Hacker News Reader

Comment by mabbo | Hacker News Reader

Someone smarter than me, please explain: are they seriously just trying to patent bitcoin, which already exists? Or are they inventing new ideas that can be done with blockchain technology?

View on HN

These are the patents they are applying for:

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.

>Some of them seem remarkably frivolous:

As are most patent filings (including some of my own)

>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.)

> Why file them, then?

"Don't hate the player, hate the game."

"don't hate the employee, hate the employer"

That sums it up for me.

That's the modern day equivalent of "I was just following orders".

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.

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.

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.

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.

How about drug patents

I believe the context was software patents.

They can file and be granted a patent on your work against your will. The system specifically accounts for companies that need to file a patent on the work of a "non-cooperating inventor".

As an employee, your refusal will probably get you fired (since you probably agreed to cooperate with patents in your contract) and burn bridges, and all it does is force them to spend a few extra hours on paperwork.

A previous employer wanted to patent some of my work, and I tried to use this as leverage to get them to implement something like Twitter's "Innovator's Patent Agreement", Google's "Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge", or Paul Graham's "Patent Pledge" - only to find out that I didn't really have any leverage. I at least did manage to get it discussed, but ultimately it was rejected. This was a factor (though a minor one) in my decision to leave there.

"I was just following orders" is not just about purges and/or the holocaust as you imply (something the parent didn't explicitly state).

It has been a standard excuse in tons of other, smaller scale, wrongdoings.

Besides, while having your employee file a patent on your work is not similar to those cases you mention in the scale of harm it causes, it's very much the same exact excuse used there.

Not where patents are concerned.

If I join up with the Nazis, the Nazis are stronger.

If I file a patent, one more idea might go unclaimed by a major corp. Unless I am litigious on their level, the patent will hurt fewer people.

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.

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.)

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.

In theory, you only have to trust for the few years that the patent is valid.

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/222864...

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

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.

I'm guessing "ordinary paper process that we've been doing since 1750 but in teh blockchainz!"

> I'm guessing "ordinary paper process that we've been doing since 1750 but in teh blockchainz!"

Didn't the Supreme Court decisively swat down that sort of thing (i.e. "but do it on a computer" patents)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int'l

That's not the most accurate interpretation of Alice, but it can be approximated as such. However, I cannot think of a comparable analogy in history to blockchains, so I don't know if Alice can be directly applied.

I don't think they would be foolish enough to patent Bitcoin. I would assume they would Lose due to prior art if it were ever challenged. My guess is that they like the block chain idea and they are innovating around that concept in a way that could benefit them.

I don't think there is a downside (to them) for trying to patent Bitcoin. Worst case, the application is denied. Best case (for them), it's approved. From that perspective, it's not foolish for them to try.

> I would assume they would Lose due to prior art if it were ever challenged.

Only if challenged within 6 months after the patent application was published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Ac...

Not a Lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the 6 months timeline for third party submission of prior art applies directly to the patent. In other words the patent office will directly revoke the patent if it is notified of prior art before 6 months. The court system could still be used to determine that prior art invalidates a patent. Kindof a shitty rule, but the patent office doesn't have the resources to be overseeing every patent dispute -- it is essentially for the courts to decide. Speaking of which. Is there a crowd sourcing site for "here are the patents that have recently been approved -- what is prior art?" to help reign in patent craziness?

Could any person notice the USPTO of prior art on those patent? Perhaps it is that simple?

From that article, I get the impression that the 6-month limit only applies to direct submission of prior art to the Patent Office. Patents can still be invalidated by prior art in court.

Mostly just applying for patents for existing technology/novel uses for Bitcoin, so that someone else doesn't beat them to it in case the technology turns out useful. Filing patents is a pretty cheap way of ensuring you don't end up the victim of patent lawsuits in future (for large corporations at least).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com