What will happen if blockchain tech is patented?

[Hazir]

I stumbled upon this article https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-craig-wright-blockchain-technology/

Apparently Craig Wright 'bitcoin creator' is looking to patent Blockchain technology:

"It looks like he is trying to patent the fundamental building blocks of any blockchain, cryptocurrency, or distributed ledger system."


I am not trying to say that he should/shouldn't do it or if he has/hasn't right to do it. I am not trying to prove that he is/isn't Satoshi either.


My question is: what will happen to bitcoin if he (or somebody else) actually somehow manage to patent blockchain tech?

[Holliday]

Nothing.

[JPage]

Nothing.

lol.  No faith in the justice system. 


Technically, Craig Wright, no matter how wrong Mr. Wright is, could indeed get a patent.  Let's imagine he was NOT Satoshi, but among the first 'top 10' working on blockchain.  In the US, the system was changed from 'first to invent' to 'first to file'.  In the prior system, only Satoshi could get the patent.  In the new system, the first guy to file the patent gets it.  So, Wright, despite not being Satoshi or the first to invent the blockchain, nevertheless could get a valid patent. 

We wouldn't necessarily know about it today either.  Although a patent is generally published 18 months after filing, the inventor MAY request that it be kept from publishing and held in secret until examination is finished.  So, Craig Wrong may have filed the request to keep his pending patent prosecuted in secret.  Sometimes prosecution can take up to 10 years.  So, the patent may still be in the examination stage today.

If a patent were to issue, on the fundamental aspects of blockchain it would be a very tricky mess.  This is because EVERYONE practically would infringe.  Even a guy who loads up a wallet, but puts no money in there.  A patent gives the inventor the right to exclude others from 'making', 'using' or 'selling' the invention.  using the blockchain would trigger infringement. 

Mr. Wright would not bother suing everyone - because that could get a little expensive.  But, he could go after anyone with money - like Coinbase.  Having success there, he could ask for all new entries to pay a license fee.  Anyone who operated without a license could probably do so without much worry, unless they because large in size.  Then they'd surely be speaking with Wright's lawyers. 

The patent systems in nearly ever non-US country are weak, very complex and hard to manage, insanely expensive, have terrible reliability problems when going for enforcement.  Even the EU 'community' patent which might become strong one day, is just not ready for prime time.  China, which is now the bitcoin king, has a fairly soft idea about patents and intellectual property.  I doubt seriously that a patent in China could be of interest to the bitcoin community there.  So only a US patent would be a nightmare for Bitcoin.  Let's hope Wright went only for the Australian patent (his home country).  Then, it would be irrelevant and not even an inconvenience.

If we don't see a patent pop up in the next 3 years, I'd bet significantly that he doesn't have one pending.  However, OP's question is a valid one today because it remains possible that a patent is still pending and may show up one day! 

[Wendigo]

But the Blockchain technology is open-source already and everyone can use and modify it free of charge as they see fit. I think Satoshi designed Bitcoin and its underlying technology to be for the people by the people so no one could lay claim on it saying that they own it or have designed it etc. Also I am not sure if once open-source tech could transition to being a proprietary tech or that Satoshi could come out now and take control of it. Maybe some expert in legal matters could elaborate more on this matter.

[Hazir]

Technically, Craig Wright, no matter how wrong Mr. Wright is, could indeed get a patent.  Let's imagine he was NOT Satoshi, but among the first 'top 10' working on blockchain.  In the US, the system was changed from 'first to invent' to 'first to file'.  In the prior system, only Satoshi could get the patent.  In the new system, the first guy to file the patent gets it.  So, Wright, despite not being Satoshi or the first to invent the blockchain, nevertheless could get a valid patent. 

We wouldn't necessarily know about it today either.  Although a patent is generally published 18 months after filing, the inventor MAY request that it be kept from publishing and held in secret until examination is finished.  So, Craig Wrong may have filed the request to keep his pending patent prosecuted in secret.  Sometimes prosecution can take up to 10 years.  So, the patent may still be in the examination stage today.

If a patent were to issue, on the fundamental aspects of blockchain it would be a very tricky mess.  This is because EVERYONE practically would infringe.  Even a guy who loads up a wallet, but puts no money in there.  A patent gives the inventor the right to exclude others from 'making', 'using' or 'selling' the invention.  using the blockchain would trigger infringement. 

Mr. Wright would not bother suing everyone - because that could get a little expensive.  But, he could go after anyone with money - like Coinbase.  Having success there, he could ask for all new entries to pay a license fee.  Anyone who operated without a license could probably do so without much worry, unless they because large in size.  Then they'd surely be speaking with Wright's lawyers. 

