Bitcoin Forum

The recently passed patent reform bill has changed the patent system from First to Invent to First to File.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1249ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr1249ih.pdf

What this means for Bitcoin:

Remember the lawyer who tried to patent Bitcoin? Well he can now file and get a patent on it, regardless if it was used before his patent or not.

People, we need to patent Bitcoin and protect it, like what was done in the past with Linux.

Gavin should file.  He's a public face, already interfacing with the government, and he's a known quantity so if he decides to go rogue and screw the community (which I think is very unlikely, but you never know) he can be tracked down and given a very stern talking to.

Any patent lawyers on the good side of bitcoin?  This would be your time to shine.

You should go spend a bit more time reading on how that all works. Much the same as the lawyer is confused on the laws, filing something that can be easily shown to not be a true and legitimate filing is still worthless no matter who 'files it first'....


But I do agree some legitimate source should file to provide some level of future protection from much craftier lawyer types.

The reality is with the current legal environment, this will keep coming up over and over again until the community decides (or an individual within the community decides).

What about trademarking/patenting and then creating a new form of license that lets the holder retain rights to its use, but explicitly states that all commercial and non-commercial uses are acceptable under the license (which should be free, both as in availability and as in beer)

Or would that count as not defending your license, which would then invalidate it?   We really need to get some lawyers in this community.... I don't like what they do, but they seem neccesary for now anyways.

I doubt that this bill removes the prior art restrictions. This is probably about inventors who record their ideas without publishing them and then cry foul when someone else files a patent application for one of those ideas. Since Satoshi published a paper describing Bitcoin in detail, it is prior art.

Wow, what a dick.. What is his plan for this? Any purpose at all?

lets hope so. my office's law department interprets this as:

In the bill, when two or more inventors seek a patent for the same invention, the patent would be awarded to the inventor who was the first to file an application.

And then considering the absurdity of software patents in the first place ( http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Software_patents_wiki:_home_page )
we could still get screwed.

i still vote for someone to patent bitcoins to protect the community. One single patent troll lawyer could take down all of bitcoin easily if he wanted to.

ALSO, REMEMBER THIS:

Mr. Pascazi pulled his application after he decided it would be too difficult to meet the standard of “first use” required in the U.S. But he’s taking his effort to France, Japan and other countries where the standard is “first to file” rather than “first to use.” If he succeeds, the consequences for the budding Bitcoin movement could be dire.

source: http://www.betabeat.com/2011/07/12/if-bitcoin-community-doesnt-take-action-opportunists-like-trademark-lawyer-could-box-them-in/

But if prior art can be documented, neither will be awarded a patent. Do you understand the novelty requirement for patentable inventions?

I understand it, but I'm also saying that the USPTO has a history of screwing up pretty badly; ie giving patents to vague terminology that conflicts with existing patents, giving two patents on the same thing, giving patents on things that shouldn't be patentable etc.

I'm just advocating that someone in the bitcoin community ATTEMPT to patent it, before some jackass lawyer tries and actually gets it.

You can't patent "Publicly Available Information." That's one of the rules that prevents you from patenting a previous patent: by the act of being patented, the previous patent was published as publicly available information by the USPTO. I had some MAJOR issues with this rule/law this past may, trying to argue to the patent clerk that no, the thing I am patenting is NOT like that other thing he found that's publicly published and available. Spoiler: I did end up getting the patent)

If you want to stay safe, just keep a search going on USPTO for any applications with mention or technology keywords similar to bitcoin. The applications will have the patent clerk's name on there as well, and if someone tries this, just contact them and point out to them that it's already public. Also, patent clerks don't get in trouble for rejecting patent applications, but they get in HUGE trouble for approving them, and then having to have the upper management rescind them. This means they have a huge incentive to reject everything they come across, and makes patenting stuff (at least by little, unestablished companies, not like *cough*patent-troll-apple*cough* incredibly difficult)

As others have pointed out the patent thing is, meh...


I am kicking myself for not noticing right off that is what the Op was posting about. While we might could debate some or any reason at all to need a 'patent' as the software is open source and covered under one or more licenses already. The real concern here is the 'Trademark' on Bitcoin......


Someone of any meaningful origination to this project should really give us some insight on what their take is on all this!!!

From the bill:


IANAL, but according to this Bitcoin still can't be patented since it is already publicly available.

You are asking someone to commit fraud. It cannot be patented. There is prior art. In order to file for a patent, you must have invented something novel.

Does that mean someone willing to commit fraud can't possibly get a patent? No. But we can't fix that by applying for a patent ourselves.

No one has tried to patent bitcoin. They tried to copyright (edit: trademark) the term "bitcoin". There really isn't anything about bitcoin to patent. It is based on long existing algorithms and systems.

Actually, the lawyer tried to trademark the term bitcoin, not copyright.

My mistake, I thought I was using the wrong term, thanks.

He cannot succeed. You can't just stagger up to the patent office or whatever and claim to own something that hundreds of thousands of people already use, and that is protected under open-source licensing. It'd be like me trying to copyright the bible.

Well, to be honest, the term limitations on that one expired 1,600 years ago :)

Well shit, we should get the presses cranking. Cut those Gideons' cocksuckers out of the hotel bible game. The New Folds Edition, complete with modern slang and hip-hop references to hook the kids in. We could all be rich.

Also, you need to file within a year of the technology becoming public knowledge.

j

I think all of you are missing the point here. Bitcoin does not need a trademark, and it never will. Let 100 lawyers file all they want, it does not matter. Imagine lawyer got his patent granted tomorrow - what he gonna do? All he gets is favor from government(s). Bitcoin is not created or run by governments, so good luck enforcing your so-called "right". And if government(s) decide to shut it down, that's what they will try to do anyway, patent or no patent.

So completely feasible and done by multiple entities?

(First off, there's a Crown Copyright that never expires on the King James Version in the UK; that particular version has fallen into public domain in the US and most of the world.  Though, new "translations" are almost always held under copyright.)

I think of an established company within the Bitcoin economy (tradehill, gox, bit-pay, bitcoin forums) were to patent bitcoin on behalf of the community and somehow place a clause making it open to be used for everyone.

How much would this cost, I know a bunch of patent lawyers. I'm gonna look into this.

Look I'm the guy that discovered the initial trademark filing

https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=26527.0

The term is common already,  it's been in use for years now.   I personally object to ANYONE holding a trademark of it.    It's akin to someone trademarking the term "US DOLLAR" or something along those lines.

I believe that the term is already common and cannot be trademarked as it's already a common name... period.