4 ms·

Can someone please explain how this is possible/allowed? Also wouldn't this patent (if granted) be refutable due to prior art, etc? From the article: > BitMi

by sgpl 13y ago

Can someone please explain how this is possible/allowed? Also wouldn't this patent (if granted) be refutable due to prior art, etc? From the article: > BitMit was the first successful Bitcoin marketplace (well, second if we count Silk Road) and actually launched its service the same month and year of the eBay patent filing.

nolok 13y ago
I think/believe you're looking at invalidating it the wrong way. Patent should be non obvious (I don't remember the exact wording). The prior art for this is not "another bitcoin exchange", its another currency exchange period; adding a new currency to your currency exchange is an obvious step, and should be treated as such. If the judge act as an idiot and pretend this is new, then you can complain prior art for bitcoin exchange specifically. This way, you don't have to do it again and again and again with the gazillion crypto-currencies out there.
- Natsu 13y ago
  If common sense applied to patents, we wouldn't be in this mess. No doubt they've added some ridiculous limitations that add trivial "advancements" to what the patent office can find documentation of, but it will cost millions of dollars and a trip to Marshall, TX if you want to fight it out with them.
  - akiselev 13y ago
    But that's the problem, "common sense" IS applied to the problem. Thing is, "common sense" is just a bullshit phrase we like to apply out of laziness and lack of empathy for how hard it is to establish and maintain a solid foundation of knowledge in any field, let alone tech where "common sense" can change year to year. (although I'm sure it has a legal definition with lots of precedent in the two centuries before the internet) The patent office is over worked and most patent examiners have no idea what "common sense" is in most tech fields, each of which requires a familiarity that few of us here on HN can claim, let alone a bureaucrat with terrible guidance from legislators. All it takes is a single small gap, like what a crypto currency is, or a misunderstanding of how currency exchanges operate, or even outright semantic manipulation by legal counsel, and the poor patent examiner has no choice but to approve the patent. This is why we have appeals and the legislature, the former to fix the failings of "common sense" and the latter to be bought to manipulate it.
    - lotsofmangos 13y ago
      And if you don't approve it, they adjust the wording and refile.
    - Natsu 13y ago
      Yes, they've found a bright line that's in a bad place and stick to it because it makes the patent bar a lot of money. I don't think it's the best place to be and I have thought quite a bit about a 'triviality' test where if you can tell someone skilled in the art what to make without telling them how and they could still make it, your "invention" is too trivial to be worth protecting. But I'm certainly open to the notion that we're moving too fast for patents to be worthwhile in some fields...
- sean-duffy 13y ago
  "In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,”" [1]. [1] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-5 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerni...
cookiecaper 13y ago
Note that this is still just an application for a patent. It may get denied (but probably won't).
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  Actually I think it will likely be denied. The claims are overly broad.
  - wmf 13y ago
    And then eBay will refine the claims until they get accepted.
    - ChuckMcM 13y ago
      And when the claims are so narrow as to be accepted, they will be easily worked around to avoid infringement.
chrismcb 13y ago
How is it possible? Well you can TRY to patent ALMOST anything (except a few things like a perpetual motion machine) That doesn't mean it will be granted.
loceng 13y ago
The U.S. recently (last year?) switched to a system where it's first to file, not first to invent - so that basically leaves everything open until someone spends money to patent it.. That's my current understanding anyhow. I can only imagine people who like seeing money spent (e.g. money being spent by default is good for the economy) and lawyers are the ones who pushed that change through.
- whoopdedo 13y ago
  The lawyers had no problem making lots of many with first-to-invent since a patent dispute was a long arduous process of attempting to document the timeline of an invention that frequently ended with a judge having to decide a case where both sides present equally plausible claims. First-to-file gives a hard record of who wins when two people create the same invention in a short period of time. Neither situation is well suited to software patents because software patents shouldn't exist in the first place.

by sgpl 13y ago

nolok 13y ago

I think/believe you're looking at invalidating it the wrong way. Patent should be non obvious (I don't remember the exact wording). The prior art for this is not "another bitcoin exchange", its another currency exchange period; adding a new currency to your currency exchange is an obvious step, and should be treated as such. If the judge act as an idiot and pretend this is new, then you can complain prior art for bitcoin exchange specifically. This way, you don't have to do it again and again and again with the gazillion crypto-currencies out there.

Natsu 13y ago
If common sense applied to patents, we wouldn't be in this mess. No doubt they've added some ridiculous limitations that add trivial "advancements" to what the patent office can find documentation of, but it will cost millions of dollars and a trip to Marshall, TX if you want to fight it out with them.
- akiselev 13y ago
  But that's the problem, "common sense" IS applied to the problem. Thing is, "common sense" is just a bullshit phrase we like to apply out of laziness and lack of empathy for how hard it is to establish and maintain a solid foundation of knowledge in any field, let alone tech where "common sense" can change year to year. (although I'm sure it has a legal definition with lots of precedent in the two centuries before the internet) The patent office is over worked and most patent examiners have no idea what "common sense" is in most tech fields, each of which requires a familiarity that few of us here on HN can claim, let alone a bureaucrat with terrible guidance from legislators. All it takes is a single small gap, like what a crypto currency is, or a misunderstanding of how currency exchanges operate, or even outright semantic manipulation by legal counsel, and the poor patent examiner has no choice but to approve the patent. This is why we have appeals and the legislature, the former to fix the failings of "common sense" and the latter to be bought to manipulate it.
  - lotsofmangos 13y ago
    And if you don't approve it, they adjust the wording and refile.
  - Natsu 13y ago
    Yes, they've found a bright line that's in a bad place and stick to it because it makes the patent bar a lot of money. I don't think it's the best place to be and I have thought quite a bit about a 'triviality' test where if you can tell someone skilled in the art what to make without telling them how and they could still make it, your "invention" is too trivial to be worth protecting. But I'm certainly open to the notion that we're moving too fast for patents to be worthwhile in some fields...
sean-duffy 13y ago
"In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,”" [1]. [1] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-5 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerni...

cookiecaper 13y ago

Note that this is still just an application for a patent. It may get denied (but probably won't).

ChuckMcM 13y ago
Actually I think it will likely be denied. The claims are overly broad.
- wmf 13y ago
  And then eBay will refine the claims until they get accepted.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    And when the claims are so narrow as to be accepted, they will be easily worked around to avoid infringement.

chrismcb 13y ago

How is it possible? Well you can TRY to patent ALMOST anything (except a few things like a perpetual motion machine) That doesn't mean it will be granted.

loceng 13y ago

The U.S. recently (last year?) switched to a system where it's first to file, not first to invent - so that basically leaves everything open until someone spends money to patent it.. That's my current understanding anyhow. I can only imagine people who like seeing money spent (e.g. money being spent by default is good for the economy) and lawyers are the ones who pushed that change through.

whoopdedo 13y ago
The lawyers had no problem making lots of many with first-to-invent since a patent dispute was a long arduous process of attempting to document the timeline of an invention that frequently ended with a judge having to decide a case where both sides present equally plausible claims. First-to-file gives a hard record of who wins when two people create the same invention in a short period of time. Neither situation is well suited to software patents because software patents shouldn't exist in the first place.