5 ms·
JP Morgan files for anonymous online payment system
- nh 13y agoI would think BBC would do some fact checking. I posted this comment in another blogger's article. [1] "The author's entire premise is off. The recent filing is a continuation of an application filed on Feb 3, 2000 (see patent 6,609,113). So, Chase wasnt taking a 'swipe' at Bitcoin because the original application was filed 13 years ago." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6878442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6878442
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- GrahamsNumber 13y agoI don't know if this is what you're hinting at, but trebled is a valid word.
- ripberge 13y agoThe author's premise is not off because it's a continuation of an existing patent. My company does the same thing because its much easier to get a continuation through the patent office than a whole new patent (which will take several years). Shockingly the continuation doesn't even have to be that closely related to the original patent in my experience. So if we have an idea even remotely related we just do a continuation.
- jasonwatkinspdx 13y agoPatent applications filed before the end of 2000 were not published. You can in effect file a continuation as many times as you like, and rewrite the patent substantially as you do. This leads to a tactic called submarine-ing, where you keep filing continuations on a patent that is repeatedly rejected for being overly broad. Then once a concrete target appears on the horizon, you narrow the patent to cover it before prior art, etc is well established. It's no longer possible to do this with patent applications filed after the end of 2000 due to reform. The period the patent is in force no longer shifts forward with the continuations. But previous applications were grandfathered in.
- aklein 13y agoBitcoin is continually referred to as "anonymous" in the press, but it is just the opposite [1]. Maybe confusion over what cryptographically secure identification is? Some simple network analysis on the public ledger can reveal a whole lot of "identifying" info ... [1] http://bitcoin.org/en/faq#is-bitcoin-anonymous http://bitcoin.org/en/faq#is-bitcoin-anonymous
- wmf 13y agoTo a layman, anything less than "know your customer" is "anonymous".
- pmorici 13y agoHere is a article I read earlier today talking about how they are basically trying to patent BitCoin's features http://letstalkbitcoin.com/jpmorgan-chase-building-bitcoin-killer/ http://letstalkbitcoin.com/jpmorgan-chase-building-bitcoin-k...
- RexRollman 13y agoYou just know the anonymous part will never fly; our survellence overlords won't allow it.
- castis 13y agoWhich, to me, makes this extremely suspect.
- steven2012 13y agoI guess they are trying to take control of all Bitcoin/digital currency payments by patenting a payment system, and making it as broad as possible.
- shmerl 13y agoI'm not sure however, how can they patent it now, if it was created in the past, i.e. way before the time of filing?
- spinlock 13y agoWould their patent be enforceable? Their claims include anonymity. How do you know who to sue if the payments are anonymous?
- jacques_chester 13y agoYou sue any company with a "Bitcoin accepted here" logo.
- shmerl 13y agoPatents? No thanks, especially not from some greedy bank.
- ris 13y agoHands up who trusts JP Morgan
- reovirus 13y agoVery interesting, thanks for sharing
- wbl 13y agoCan people read? The patent claims are very distinct from Bitcoin: claim 1 requires 2 institutions with customers at each. Bitcoin has no such institutions.
- newsmaster 13y agoCall me paranoid but sounds like they're trying to stop institutions adopting bitcoins as payment to each other otherwise they'll sue? What's the definition of institution anyway? If it's got customers then isn't it the same as a company/business?
- mrobot 13y agoOwning anonymity is an attack on privacy. It means if i want to set up a system where people pay for things without being tracked i have to pay the guys who are tracking all purchases. Theoretical full ownership of all anonymous payment processes means consumers cannot own their own behaviors without paying a tax on doing so. If i can hold on to my anonymity i can actually own and even sell my own behaviors. As one example, I could prove to someone that a bitcoin wallet was my own.