Bitbill Patent Published - Encompasses Physical Bitcoins and Paper Wallets

[mindtomatter]

Douglas Feigelson’s patent application 20130166455, “Creating And Using Digital Currency” was published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) last Thursday, June 27th.  Mr. Feigelson is the founder of BitBills.  While the patent application has not been assigned to his company BitBills Inc., it is clearly for the BitBills cold storage concept. 
Cold storage refers to a method of keeping Bitcoins “off the grid” as a means to keep a user’s Bitcoin “secure.”  If the USPTO grants the patent application it could have an impact on other Bitcoin cold storage concepts such as Canton Becker’s BitcoinPaperWallet or even Mike Caldwell’s Casascius Coin (here is a great vid of Mike “pressing” coins). 

So what does it mean? Bitcoin Consultant John Light elaborates...
Read more

[1714003160]

1714003160

[1714003160]

1714003160

[1714003160]

1714003160

[1714003160]

1714003160

[casascius]

Thanks for raising this.

I wonder if the publication of this thread all constitutes prior art?  It's well over a year prior to his filing date.  Physical bitcoins have been discussed for eons by the core bitcoin devs.

[CIYAM]

Thankfully patents mean nothing in China.

[mindtomatter]

Mike, did you want to comment for the article?  We got our wires crossed internally about who had emailed you, turns out it was nobody.

[justusranvier]

http://www.netjeff.com/humor/item.cgi?file=EverybodiesJob

[cbeast]

Bitcoin is a math problem. Every math textbook with quizzes and answers is now in violation of this patent. Don't tell Texas, they are looking for an excuse to ban them.

[casascius]

Mike, did you want to comment for the article?  We got our wires crossed internally about who had emailed you, turns out it was nobody.

The only real comment I'd have is that it's a shame that someone wants to purport to own and monopolize an idea that they didn't create, that isn't novel or non-obvious to this community.  The action of filing this patent is intellectually dishonest and reminiscent of Michael Pascazi attempting to trademark the word Bitcoin.  The whole idea of producing a product like BitBills was discussed in this forum in thorough detail long before he ever announced his product.

I applaud him for deciding to continue to create BitBills.  They are an important piece of Bitcoin history, am looking forward to seeing the next iteration of them, and I'm proud to say that I own some of the originals.  Meanwhile, I hope the community calls his patent application foul for what it is, and in the face of the legal challenge he should be expecting, that he does the same thing Mr. Pascazi did: call it quits on his application and leave to the Bitcoin community what rightfully belongs to it.

[casascius]

Bitcoin is a math problem. Every math textbook with quizzes and answers is now in violation of this patent. Don't tell Texas, they are looking for an excuse to ban them.

So is every paper wallet and upcoming Bitcoin e-wallet like the Trezor (it too is a "device"), as well as BitChip.

At least this is a patent application, not a granted patent.

[cbeast]

Bills sold that include a private key are potentially fraudulent and should not be taken seriously as financial documents. They make great collectibles, but unless they are bonded and insured, there is nothing preventing the creator from absconding with them. This patent appears to be an attempt to legitimize fraud by promoting it as a patented instrument.

This just gets my goat because it goes against the spirit of Bitcoin and gives us a bad name. Part of me hopes that FinCEN "regulates" any patent holder like this that attempts to profit.

[mindtomatter]

Mike, did you want to comment for the article?  We got our wires crossed internally about who had emailed you, turns out it was nobody.

The only real comment I'd have is that it's a shame that someone wants to purport to own and monopolize an idea that they didn't create, that isn't novel or non-obvious to this community.  The action of filing this patent is intellectually dishonest and reminiscent of Michael Pascazi attempting to trademark the word Bitcoin.  The whole idea of producing a product like BitBills was discussed in this forum in thorough detail long before he ever announced his product.

I applaud him for deciding to continue to create BitBills.  They are an important piece of Bitcoin history, am looking forward to seeing the next iteration of them, and I'm proud to say that I own some of the originals.  Meanwhile, I hope the community calls his patent application foul for what it is, and in the face of the legal challenge he should be expecting, that he does the same thing Mr. Pascazi did: call it quits on his application and leave to the Bitcoin community what rightfully belongs to it.

We'll save that quote for if they go on the offensive, I don't want to assume motives here when they haven't commented on their intentions.

[casascius]

We'll save that quote for if they go on the offensive, I don't want to assume motives here when they haven't commented on their intentions.

Mr. Feigelson contacted me on Nov 2, 2011 and asserted that in making Casascius Coins that I "stole" his "tech" and represented that I could "license" the idea from him.

