4 ms·
This actually is a granted patent. Claim 1 seems quite specific and detailed to me, although I’m no crypto expert. Is everything in the claims well known?
by egdod 7y ago
This actually is a granted patent. Claim 1 seems quite specific and detailed to me, although I’m no crypto expert. Is everything in the claims well known?
- elmo2you 7y agoApparently you are right. I was mistakenly under the impression that it was still under review. I would call that claim first and foremost convoluted, more than specific and detailed, but that is a rather normal practice in patents (IFAIK). From what I've read (so far), I didn't see anything particularly innovative; not within the field of crypto at least. I'm quite confident that this is nothing particularly new to a crypto expert. I'd say it's all rather well known. Maybe not to Joe next door, but that's irrelevant. I'd say that this patent should never have been granted, but I can't say that I'm surprised that it did. However, those who filed for this patent must have known what they were doing. Unless my current view on this radically changes, I sincerely hope that it will (somehow, eventually) cost the people involved dearly. I have no sympathy for anyone who would game a broken system like that, as it so far appears they did. Even if not criminal, legally speaking, I still consider it moral corruption to a high degree.
- hcknwscommenter 7y agoConvoluted? How? For all your talk of criminality and moral corruption, you seem to have no idea how to read a patent claim. You'd say it is all rather well known, but you cite to literally nothing.