Bank Of America Patent

[mikewirth]

Well, I guess we no longer need to speculate whether or not Bank of America takes crypto seriously!!!  This just in: MAJOR patent: http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat20150262173.pdf

Basically, Bank Of America wants to own all wire transfers done on blockchain rails.  Wow!

Bank of America is clearly: in it to win it!!  I would not have guessed this.

This is not some obscure patent which barely references Bitcoin like the JP Morgan bullshit - this is a very broad patent squarely directed to a primary function of the Bitcoin system.

[AgentofCoin]

I obviously have not read the whole patent application,
but I do not understand what is the patentable component?

Blockchain tech (in theory) is not patentable since the publication of the Bitcoin whitepaper,
and for BoA to use (in certain circumstances) a cryptocurrency blockchain for faster wire transfers,
and the process in which they do it, is not patentable.

We as bitcoin users, each potentially use this same process described each day, this is not novel.

[Mr Felt]

Yep.  There are actually two BOA patent apps pending.  Quick gripe: I tweeted the link to twobitidiot earlier (see: https://twitter.com/MrFelt_/status/645978092515659776), and Coindesk, like they've done several times with my posts here and elsewhere RE: GAW, etc., writes up an article w/o any attribution whatsoever.  Come on, guys (and gals), at least give a citation if you're going to steal your news.

I thought this patent app was interesting (from Lenovo, they also have several), "BIOMETRIC ACCOUNT CARD":

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=46&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=bitcoin&OS=bitcoin&RS=bitcoin

It mentions bitcoin 9 times (only 8 in the following paragraphs):

[0030] In the example of FIG. 2, the information 208 may pertain to a SUA, a controlled-use account, controlled use accounts, digital currency or other type of information. As an example of digital currency, consider a cryptocurrency such as the Bitcoin currency. As an example, a cryptocurrency unit such as, for example, a bitcoin unit (BTC) may be a single-use account as, according to various standards, ownership may be transferred once (e.g., for a payor/payee transaction). As an example, while a BTC is mentioned, multiples of a BTC and fractions of a BTC may be considered a "unit" of digital currency (e.g., a bitcointon, a santoshi, etc.) the ownership of which may be transferred as a single-use account.

[0031] As an example, a digital currency transaction may occur as a payment sent or a payment received via circuitry. In such an example, a transaction may include transferring ownership of a digital currency unit from one address to another (e.g., consider Bitcoin addresses) and a transactions may be confirmed via network communications using a proof-of-work system (e.g., "mining"), in which blocks of transactions are appended to a shared public record (e.g., a block chain). For example, a transaction may include solving via circuitry a cryptographic problem before being able to append a block, which may be of an adjusted difficulty to meet a desired block creation rate.

[0032] The Bitcoin digital currency scheme can use an Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) implementation of public-key cryptography, in which pairs of cryptographic keys, one public and one private, are generated; where a collection of keys may be referred to as a wallet. A Bitcoin digital currency transaction may transfer ownership of a digital currency unit (or units) to a new address (e.g., to that of a payee), which may be an alphanumeric string derived from public keys by application of a hash function and encoding. In such a scheme, corresponding private keys can act as a safeguard as a valid payment message from an address is specified to include the associated public key and a digital signature proving possession of the associated private key. As an entity possessing a private key can spend all of the bitcoins sent to a corresponding address, the essence of Bitcoin security is protection of private keys.

[mikewirth]

I obviously have not read the whole patent application,
but I do not understand what is the patentable component?

Blockchain tech (in theory) is not patentable since the publication of the Bitcoin whitepaper,
and for BoA to use (in certain circumstances) a cryptocurrency blockchain for faster wire transfers,
and the process in which they do it, is not patentable.

We as bitcoin users, each potentially use this same process described each day, this is not novel.

1) They don't try to claim 'blockchain tech' by itself, so your first sentence is silly. 

2) simple because you write 'is not patentable' - doesn't make something not patentable.  Why do you think that is not patentable?  BofA's patent lawyers don't share your conclusion.

3) also, you declare 'this is not novel' - but provide no novelty analysis.  Merely declaring it not novel, and not patentable isn't very persuasive.