His patent application, if granted, would be a deterrent to all kinds of bitcoin-related commerce, regardless of his stated intentions.  I'm eager to hear what he's got to say with regards to his intentions, but this patent application on its face is overly broad - just like Mr. Pascazi's claim of owning the term "bitcoin" - and should not be granted under any circumstance.  I submit that his pursuit of it as filed - even if described with the best possible intentions - should be viewed as an unwelcome attempt to encumber the project and our community.

[halfawake]

Sounds like a giant step backwards.  I hope the patent application isn't granted.  You should contest it, Mike.

[mindtomatter]

Alan over at Bitcoin Armory contacted me about the article saying he was concerned it would encumber parts of his cold storage, and that it was something defending.   Mike, did you respond to their licensing demands?

[casascius]

Alan over at Bitcoin Armory contacted me about the article saying he was concerned it would encumber parts of his cold storage, and that it was something defending.   Mike, did you respond to their licensing demands?

Not really - since at that point, he wasn't able to back up the existence of any sort of ownership that would make licensing necessary.

[00:45] <casascius> Just to get this out of the way, do you believe that you own any sort of legally recognized intellectual property that precludes what I am doing?
[00:46] <llama> yes
[00:47] <casascius> Would you mind sending me a copy of its registration?
[00:49] <llama> Mike, we'll send you anything as we see fit
[00:50] <llama> within the next week likely
[00:50] <casascius> What would you like for me to do?  Are you essentially asking that I stop producing physical bitcoins?
[00:52] <llama> You could license our tech
[00:52] <casascius> Do you have a patent on the idea of embedding private keys in objects?
[00:52] <casascius> I performed a quick search and wasn't able to find such a thing
[00:52] <llama> we're in the application process
[00:53] <llama> patents take a couple of years to issue
[00:53] <llama> in some cases at least
[00:54] <llama> you might have a partnership option
[00:55] <casascius> So what you are saying is you want me to pay you a fee for making physical bitcoins, just so I understand you correctly
[00:56] <llama> I never said that
[00:56] <casascius> You mentioned licensing, so that's how I understood that.  If wrong, what do you have in mind?
[00:57] <llama> All I'm saying is that it's our position that you've copied our tech.

Since he sent me nothing within the week or at any time until now, I didn't worry much about it.  So now that this is appearing, this brief exchange becomes relevant.

[/dev/null]

So they actually want to patent it in usa and take peoples information and sell them a card which will have only 1 bitcoin address that can not be changed ever and by signing their TOS you will agree that you own that address and card

If people started using them in big amounts, one day US gov will grab bitbill's ass and ask every single customers data and then you can expect some big shit.


Peoples are forgetting bitcoins main motto (Privacy & Anonymity) and trying to make it another shit fiat currency even worst than that due to greed.

[BitTrade]

I wouldn't sweat this, guys.  I'm not an IP lawyer, but I do hold a patent, and know quite a bit on the subject.  Patents like this are next to meaningless, as it would likely only protect someone from recreating an EXACT replica of their solution.  This filing seems to be meant for the sole purpose of deterring / scaring competition, or possibly just out of ignorance of patent law as far as what this filing would protect.

Mike, if you're interested, I can get you in touch with a top-notch bitcoin-friendly libertarian patent lawyer who would likely be glad to take a look at this issue for you.

[casascius]

I may take you up on that, though as it turns out, I may already be well equipped in terms of access to legal talent to put up prompt effective opposition.  My first choice of law firm to handle this has done excellent work for me in the past and also they are highly interested in Bitcoin and so would probably be enthusiastic about this.  So, me challenging this is pretty much a given here.

Will keep your offer in mind just in case for any reason they can't take this one.

[/dev/null]

I wouldn't sweat this, guys.  I'm not an IP lawyer, but I do hold a patent, and know quite a bit on the subject.  Patents like this are next to meaningless, as it would likely only protect someone from recreating an EXACT replica of their solution.  This filing seems to be meant for the sole purpose of deterring / scaring competition, or possibly just out of ignorance of patent law as far as what this filing would protect.

Mike, if you're interested, I can get you in touch with a top-notch bitcoin-friendly libertarian patent lawyer who would likely be glad to take a look at this issue for you.

There is a big difference in other patients and this one.
They are trying to patent a stuff which wasn't even their idea and it's not also good for bitcoin due to all the problems USA govt is creating now.
I'm not sure what kind of technology they are going to use on cards, but if it's not QR or some opensource stuff, i guess they will be able to lock funds otherwise i'm sure they will keep Public key data and customers all info.

