Bitcoin Forum

http://www.prweb.com/releases/decentralized-bitcoin/exchange-coinsigner/prweb11045517.htm

and

www.coinsigner.com

---

If it works, this may revolutionize the historically difficult exchange points of Bitcoin.

It looks like a 2-of-3 transaction with a mediator.. and these guys are trying to patent it.

"It is important to note that the idea is new, unique and un-obvious combination of processes of doing things that is protected as a defensive measure. Not anything invented by the core developers."

I'm pretty sure Mike Hearn described this a year ago..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mD4L7xDNCmA

I'd bet they're trying to patent the business model, specifically the method of selecting and compensating mediators.

I'm not impressed.

First there's the attempt to patent a business model, which is just evil. Then there's the headline that says "decentralized", and their patent which clearly describes all the transactions taking place through their web site.

They are using "decentralized" as a buzzword because they know that will get them attention, but the plan appears to be an attempt to build a walled garden service, with the added bonus of using a business method patent to harass their competitors.

I read through their Bitcoinstarter project and am less confident in their ability to execute than I was when I read the press release. Typos, a whole lot of speculative Mastercoin stuff, etc. And yes, the patent turns me off as well.

The irony, using centralized force to protect a decentralized exchange platform.

Fail



Does anyone want to make a bet?

The USPTO now allows people to comment on patent applications and provide evidence as to why they are invalid. Assuming this patent application actually exists (I could not find it with a quick records search), someone could submit it to patents.stackexchange.com and inform the examiner as to why it's got prior art.

By the way, making false claims to the patent office is a crime. If he claimed to the USPTO the same thing he's claiming to the rest of the world, he may now theoretically have serious legal liability.

Isn't this it (from October 2011)?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0011

monkey bars

 I hope it does…coding my ass off !!!





MA5H3D

We are not patenting anything yet. The correct term is that it is patent pending: which is a provisional patent. And the 2 of 3 multi-signature transaction is not being patentedThat would just be plain silly.
…The intellectual property being pursued is an Improvement upon 2 of 3 multi-sig transactions and it prevents collusion. Mike Hearn did talk about it a year ago It was a pretty big inspiration to me then, however multi-sigs where not standard yet. But now is thew time

also it is as a defensive measure to ensure long term survival in case paypal and co design to take on bitcoin. We all know about their dispute resolution see more information here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=299168.0



justus

You don't have to be impressed. Patents are not evil, patent trolls are evil your arguments are non sequitur…it make no sense! In that case nikola tesla had multitudes of patent, so was he or his actions is evil? reasoning objectively…goes a long way. There is no patent yet, only a provisional patent.  And no we are not patenting a business model. We applied for a process or method for improving the usability of multi-sigs: check here:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=299168.0

Also your assumptions are very wrong I don't want to build a walled garden and harass anyone. Its has to be centralized at first thn the solution is gradually ported into P2p software. How do you know that, what you are saying is indeed the plan. Do you have a crystal ball or work for the NSA. You my friend are very wrong!




deep link
centralization of this service is essential to reach critical mass initially with mediators and traders. the plan is to port the solution into p2p software. Site is tempoary
please see here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=299168.0





Mike, I contacted you on google+ several months ago informing you that I was beginning development on one of the contract implementation which you talked about, which I was inspired by last year. Its important to note that whats filed is a provisional application for patent on an "IMPROVEMENT" on multi-sig transactions. It would be plain silly to try to patent your idea. As far as I know collusion prevention isn't built into the blockchain, And this is what I have spent several months working on. I felt it necessary to file an application first inspire confidence from investors and ensure long term survival in case big players like paypal and others decide to take on bitcoin and tranfer their fiat based dispute resolution (possible ip) into the bitcoin arena…You can check this link, it clearly explains my rationale: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=299168.0





Hacknoid
yes it is, I think you might be confused with a thought about an intent to patent an existing idea which is not the case... See here for some clarification https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=299168.0

This is a great project keep up the good work!

