Bitcoin Forum

I recently read this article on Coinbase. Coinbase Seeks Patent for Bitcoin Private Key Security System (http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-patent-bitcoin-key-security/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CoinDesk+%28CoinDesk+-+The+Voice+of+Digital+Currency%29)

It mentioned that there are Bitcoin companies like Blockstream, Digital Asset Holdings, and old companies such as AT&T and Nasdaq that are applying for patents relating to Bitcoin technology. I have also read that 21 Inc. have also applied for patents. Are we seeing the future of Bitcoin with a lot of patent trolls? Do they have the intention to make the products and tools out of those patents? It almost looks like they are limiting the developers' need to create.

They really have bitcoin in their heart when they go at it in this manner, bloody leeches!
It will be interesting claiming any form of ownership when they can show no connections to satoshi, but these patent cases are usually something else.
Sad reading companies attempting to hijack bitcoin.

If this were to come from a company then it would be coinbase.
They are the largest wallet/exchanges you know. ::)
But holding patents on a decentralized economy such as bitcoin is just wrong. I mean to an evil level. >:(

If I understand this correctly they don't want to patent existent bitcoin tech but some sort of solution they invested to prevent stealing private keys.
So it is not exactly patent trolling, correct? Patent trolling was attempt from Craig Wright when he wanted to patent blockchain as his invention.
But their reason is so embarrassing that at this point I don't believe in their good intentions anymore.

I don't get why you're saying it as a troll. We would probably encounter a lot of people trying to apply for a patent in the future when they invent or program a code that will be innovating to the blockchain technology. Having patents doesn't mean it will limit developers, it can be an opportunity for the developers to create a better thing.

On the article that you posted, it is said there that the CEO plans to patent it to keep it out of bad people. But I really don't think it's just that purpose, they also want to earn on it if somebody has some use to it.

Maybe it is me who misunderstood patent trolling. As I understand it, an entity applies for a patent but does not have the intention to build what he or she has patented. So when someone else accidentally "invents" the same idea the entity who applied for the patent first has the right to file an intellectual property related case against the person who has actually built the invention.

I am not sure if that is a case of patent trolling but I think that is what some of these companies are doing.

They might not have the intention to build now, but they think these patents might be useful in the future. Even if these patents are not built upon, it might be useful in litigation. For example, if a big company sues you for patent violation, you can counter-sue if you hold a patent which they are using. Like in the Google vs Samsung case.

i have never heard the term trolling for patents! but that is how patents work, you protect your intelectual property this way so no one else can use it without your permission.

but i don't understand how you can patent bitcoin because it has always been open source and AFAIK it has also always been under MIT license. maybe that is what the trolling is about!

Let's pose ourself and think about it.

Okay, those companies are seeking a patent, but that doesn't mean that they already have it. I doubt they ever will, given they can't prove they have made anything into Bitcoin Core. I'm not a specialist of how Bitcoin is made and about juridiction, so I won't spend more time about that. But that seem very hard for me that they'll get any kind of positive reply.

The second figure to consider is even if they manage to get one, what will that change for us ? Again, I'm not a specialist, so this is kind of raw speculation, but that might still give you an idea. Bitcoin is open-source and can't be stopped. It's also totally free. For me, all they can get is maybe some recognisation that History will teint of shame, so not a big danger for me.

The article was misleading on that front: https://blockstream.com/2016/07/19/blockstream-defensive-patent-strategy

Blockstream has freely licensed its patents in a way which should make it a little more difficult for practicing entities to use patents to restrict Bitcoin.

