5 ms·

Bitcoin transactions support multiple inputs and multiple outputs (transactions involving multiple input and multiple output "accounts"). For example, Satoshi

Bitcoin transactions support multiple inputs and multiple outputs (transactions involving multiple input and multiple output "accounts"). For example, Satoshi Nakamoto would need to use multiple accounts as inputs for any single transaction greater than 50 BTC. Those accounts were created prior to the development of the Hierarchical Deterministic Wallet spec (BIP32) [0]. From reading only the abstract cross-posted here, it sounds like the linked patent filling from 2016 is describing something very similar to the "Per-office balances: m/iH" use case described in BIP32 [1]; which is indeed prior art from 2012 [0]. With Bitcoin HD Wallets, there is no distinction between a private key and an account. With an HD Wallet, there is a private parent key and there are private child keys which are derived from the private parent key. Each private child key is a distinct "account". Multiple Bitcoin wallet softwares support the 2012 BIP32 HD Wallet spec. [0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawi... [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki#Peroffice_balances_misubHsub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawi...

jacques_chester 9y ago
You can file paperwork to tell the examiner that you think you have found prior art. Their searches are typically scoped to existing patents.
- bitcoinpriorart 9y ago
  That would require one to read the patent, which could be used as evidence of willful infringement. If someone else could read it and file a prior art brief/notification - if appropriate - that'd be helpful.
  - jacques_chester 9y ago
    I think you're getting into a bit of bush lawyering here. Saying "oh but your honour, I know of it but I didn't actually read it" won't carry much water if it ever came to trial. If nothing else it would evidence an intent to ... willfully infringe. Of course, I am not a lawyer, and clearly neither are you. Neither of us is giving legal advice.
    - bitcoinpriorart 9y ago
      re: "Supreme Court Update: New Standard for Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages Under 35 U.S.C. §284" (2016 "Halo") https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts/supreme-court-update-new-standard-for-willful-patent-infringement-and-enhanced-damages/ https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts... > Though the Court’s unanimous opinion gives district courts wider latitude to apply enhanced damages under the abuse-of-discretion standard, a concurrence by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito, suggests at least two judicial limitations to that discretion: (1) mere knowledge of the patent is insufficient to support enhanced damages; and (2) “enhanced damages may not serve to compensate patentees for infringement-related costs or litigation expenses.” There should be no IP reason to stop using Bitcoin HD Wallets for handling multiple Bitcoin accounts due to the linked patent filing because Bitcoin HD Wallets existed four (4) years prior to what seems to be described in the patent abstract copied to this thread.
      - jacques_chester 9y ago
        Yes, the same link was at the top of my google search too. My conclusions were that (1) it's not cut-and-dried and (2) I am not a patent lawyer and I don't think it's wise to pretend I am.
  - piracy1 9y ago
    Sounds like a something the EFF might be interested in.

jacques_chester 9y ago

You can file paperwork to tell the examiner that you think you have found prior art. Their searches are typically scoped to existing patents.

bitcoinpriorart 9y ago
That would require one to read the patent, which could be used as evidence of willful infringement. If someone else could read it and file a prior art brief/notification - if appropriate - that'd be helpful.
- jacques_chester 9y ago
  I think you're getting into a bit of bush lawyering here. Saying "oh but your honour, I know of it but I didn't actually read it" won't carry much water if it ever came to trial. If nothing else it would evidence an intent to ... willfully infringe. Of course, I am not a lawyer, and clearly neither are you. Neither of us is giving legal advice.
  - bitcoinpriorart 9y ago
    re: "Supreme Court Update: New Standard for Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages Under 35 U.S.C. §284" (2016 "Halo") https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts/supreme-court-update-new-standard-for-willful-patent-infringement-and-enhanced-damages/ https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts... > Though the Court’s unanimous opinion gives district courts wider latitude to apply enhanced damages under the abuse-of-discretion standard, a concurrence by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito, suggests at least two judicial limitations to that discretion: (1) mere knowledge of the patent is insufficient to support enhanced damages; and (2) “enhanced damages may not serve to compensate patentees for infringement-related costs or litigation expenses.” There should be no IP reason to stop using Bitcoin HD Wallets for handling multiple Bitcoin accounts due to the linked patent filing because Bitcoin HD Wallets existed four (4) years prior to what seems to be described in the patent abstract copied to this thread.
    - jacques_chester 9y ago
      Yes, the same link was at the top of my google search too. My conclusions were that (1) it's not cut-and-dried and (2) I am not a patent lawyer and I don't think it's wise to pretend I am.
- piracy1 9y ago
  Sounds like a something the EFF might be interested in.