Defensive patenting doesn't really work like that (one could argue it doesn't seem to work at all). Large companies stockpile patents because they do a lot of different things, so if they get sued over one thing, they can sue back over another. There are two situations where that strategy fails:

- The entity suing doesn't actually use any patents themselves (i.e. a troll company).
- The entity being sued isn't a big company and only does one thing, so they don't have any patents the other side infringes.

Your case is the latter. If PayPal were to come after you, they wouldn't care about your patent because you only have one, and moreover, your patent (if it issues at all) is very likely to be specific enough that they wouldn't violate it.

What is far more likely is that eventually you either sell your company, or go bankrupt and your assets get sold off by liquidators, and somehow the patent ends up in the hands of either a big company or a troll company which then uses it aggressively. We've seen this happen time and time again.

I know guys who used to work at Sun during the Java years. They filed patents on Java because management told them it was a defensive move. Eventually of course Sun's fortunes declined and they got sold to Oracle, which immediately attempted to claim ownership of Android on the back of those patents. The guys who actually wrote the damn things all felt screwed by that, but what could they do? Patents are property, they get bought and sold.

We'd have to look at exactly what you're claiming to know if the patent is valid or is trying to claim stuff that was already "invented" (not by me, I hasten to add, I just documented and explained what Satoshi designed). I couldn't actually find your patent application when I searched, but maybe it's just not uploaded yet.

But you have to understand that this community will not look kindly on any attempt to patent anything about cryptocurrencies. Doesn't matter if you think you're doing it for defensive reasons. We've seen it all go wrong many times before. It's far better to just not patent something and let it enter the public domain as prior art.

From what I know companies acquire many different patents defensively to cover many different areas they innovate in. The trick for smaller companies is to make their claims as general as possible whilst till remaining valid.

My whole motivation was to build a company who's decisions are affected by a multitude of people passionate about the core bitcoin ideals. The scenario of the patent belonging to someone else is a very valid point and its a very common scenario that I have not thought about. I am very familiar of the Oracle-android case which was about 3 years ago. I am very familiar because my first start-up dealt with mobile applications primarily on the android platform and everything seemed shaky back then.

As for finding the application, it is a provisional patent and from my knowledge they are not searchable because they are not public yet. Now I value your input and I am building this application to help the very people and community that are against this action . It wouldn't make sense to go against the general consensus of the very community I am trying to contribute to. Also it is a provisional patent application, so it has an expiration date of 1 year. So being that your opinion is valuable and the community has spoken, it only makes sense to let the application expire. If any possibility of the future threats from financial services  I described become real, then I think the prior art argument applies because this issue is very public at this point. Please provide comments and feedback, thank you all.

Yet you still prominently feature this patent application at

http://www.coinsigner.com/Howitworks.html

and claim


"In regards to intellectual property being claimed, the idea behind coinsigner is a unique external system that improves and enables things that were not previously possible in bitcoin and other alt coins. It is important to note that the idea is new, unique and un-obvious combination of processes of doing things that is protected as a defensive measure. Not anything invented by the core developers. "

uncharitable explanation: The patent is for investors to see, the retraction is for the community to see. (but you can't have it both ways)

charitable explanation: you forgot to change the website, it's on the todo list just slipped through the cracks.

hmmm... conspiracy theory variant: since the website and the forum are anonymous it's not clear that you are even the decisionmaker here. maybe you are a developer with rosy glasses but the owner who actually filed the patent and controls the website does not intend to let this drop.


solution: edit the website to read patent application plus number on red strike out font, and CANCELED next to the patent claim, and screenshot here for caching. or just add a footnote that you were pursuing a patent but dropped it because of concern from the community.

Nothing new is brought to the table, they still haven't solved the repudiation problem of bank transfer.

Regarding the patent, it maybe a "strike first" approach, lest someone malicious to Bitcoin will be granted the patent before them.

Funny how Mike "It'll happen eventually" Hearn doesn't like it when someone does something that would happen.... eventually. Interesting how that worked out, isn't it Mike?