If more companies join in this practice the effect will become stronger.

the blockstream bait: you can join/ use bitcoin if you put your software under blockstreams "open" DLP patent.

but choose not to join blockstream, even if you do not intend to file your own patent,
try to release bitcoin software without blockstream patent, blockstream will prosecute or make you pay a royalty.



simply put:
"join blockstream or suffer, state that all bitcoin software belongs to blockstream and if you admit that blockstream own it they will not punish you"
much like
blockstream will protect you if you hand over your first born child by writing blockstream as the father of the child on the birth certificate.

if you do not quote blockstream as the father of bitcoin on the birth certificate or revoke blockstream off the birth certificate (announcing a 180 day discontinuation to use blockstreams patent) you will b required to pay a FRAND royalty



be warned the DPL is totally different than the MIT open licence. if you do not hand blockstream ownership. you will get slammed.

much like the nazi's will not put you in a detention camp if you sign your rights over to the nazi's.
(millions of germans done this under the pretence it allowed them freedom to live)

again
be warned the DPL is totally different than the MIT open licence. if you do not hand blockstream ownership. you will get slammed.

They can't, any security measure can be programmed in diffirent fashion/method but with same end result. They can't protect by patent security.
So be calm, everything will be fine, also patent is often only for one country/region and patenting for whole world is impossible/huge costs.
So with so low user base as bitcoin have currently, its not reasonable to patent anything.

but they are patenting it, licinging it. blockstream are moving away from the MIT open licence. they are adding terms where everything belongs to a company and saying you have to pay a royalty if you dont name them as the licence holder.(father of the tech)

funny thing is blockstream came about in 2014(yep not 2009) and took the bitcoin project out of the satoshi-qt into another brand "bitcoin-core"
yep bitcoin-core is not satoshi-qt. to the same measure that they say anything not core is also not the satoshi-qt original vision of bitcoin

dont be under blockstreams thumb where your signing up to their ownership under false protection to later make you pay royalties by them having the ability to change their licencing agreement without your consent

remain with MIT open licence,

I don't think they will be patenting existing technology cause that will lead to law suits. What I feel is they are planning something new and who knows Ebwn better. Isn't it good if the big companies come in, this will help Bitcoin process even faster and better. This can create a boost that bitcoin needs to be adopted globally.

that silly mindset is how corporations win.
they make patents. and just having one. even if dishonorable.. allows them to make a claim. even if they lose they win.
here is how.

even knowing they will lose legally. doesnt stop them filing a claim for a small cost in some unknown town of texas that is very hott for capitalists.
knowing the other party has to then somehow find funds to pay for lawyers and then pay for transport to get to this unknown town. just to even defend why the corporation is wrong and attempt to get the case dismissed.

these costs alone make the little prey back off and leave the corporation in control.
EG even if the law is on the side of the people. a $XX million dollar corporation can cause headaches and keep the people in a litigation nightmare for years.

check out things like FIAT. people think its their money. but as soon as you want to make money for yourself.. paperwork, fee's legal expenses start to mount up. this is why exchanges have a headache to launch because of all the legal costs just to get started even if morally and ethically they are not going to harm their customers using fiat..

we dont need blockstream becoming bitcoin(Fiat-esq) government where they set the terms of use and demand royalties if you want to 'go it alone' outside of the blockstream licence.

by moving away from MIT open licence and signing into blockstreams DLP your signing your rights away, under the pretence of protection

This is eye opener for me. I wasn't aware that they would be doing this, though I know they don't play fair, but such a trick in the book I wasn't aware. Thanks won't support thier campaign, but is there anything this community can do to make sure they don't win or we all helpless

The whole bitcoin concept is about open source and free technology.

Patents will kill bitcoin and the blockchain.

Having a patent is like hving a legal monopoly over a technology.

More people will not join in this practice - because it is a very silly practice indeed.  

A good patent application cost about $20,000.  If you actually intend to freely license it, you will recover nothing of the cost.  You could instead, just simply publish the invention in just about any forum at all.  That publication would prevent others from getting a patent on the same thing and this strategy will cost you nothing.  Although this system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invention_Registration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invention_Registration) is no longer used, it illustrates this patent strategy perfectly.  Alternatives are now widely available and these alternatives do not cost $20,000.

The true reason why BlockStream and others get patents yet pretend to take the high road, is because when they get a good one and the network moves in their direction, they'll be able to say: "Oooops, changed our mind.  No more free licenses".  

