "cost of research/FDA approval". The drug company often still has healthy, or rather ridiculously large, profit margins, on top of these costs.
        mikestew 11y ago
  - xiaoma 11y ago
    If a professional hockey player thought checking made the game needlessly violent, that wouldn't mean they could stop checking and remain competitive in the game they loved. The pragmatic option would be to keep playing the game, checking included, and advocate for change.
  - geofft 11y ago
    Because you're confident that your employer will only use them defensively, and because the system is broken enough that it's genuinely advantageous to good people to have hopelessly vague patents that appear to a judge to cover their inventions. (That said, my own patent applications probably went to the highest bidder after the sponsoring employer collapsed. So maybe I shouldn't have been so confident they'd remain in good hands.)
    - ryan-c 11y ago
      The question of future control is why, being involved in patents without some form of contract in place that prevents abuse being in place, bothers me. I maybe trust current management not to be dicks, but trusting all plausible future management not to be dicks is naive.
      - eru 11y ago
        In theory, you only have to trust for the few years that the patent is valid.
chejazi 11y ago
The excerpt you mentioned sounds exactly like the Coinbase Shift Card [0] with the exception that it's via Wire instead of ACH. [0] https://support.coinbase.com/customer/portal/articles/2228646 https://support.coinbase.com/customer/portal/articles/222864...
throwawaykf05 11y ago
Actually here is what they are trying to claim (formatted for easier readability: 1. A system comprising: a memory operable to: store a customer account associated with a customer; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the memory including executable instructions that upon execution cause the system to: receive an electronic request for a fund transfer from the customer; initiate a debit of a first amount of a first currency from the customer account; determine whether using cryptocurrency is optimal; in response to determining using cryptocurrency is optimal: transfer the first amount of the first currency into an account associated with a first cryptocurrency exchange; initiate the purchase of a first quantity of a cryptocurrency from the first cryptocurrency exchange, wherein the first quantity of cryptocurrency is equivalent to the first amount of the first currency; transfer the first quantity of the cryptocurrency to a second cryptocurrency exchange; initiate, essentially simultaneously as the initiation of the purchase, the sale of the first quantity of the cryptocurrency at the second cryptocurrency exchange, wherein the sale of the first quantity of cryptocurrency results in a second amount of a second currency; and communicate a message to a local automated clearing house, the message requesting a transfer of at least a portion of the second amount of the second currency to a recipient. Even better formatting available here: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150262173 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150262173 Seems to me the only thing different from existing systems is the step of determining "whether using cryptocurrency is optimal". Shouldn't be hard to find a reference that does the same for conventional currencies and make an argument for obviousness.

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".
    - mikestew 11y ago
      Yes, having your employer file a patent on your work (whether you want them to or not) is very much like taking part in the killing of humans through starvation, experimentation, and gas chambers.
      - dclowd9901 11y ago
        While his comparison was clumsily drawn from Nazi participants, I think we can agree that the idea of blind participation is something worth criticizing. The reason corporations wield so much power is because everyone is willing to undercut everyone else.
        mikestew 11y ago
        Fair enough (enough to click the up arrow for a point well made), though I don't think participation in the patent system is quite as clear-cut. Gassing Jews? The vast majority would agree that this goes to the far end of the "evil" scale, if not defining the maximum of that scale. Having your employer patent your work? Meh, I'm pretty sure opinions will fail all over the scale, including the "good" end or at least the "still better than kicking puppies" part of the scale. For instance, I personally find software patents to be pointless and perhaps suppressing of innovation, but I don't get terribly rabid about it. But you're right, blind participation is certainly worthy of criticism, even if I don't necessarily agree that any participation is wrong.
        coldtea 11y ago
        How about drug patents, resulting in thousands of deaths because people in the developing world can't make and afford cheap alternatives? And no, those patents (and the inflated prices) don't happen just to overcompensate for the "cost of research/FDA approval". The drug company often still has healthy, or rather ridiculously large, profit margins, on top of these costs.
        mikestew 11y ago
- xiaoma 11y ago
  If a professional hockey player thought checking made the game needlessly violent, that wouldn't mean they could stop checking and remain competitive in the game they loved. The pragmatic option would be to keep playing the game, checking included, and advocate for change.
- geofft 11y ago
  Because you're confident that your employer will only use them defensively, and because the system is broken enough that it's genuinely advantageous to good people to have hopelessly vague patents that appear to a judge to cover their inventions. (That said, my own patent applications probably went to the highest bidder after the sponsoring employer collapsed. So maybe I shouldn't have been so confident they'd remain in good hands.)
  - ryan-c 11y ago
    The question of future control is why, being involved in patents without some form of contract in place that prevents abuse being in place, bothers me. I maybe trust current management not to be dicks, but trusting all plausible future management not to be dicks is naive.
    - eru 11y ago
      In theory, you only have to trust for the few years that the patent is valid.

chejazi 11y ago

The excerpt you mentioned sounds exactly like the Coinbase Shift Card [0] with the exception that it's via Wire instead of ACH. [0] https://support.coinbase.com/customer/portal/articles/2228646 https://support.coinbase.com/customer/portal/articles/222864...

throwawaykf05 11y ago

Actually here is what they are trying to claim (formatted for easier readability: 1. A system comprising: a memory operable to: store a customer account associated with a customer; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the memory including executable instructions that upon execution cause the system to: receive an electronic request for a fund transfer from the customer; initiate a debit of a first amount of a first currency from the customer account; determine whether using cryptocurrency is optimal; in response to determining using cryptocurrency is optimal: transfer the first amount of the first currency into an account associated with a first cryptocurrency exchange; initiate the purchase of a first quantity of a cryptocurrency from the first cryptocurrency exchange, wherein the first quantity of cryptocurrency is equivalent to the first amount of the first currency; transfer the first quantity of the cryptocurrency to a second cryptocurrency exchange; initiate, essentially simultaneously as the initiation of the purchase, the sale of the first quantity of the cryptocurrency at the second cryptocurrency exchange, wherein the sale of the first quantity of cryptocurrency results in a second amount of a second currency; and communicate a message to a local automated clearing house, the message requesting a transfer of at least a portion of the second amount of the second currency to a recipient. Even better formatting available here: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150262173 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150262173 Seems to me the only thing different from existing systems is the step of determining "whether using cryptocurrency is optimal". Shouldn't be hard to find a reference that does the same for conventional currencies and make an argument for obviousness.