[tonycamp]

well its not unsuall to know who put into patent paper legal like a bank will own the blocks rewards besides control of legal accounts but the money its still yours the crypt of passwords into wallets if fine to secure to your self so money will be yours and the bank will be try to centrelize btc soo its good as perfect marketing publicity to btc be legal and used commonly

[mikewirth]

 Quick gripe: I tweeted the link to twobitidiot earlier (see: https://twitter.com/MrFelt_/status/645978092515659776), and Coindesk, like they've done several times with my posts here and elsewhere RE: GAW, etc., writes up an article w/o any attribution whatsoever.

What do you expect them to attribute to you?  That you were first to see a patent and tweet?  lolololol.  If you say something interesting, maybe they'll reprint it and cite you.  Simply find an interesting patent and tweeting about it doesn't mean Coindesk owes you a brownie. 

[AgentofCoin]

I obviously have not read the whole patent application,
but I do not understand what is the patentable component?

Blockchain tech (in theory) is not patentable since the publication of the Bitcoin whitepaper,
and for BoA to use (in certain circumstances) a cryptocurrency blockchain for faster wire transfers,
and the process in which they do it, is not patentable.

We as bitcoin users, each potentially use this same process described each day, this is not novel.

1) They don't try to claim 'blockchain tech' by itself, so your first sentence is silly.  

2) simple because you write 'is not patentable' - doesn't make something not patentable.  Why do you think that is not patentable?  BofA's patent lawyers don't share your conclusion.

3) also, you declare 'this is not novel' - but provide no novelty analysis.  Merely declaring it not novel, and not patentable isn't very persuasive.

Why don't you reverse those questions upon yourself and explain how it is?

1) Blockchain tech is what the whole cryptocurrency scene is currently based upon.
Not calling it Blockchain tech, doesn't make it something else.

2) Patent Lawyers file patents constantly that never go anywhere. Patent Lawyers get paid whether they are granted or not.

3) The process described on page 3 is not novel, they are buying coins on behalf of the BoA client, that is all. They are middle men.

What is the patentable component?

[mikewirth]

3) The process described on page 3 is not novel, they are buying coins on behalf of the BoA client, that is all. They are middle men.

How did you make a determination that this is not novel?  Your matrix for determining novelty seems to be quite a bit different than the one used by the patent office. 

In a novelty determination, you must cite: a SINGLE reference, which predates the filing date, which does EXACTLY the same thing.  If there are ANY differences - you must do an obviousness test - not novelty.  So- please provide a reference where this is done - EXACTLY as BofA describes. 

[maokoto]

Good move by Bank of America. This is the time to start doing patents

Long live Bitcoin, there are news like this every week. It is not dead by any means!

[AgentofCoin]

3) The process described on page 3 is not novel, they are buying coins on behalf of the BoA client, that is all. They are middle men.

How did you make a determination that this is not novel?  Your matrix for determining novelty seems to be quite a bit different than the one used by the patent office.  

In a novelty determination, you must cite: a SINGLE reference, which predates the filing date, which does EXACTLY the same thing.  If there are ANY differences - you must do an obviousness test - not novelty.  So- please provide a reference where this is done - EXACTLY as BofA describes.  

When I state it is not novel, I guess you are correct, I should have said it is not "non-obvious".
There will be no "novel" references that predate, because the issue is not whether someone beat them to the punch, but whether it is actually "ownable".
The process that is described is not special and if granted,
would potentially prevent all other banks from using a basic system of clearance for future crypto wire transfers.
It is a basic closed system that is described, it is what I do everyday. All that they do is automate it within a closed BoA Server.

Because I can automate squeezing lemons, doesn't mean I can patent the process of squeezing.
Unless, of course, there is a "new" component that squeezes. Something that hasn't been invented yet.

[mikewirth]

3) The process described on page 3 is not novel, they are buying coins on behalf of the BoA client, that is all. They are middle men.

How did you make a determination that this is not novel?  Your matrix for determining novelty seems to be quite a bit different than the one used by the patent office.  

In a novelty determination, you must cite: a SINGLE reference, which predates the filing date, which does EXACTLY the same thing.  If there are ANY differences - you must do an obviousness test - not novelty.  So- please provide a reference where this is done - EXACTLY as BofA describes.  

When I state it is not novel, I guess you are correct, I should have said it is not "non-obvious".
There will be no "novel" references that predate, because the issue is not whether someone beat them to the punch, but whether it is actually "ownable".
The process that is described is not special and if granted,
would potentially prevent all other banks from using a basic system of clearance for future crypto wire transfers.
It is a basic closed system that is described, it is what I do everyday. All that they do is automate it within a closed BoA Server.