One doesn't pay $20,000 for something they can get for free without having a hidden underlying strategy.  I am not convinced BlockStream can be trusted in this regard.  Blockstream has made other movements which seem somewhat less than altruistic to me.  I'd say be on guard with this one.  

If I had a choice in the matter, then I would have wanted Satoshi to patent the technology from the start. He could have made sure that the

patent for the technology was safe, before he disappeared... Now every Tom, Dick n Harry with a bit of money wants to patent the

technology. Well, that or something that would be in the Public Domain...  ???  The sharks is circling...

If they have a new security system when it comes to protecting private keys, there isn't anything they're doing wrong per say. As long as it is new code and it does something not currently invested or performed, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with them patenting a security system.

As for patent trolling becoming a thing; it's doubtful for the most part.

All of those big companies trying to control bitcoin related projects and get their name on it. They seem to have already realized the potential use cases of bitcoin and blockchain in future so they just like to be the first to grab this golden opportunity.

Most of these companies are spending MILLIONS (collectively over $1 Billion dollars to date) of dollars developing this stuff.  Is it fair if they develop some really excellent system after spending MILLIONS - and then some goofball presses CNTL-C, copies all their code, and goes into competitive business having spent not even $5 dollars?  

If someone spends MILLIONS of dollars making something that is useful to all of us, I think they deserve to earn some of their investment back without the copy trolls claiming it as there own.  

Fair is fair.

But that is not what happens in reality.  In the real world, software punk-assed thieves label them as 'Trolls' and 'Evil'.

If companies develope something, it should be their right to have a patent on it.
What they can't do, at least as far as I know, is to file a patent on something that is already publically in use.
Like Bitcoin or the blockchain technology.
So bitcoin in the form we use it today is safe from companies filing patents against it.

If Coinbase has developed the best private key protected, then they can and should patent it.
If they try to patent the protection of private keys, then it is stupid.

If you look at Apple and Samsung, they patent everything, no matter if it is worthwhile, new or even used.  I guess the same will happen in bitcoin, but to lesser extent.

Its fair game as long as they are not altering the way bitcoin operates and this is more how I perceive them wanting to conduct business in the long run. These styles of companies are always factoring in ways they can control to increase profits,its pretty much how most companies work,so for that reason we should be keeping some eyes on any one attempting to patent lock any form of bitcoin business.

Hence the use of the term patent trolling. I am not sure but I think that situation bolded in your post is what the term is referring to. If an entity is only applying for patents without the intention to build now or in the future, and that the real purpose of applying for a patent is for litigation and sometimes profit then we can assume that entity is a patent troll.

Some people may think that it does not limit innovation but it really does. We cannot have our inventors think twice about creating and releasing a design simply because they are afraid of violating patent laws.

 

The free license does not apply to patent aggressors, so we gain the ability to enforce against them which is very valuable.  It's very rare that patents for cryptographic purposes actually generate their own revenue, their value (free license or not) is primarily defensive.

The licenses are irrevocable, were it not it wouldn't have been applauded by groups like the EFF.

Oh really? Whats that?

OK- 
So a company gets an irrevocable license from you.  Then, after some time you unilaterally 'deem' them a 'patent aggressor'.  What then?  Do you revoke their irrevocable license?  I thought so.  So anytime you want to go after someone, just allege they are a 'patent aggressor'.  Since there is no uniform means by which one can be discretely determined a 'patent aggressor' you can revoke anyone's license anytime. 

The patent system is law in many countries.  EFF is hostile to the law in a great many regards.  I am sorry they don't like that law.  But it does remain law and fair and good and noble, despite those terms 'troll' and 'evil' which the community likes to attach to patents.

nah what maxwell is saying is blockstreams DLP might be wrote that people can step away by making a 180day announcement.. but in reality blockstream wont set them free from the DLP but switch it to a royalty paying FRANDS term

in essense by tying your code to blockstreams DLP. they own your ass.. they can change the conditions all they want, but you can never free yourself from them. once your in, your in.