The patent systems in nearly ever non-US country are weak, very complex and hard to manage, insanely expensive, have terrible reliability problems when going for enforcement.  Even the EU 'community' patent which might become strong one day, is just not ready for prime time.  China, which is now the bitcoin king, has a fairly soft idea about patents and intellectual property.  I doubt seriously that a patent in China could be of interest to the bitcoin community there.  So only a US patent would be a nightmare for Bitcoin.  Let's hope Wright went only for the Australian patent (his home country).  Then, it would be irrelevant and not even an inconvenience.

If we don't see a patent pop up in the next 3 years, I'd bet significantly that he doesn't have one pending.  However, OP's question is a valid one today because it remains possible that a patent is still pending and may show up one day! 

Thank you for that detailed explanation! It was really good read and you explained some of the patent law nuances here.
I have no idea that you can keep your pending patents hidden from public.

Another question: is patenting blockchain tech will effectively make Craig Wright by law, the owner of all bitcoins and all altcoins based in blockchain tech as well?
Or it is too far fetched assumption?

[JPage]

But the Blockchain technology is open-source already and everyone can use and modify it free of charge as they see fit. I think Satoshi designed Bitcoin and its underlying technology to be for the people by the people so no one could lay claim on it saying that they own it or have designed it etc. Also I am not sure if once open-source tech could transition to being a proprietary tech or that Satoshi could come out now and take control of it. Maybe some expert in legal matters could elaborate more on this matter.

I am an expert in legal matters, I've been a US patent agent for over 25 years.  

I can tell you that it doesn't matter if Satoshi himself stood high on an apple crate and loudly proclaimed it to be 'open source', 'free to all', the patent rules would dominate that argument.  You could tell the court 'but I thought it was open source' as your defense, I just don't think you will be successful.  'is open source already' is not a legitimate patent defense.  Designing something 'for the people by the people' doesn't preclude some bastard nearby from running off to the patent office.  It is possible.  Ironically, under the old rules it would not have been possible.  Only the true inventor could get a patent.  Now, even a guy like Craig Wright could get one despite not actually being the first or true inventor.  It was a terrible rule change.  

[JPage]

Technically, Craig Wright, no matter how wrong Mr. Wright is, could indeed get a patent.  Let's imagine he was NOT Satoshi, but among the first 'top 10' working on blockchain.  In the US, the system was changed from 'first to invent' to 'first to file'.  In the prior system, only Satoshi could get the patent.  In the new system, the first guy to file the patent gets it.  So, Wright, despite not being Satoshi or the first to invent the blockchain, nevertheless could get a valid patent.  

We wouldn't necessarily know about it today either.  Although a patent is generally published 18 months after filing, the inventor MAY request that it be kept from publishing and held in secret until examination is finished.  So, Craig Wrong may have filed the request to keep his pending patent prosecuted in secret.  Sometimes prosecution can take up to 10 years.  So, the patent may still be in the examination stage today.

If a patent were to issue, on the fundamental aspects of blockchain it would be a very tricky mess.  This is because EVERYONE practically would infringe.  Even a guy who loads up a wallet, but puts no money in there.  A patent gives the inventor the right to exclude others from 'making', 'using' or 'selling' the invention.  using the blockchain would trigger infringement.  

Mr. Wright would not bother suing everyone - because that could get a little expensive.  But, he could go after anyone with money - like Coinbase.  Having success there, he could ask for all new entries to pay a license fee.  Anyone who operated without a license could probably do so without much worry, unless they because large in size.  Then they'd surely be speaking with Wright's lawyers.  

The patent systems in nearly ever non-US country are weak, very complex and hard to manage, insanely expensive, have terrible reliability problems when going for enforcement.  Even the EU 'community' patent which might become strong one day, is just not ready for prime time.  China, which is now the bitcoin king, has a fairly soft idea about patents and intellectual property.  I doubt seriously that a patent in China could be of interest to the bitcoin community there.  So only a US patent would be a nightmare for Bitcoin.  Let's hope Wright went only for the Australian patent (his home country).  Then, it would be irrelevant and not even an inconvenience.

If we don't see a patent pop up in the next 3 years, I'd bet significantly that he doesn't have one pending.  However, OP's question is a valid one today because it remains possible that a patent is still pending and may show up one day!  

Thank you for that detailed explanation! It was really good read and you explained some of the patent law nuances here.
I have no idea that you can keep your pending patents hidden from public.

Another question: is patenting blockchain tech will effectively make Craig Wright by law, the owner of all bitcoins and all altcoins based in blockchain tech as well?
Or it is too far fetched assumption?

No.  It wouldn't transfer ownership of those tokens over to him.  But, those tokens aren't of much use if you can't use 'his' blockchain.  I suppose theoretically he could take a license fee from everyone.  But of course this is not at all an interesting discussion because it takes over $250,000 just to start a legitimate patent enforcement action.  So it is certain he would only be going after the big companies.  