Because I can automate squeezing lemons, doesn't mean I can patent the process of squeezing.
Unless, of course, there is a "new" component. Sometime that hasn't been invented yet.

Funny enough, there are more than 100 patents on the process of squeezing lemons.  So, you clearly have little or no understanding of the patent system. "it is what I do everyday".  Were you doing what BofA described everyday on Mar 17, 2014?  Because you'd have to prove that in writing as of the BofA filing date.  I highly doubt you were making wire transfers from one currency, through an exchange, via bitcoin, through a second exchange and into a second fiat - everyday more than 18 months ago.  But if you can prove you were, you can blow up their patent!!!

[GermanGiant]

This is not the first time. JPM Chase has tried it before...

www.coindesk.com/jp-morgan-chase-patent-digital-payment-system/

[AgentofCoin]

3) The process described on page 3 is not novel, they are buying coins on behalf of the BoA client, that is all. They are middle men.

How did you make a determination that this is not novel?  Your matrix for determining novelty seems to be quite a bit different than the one used by the patent office.  

In a novelty determination, you must cite: a SINGLE reference, which predates the filing date, which does EXACTLY the same thing.  If there are ANY differences - you must do an obviousness test - not novelty.  So- please provide a reference where this is done - EXACTLY as BofA describes.  

When I state it is not novel, I guess you are correct, I should have said it is not "non-obvious".
There will be no "novel" references that predate, because the issue is not whether someone beat them to the punch, but whether it is actually "ownable".
The process that is described is not special and if granted,
would potentially prevent all other banks from using a basic system of clearance for future crypto wire transfers.
It is a basic closed system that is described, it is what I do everyday. All that they do is automate it within a closed BoA Server.

Because I can automate squeezing lemons, doesn't mean I can patent the process of squeezing.
Unless, of course, there is a "new" component. Sometime that hasn't been invented yet.

Funny enough, there are more than 100 patents on the process of squeezing lemons.  So, you clearly have little or no understanding of the patent system. "it is what I do everyday".  Where you doing what BofA described everyday on Mar 17, 2014?  Because you'd have to prove that as of the filing date.  I highly doubt you were making wire transfers from one currency, through an exchange, via bitcoin, through a second exchange and into a second fiat - everyday more than 18 months ago.  But if you can prove you were, you can blow up their patent!!!

I highly doubt there are lemon squeezing patents on the process of squeezing,
unless there is a novel component, otherwise they wouldn't be granted,
and there would be only one of those patents.

Here is an example of the exchange:

(1) USD Bank Account transfer to Coinbase exchange.
(2) USD Coinbase convert to bitcoin Coinbase.
(3) bitcoin Coinbase transfer to bitcoin BTC-E exchange.
(4) bitcoin BTC-E convert to EUR currency.
(5) EUR BTC-E currency exchange withdrawal to EUR Bank Account.

I have just done what BoA proposes without using their "patentable" service.

I am very sure there are users here who have done this, including hackers from eastern europe.

EDIT:
Here is a link from this forum dated April 01, 2012, 12:05:57 PM, where the process is described,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=74952.msg830254#msg830254,
and people in that thread claimed to have done it themselves.

[NorrisK]

When checking this patent it seems to me like they are patenting a specific use scenario for the use of any cryptocurrency. If you check the flowchart it also seems that they are patenting some kind of use case where crypto is only used if it is more optimal then conventional methods.

[Mickeyb]

3) The process described on page 3 is not novel, they are buying coins on behalf of the BoA client, that is all. They are middle men.

How did you make a determination that this is not novel?  Your matrix for determining novelty seems to be quite a bit different than the one used by the patent office.  

In a novelty determination, you must cite: a SINGLE reference, which predates the filing date, which does EXACTLY the same thing.  If there are ANY differences - you must do an obviousness test - not novelty.  So- please provide a reference where this is done - EXACTLY as BofA describes.  

When I state it is not novel, I guess you are correct, I should have said it is not "non-obvious".
There will be no "novel" references that predate, because the issue is not whether someone beat them to the punch, but whether it is actually "ownable".
The process that is described is not special and if granted,
would potentially prevent all other banks from using a basic system of clearance for future crypto wire transfers.
It is a basic closed system that is described, it is what I do everyday. All that they do is automate it within a closed BoA Server.

