Patent trolling in the Bitcoin world

[piloder]

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.

[1714618067]

1714618067

[1714618067]

1714618067

[1714618067]

1714618067

[JPage]

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'.

[Carlsen]

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.

[NUFCrichard]

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.

[Milkduds]

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.

[Wind_FURY]

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.

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.

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.

 

[gmaxwell]

If you actually intend to freely license it, you will recover nothing of the cost.

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 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".

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

Blockstream has made other movements which seem somewhat less than altruistic to me.  I'd say be on guard with this one.  

Oh really? Whats that?

[JPage]

If you actually intend to freely license it, you will recover nothing of the cost.

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 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".

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

Blockstream has made other movements which seem somewhat less than altruistic to me.  I'd say be on guard with this one.  

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.

[franky1]

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.  

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.