[Labumi]

But the Blockchain technology is open-source already and everyone can use and modify it free of charge as they see fit. I think Satoshi designed Bitcoin and its underlying technology to be for the people by the people so no one could lay claim on it saying that they own it or have designed it etc. Also I am not sure if once open-source tech could transition to being a proprietary tech or that Satoshi could come out now and take control of it. Maybe some expert in legal matters could elaborate more on this matter.

I am an expert in legal matters, I've been a US patent agent for over 25 years.  

I can tell you that it doesn't matter is Satoshi himself stood high on an apple crate and loudly proclaimed it to be 'open source', 'free to all', the patent rules would dominate that argument.  You could tell the court 'but I thought it was open source' as your defense, I just don't think you will be successful.  'is open source already' is not a legitimate patent defense.  Designing something 'for the people by the people' doesn't preclude some bastard nearby from running off to the patent office.  It is possible.  Ironically, under the old rules it would not have been possible.  Only the true inventor could get a patent.  Now, even a guy like Craig Wright could get one despite not actually being the first or true inventor.  It was a terrible rule change.  

Information that is very unusual. I assume that the regulations are now much more profitable for those who just want to get advantage, meaning the Government give opportunities to those who wish to have a work that clearly does not belong to them. Hopefully this does not happen on a bitcoin, because it is likely to negatively affect

[JPage]

But the Blockchain technology is open-source already and everyone can use and modify it free of charge as they see fit. I think Satoshi designed Bitcoin and its underlying technology to be for the people by the people so no one could lay claim on it saying that they own it or have designed it etc. Also I am not sure if once open-source tech could transition to being a proprietary tech or that Satoshi could come out now and take control of it. Maybe some expert in legal matters could elaborate more on this matter.

I am an expert in legal matters, I've been a US patent agent for over 25 years.  

I can tell you that it doesn't matter is Satoshi himself stood high on an apple crate and loudly proclaimed it to be 'open source', 'free to all', the patent rules would dominate that argument.  You could tell the court 'but I thought it was open source' as your defense, I just don't think you will be successful.  'is open source already' is not a legitimate patent defense.  Designing something 'for the people by the people' doesn't preclude some bastard nearby from running off to the patent office.  It is possible.  Ironically, under the old rules it would not have been possible.  Only the true inventor could get a patent.  Now, even a guy like Craig Wright could get one despite not actually being the first or true inventor.  It was a terrible rule change.  

Information that is very unusual. I assume that the regulations are now much more profitable for those who just want to get advantage, meaning the Government give opportunities to those who wish to have a work that clearly does not belong to them. Hopefully this does not happen on a bitcoin, because it is likely to negatively affect

It clearly DOES belong to them.  It belongs to the first guy to the patent office.  Those are the rules.  It doesn't 'belong' to the first guy to think of the idea.  The idea belongs to the first guy that shows up to the patent office.  These are the rules.  

The government doesn't 'give opportunities' to those who...  There is no person at the patent office to consider 'giving opportunities'.  The only thing they do, is to make sure the guy who files, is the first guy to file.  That is all.  It is a very low level examiner who has no ability at all to give patents to people based on some nefarious scheme or social engineering.  It is just some poor schmuck who tries to find anything that was filed before - and if there is not the patent is granted.  End of story.

[Amph]

can he even do it on a open source thing like any coin basically? i think the more i know about this mean the more i see him like a big troll

[helloeverybody]

So if craig wright did manage to file a patent for the blockchain would this mean he would have absolute power over it? Could he then use that power to force a hard fork where he would then be able to gain access to satoshis lost coins and whomever else he wishes to? If this was the case which im sure it cant be then it would be very bad news if a patent was supplied.

[bitcoineverything]

Satoshi Nakamoto owns the right to the patent. Blockchain is already out as an open source.

[JPage]

So if craig wright did manage to file a patent for the blockchain would this mean he would have absolute power over it? Could he then use that power to force a hard fork where he would then be able to gain access to satoshis lost coins and whomever else he wishes to? If this was the case which im sure it cant be then it would be very bad news if a patent was supplied.

No.  He wouldn't have absolute power over it.  He would have the right to prevent others from 'making', 'using' or 'selling' it.  That is all.

[JPage]

Satoshi Nakamoto owns the right to the patent. Blockchain is already out as an open source.

This is not what the law says.  You can say this all you like.  You can even put it in bold CAPS.  It won't change the law.  The law does not agree with what you said.  If you'd like me to point out the precise statute, I can.  

'already out as open source' simply means you can't go to the patent office today to ask for the patent.  But that does not mean that Craig Wright didn't go to the patent office before the white paper was published.  If Craig Wright, or anyone else managed to go to the patent office prior to the publication of the white paper, they could have a valid patent application pending now.  