Because I can automate squeezing lemons, doesn't mean I can patent the process of squeezing.
Unless, of course, there is a "new" component. Sometime that hasn't been invented yet.

Funny enough, there are more than 100 patents on the process of squeezing lemons.  So, you clearly have little or no understanding of the patent system. "it is what I do everyday".  Where you doing what BofA described everyday on Mar 17, 2014?  Because you'd have to prove that as of the filing date.  I highly doubt you were making wire transfers from one currency, through an exchange, via bitcoin, through a second exchange and into a second fiat - everyday more than 18 months ago.  But if you can prove you were, you can blow up their patent!!!

I highly doubt there are lemon squeezing patents on the process of squeezing,
unless there is a novel component, otherwise they wouldn't be granted,
and there would be only one of those patents.

Here is an example of the exchange:

(1) USD Bank Account transfer to Coinbase exchange.
(2) USD Coinbase convert to bitcoin Coinbase.
(3) bitcoin Coinbase transfer to bitcoin BTC-E exchange.
(4) bitcoin BTC-E convert to EUR currency.
(5) EUR BTC-E currency exchange withdrawal to EUR Bank Account.

I have just done what BoA proposes without using their "patentable" service.

I am very sure there are users here who have done this, including hackers from eastern europe.

EDIT:
Here is a link from this forum dated April 01, 2012, 12:05:57 PM, where the process is described,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=74952.msg830254#msg830254,
and people in that thread claimed to have done it themselves.

So what a hell are they trying to patent here? I have never done a transfer like described above but I would be able to do so, since I have both US Bank account and EU country bank account. I would just change btc-e with Kraken and do as described above.

So what is so extraordinary to patent here, I don't get it?

[mikewirth]

So what is so extraordinary to patent here, I don't get it?

To get a patent, it doesn't have to be so extraordinary.  just new and not obvious.  So extraordinary is for a Nobel prize.

Here is an example of the exchange:

(1) USD Bank Account transfer to Coinbase exchange.
(2) USD Coinbase convert to bitcoin Coinbase.
(3) bitcoin Coinbase transfer to bitcoin BTC-E exchange.
(4) bitcoin BTC-E convert to EUR currency.
(5) EUR BTC-E currency exchange withdrawal to EUR Bank Account.

I have just done what BoA proposes without using their "patentable" service.

The Supreme court said: "all inventions are made up of wheels, gears, cogs - all of which are very well known and ordinary.  It is when you put them together in a certain combination that they yield a special output or result, that makes them together a new invention."

You have done this combination today.  But did you put all these elements together prior to the BofA filing?  Even if someone performed a transfer as described before that date, it wasn't all put together as a unitary system - until BofA described it in their patent.  I think they will be awarded the patent for wire transfers done on cryptocurrency rails.  

[boopy265420]

When checking this patent it seems to me like they are patenting a specific use scenario for the use of any cryptocurrency. If you check the flowchart it also seems that they are patenting some kind of use case where crypto is only used if it is more optimal then conventional methods.

What is my understanding from this application they are trying to patent some services for their customers as they will be first to offer and want to keep it just for their customers.Blockchain as whole is open and can not be patenting by any company.Their will be seen many blockchain based services and products in future by different banks and institutions.

[Kprawn]

Well, Satoshi is not here to stop them and he or she or they did not patent it, so it's clear what they are trying to do. Stealing ideas and concepts in the corporate world is nothing new. These assholes have money to burn on

Patent Lawyers and if this gives them a competitive edge on other companies, then they will do it. In the big ocean, the sharks eat the smaller fish. Satoshi allowed this too happen, when he abandoned his experiment.

There might be grounds to appeal this, but the Sharks rule the ocean.... just bend over and take it from behind.  ... Even if Satoshi comes forward now, it would be too late to stop this from happening... the sharks already

tasted the blood in the water. 

[RawDog]

Satoshi allowed this too happen, when he abandoned his experiment.

Yes.  This is all true.  Bank of America pretty much owns Bitcoin now that Satoshi left it for the sharks.

Fuck Satoshi. That lazy fucking guy.

[GermanGiant]

Satoshi allowed this too happen, when he abandoned his experiment.

Yes.  This is all true.  Bank of America pretty much owns Bitcoin now that Satoshi left it for the sharks.

Fuck Satoshi. That lazy fucking guy.

Patent application and owning a patent are not the same thing.