[helloeverybody]

So if craig wright did manage to file a patent for the blockchain would this mean he would have absolute power over it? Could he then use that power to force a hard fork where he would then be able to gain access to satoshis lost coins and whomever else he wishes to? If this was the case which im sure it cant be then it would be very bad news if a patent was supplied.

No.  He wouldn't have absolute power over it.  He would have the right to prevent others from 'making', 'using' or 'selling' it.  That is all.

So would this have any implications for altcoins? And more importantly would this mean that a hardfork/bitcoin2.0 could only be orchestrated by the patant holder himself? There must be some sort of money incentive if hes going through the hassle to file for the patent. I guess this is more proof that craig isnt satoshi though as i dont think this is something satoshi would have done himself .

[Snorek]

After reading some of JPage's comments I think bitcoin future could potentially end up being very grim if Craig takes over it.
He couldn't prove that he is Satoshi and now he wants to dismantle whole system by using this dirty trick with 'patenting'.

Does than mean every bitcoin code upgrade, forking, basically every change from now on will be possible only if Craig will personally say: 'it is fine, let's do this'?
And this scenario is possible even if he only receives patent privileges in Australia.

[JPage]

After reading some of JPage's comments I think bitcoin future could potentially end up being very grim if Craig takes over it.
He couldn't prove that he is Satoshi and now he wants to dismantle whole system by using this dirty trick with 'patenting'.

Does than mean every bitcoin code upgrade, forking, basically every change from now on will be possible only if Craig will personally say: 'it is fine, let's do this'?
And this scenario is possible even if he only receives patent privileges in Australia.

dirty trick with 'patenting'
Why is it a 'dirty trick'?  Everyone hates patents.  lol  Somehow it is always a 'dirty trick' or a 'troll'.  Why don't you turn things around to your benefit and use the fair rules to improve your life?  If you have a brilliant idea TODAY, an idea that the public does not yet know about, why don't you apply for a patent?  It is pretty hard to come into knowledge, before anyone else, of a brilliant idea.  But if you have one, I'll write a patent application for you.  

In hindsight everyone who had a great idea, not yet public, that ran off to get a patent, is somehow a dirty rotten bastard.  People sure hate the patent system.  lol

If he only receives patent in Autralia, the whole world can do whatever they like with blockchains and Craig Wright could do nothing.  He would only be able to stop you from making, using or selling your blockchain stuff, in Australia!  No problem.  Just stay out of Oz and keep doing whatever you like.  

Does than mean every bitcoin code upgrade, forking, basically every change

It means, he would be able to prevent you from making, using or selling anything blockchain in Australia.   If you 'fork the code' you are still using the blockchain.  So, yes, I think he would have the right to ask for a license on that activity.  

[pandalion98]

I stumbled upon this article https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-craig-wright-blockchain-technology/

Apparently Craig Wright 'bitcoin creator' is looking to patent Blockchain technology:

"It looks like he is trying to patent the fundamental building blocks of any blockchain, cryptocurrency, or distributed ledger system."


I am not trying to say that he should/shouldn't do it or if he has/hasn't right to do it. I am not trying to prove that he is/isn't Satoshi either.


My question is: what will happen to bitcoin if he (or somebody else) actually somehow manage to patent blockchain tech?

I think this would bean the end of new altcoins that's a direct descendant of bitcoin and the blockchain technology, at least in Australia as JPage has mentioned.

[tertius993]

I am not a patent lawyer, though I know several, it may be worth noting that JPage seems to be referring to the US system, which only has US territorial jurisdiction. Based on my understanding I very much doubt if, for example, the U.K. Patent office would award a patent for something with published prior art like the blockchain technology.

[JPage]

I am not a patent lawyer, though I know several, it may be worth noting that JPage seems to be referring to the US system, which only has US territorial jurisdiction. Based on my understanding I very much doubt if, for example, the U.K. Patent office would award a patent for something with published prior art like the blockchain technology.

Actually, the new* US rules about 'first to file' were changed to be the same at the UK.  So now, both countries are the same.

However, you got something wrong.  In both countries, you can't file for a patent AFTER something is already released in public.  However, in this discussion we are assuming Craig Wright went to the patent office before blockchain was made public (ie. via Satoshi's white paper).  If the patent were filed by Craig Wright before the technology was introduced publically, that patent application may still be pending today.  

That application could not be pending today anywhere in the EU nor in Australia because those places DEMAND that pending applications be published.  However, in the US one can have a patent pending for over 10 years and there would be no mention of it publically.  You are allowed to have a patent application held from publication until the patent is granted, in the US only.

*'New' here means about 10 years ago they changed.