[CIYAM]

Something can easily be set up in China if this (typically) silly patent is granted (and unfortunately many silly patents *do* get granted in the USA which then later have to be challenged making lawyers rich and small businesses poor).

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

This is disgusting. What's this lame llama thinking?

I'll never buy a single bitbill. I hope more people boycott them as well. I'm actually considering buying some casacius coins - or any other competitor - just as a form of protest.

I also hope this happens:

Something can easily be set up in China if this (typically) silly patent is granted

[cdog]

Mike Caldwell’s Casascius Coin (here is a great vid of Mike “pressing” coins).  

Id be interested in watching this, but the link doesnt show up for me.

Im very interested in seeing BTC bills, and although I understand why llama is trying to corner the market, I dont like this approach at all.

Just let free competition happen, and may the best physical bitcoins win.

I think physical, multi-denomination BTC is a huge, necessary step forward towards mass adoption.

[Birdy]

This is disgusting. What's this lame llama thinking?

I'll never buy a single bitbill. I hope more people boycott them as well.

This, patent trolling is on the same level as scammers imo.

[CIYAM]

The day I decided that American patents (in IT at least) were ridiculous was when RLE was patented (back in the 80's).

Any student who sees a bunch of bytes like this: 0x40 0x40 0x40 0x80 0x80
will come up with the idea of: 0x03 0x40 0x02 0x80

anyone who thinks that such trivial stuff should even be "patentable" should probably consider patenting the English language itself (who knows maybe that will be next in the land where your own genes belong to some corporation).

[apetersson]

The day I decided that American patents (in IT at least) were ridiculous was when RLE was patented (back in the 80's).

in europe most software-only ideas are not patentable. the trouble unfortunately begins when you interact with the physical world, like with qr codes it suddenly becomes patentable.
I think the whole patent system is broken and just shovels money to lawyers and hinders innovation.

it would be great if we had some consensus on that in the bitcoin world. since the field is relatively new i forsee new a lot of patents on relatively obvious stuff (like this) being patented. maybe we should gather together and build a non-agression alliance with enough power to eliminate this threat.

[mindtomatter]

Mike Caldwell’s Casascius Coin (here is a great vid of Mike “pressing” coins).  

Id be interested in watching this, but the link doesnt show up for me.

Im very interested in seeing BTC bills, and although I understand why llama is trying to corner the market, I dont like this approach at all.

Just let free competition happen, and may the best physical bitcoins win.

I think physical, multi-denomination BTC is a huge, necessary step forward towards mass adoption.

You can read the full story (with updates) here which includes live links http://letstalkbitcoin.com/post/54309560858/bitbills-to-relaunch-cold-storage-patent-application

You can find the direct link to the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NyzDY7NUOo

[BitTrade]

Also keep in mind guys, contrary to what most believe, you can't patent an "idea" (such as the "idea" of physical / cold storage bitcoins).  You can only patent a VERY specific system or design.  So even if this patent application is accepted, it would be so limited in scope so as to make it next to meaningless.  If it's too broad, it will not be enforceable.  This is a clear case of patent bullying. 

[mindtomatter]

The patent is very inclusive of techniques, means, methods, mediums.   It may be unenforceable, but it can be used as a cudgel against smaller players who might like to enter the market but don't want to risk an infringement lawsuit.

[CIYAM]

Also keep in mind guys, contrary to what most believe, you can't patent an "idea" (such as the "idea" of physical / cold storage bitcoins).

Your premise is very true although in recent years patents in the USA have been mostly granted regardless of how broad they are (perhaps as a money-making exercise in itself by the authorities that grant them) so that patents for ideas *are* being granted and then later have to be battled (at a huge cost to a small business).

The patent system really has no purpose in the modern world (it's original purpose was to encourage publication - we have the internet for that now) - the sooner it is scrapped the better (ditto for copyright - my other major bugbear).

[canton]

If it's too broad, it will not be enforceable.  This is a clear case of patent bullying. 

Here's my concern: If BitBill is lucky enough to get their patent approved, it won't matter whether or not they can enforce their patent by winning in court. All they have to do is send letters demanding licensing fees from companies and individuals knowing full well that their targets won't be able to afford fighting the validity of the request in court.

Here's a great (entertaining and informative) radio show on the topic of "patent trolls" and how they use overly broad patents to extort fees from startups: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/when-patents-attack-part-two



I'll of course be following this closely because my hobby project (https://bitcoinpaperwallet.com) would be directly impacted by the approval of this patent, even though I'm not selling "currency" of any sort.

[cbeast]

What kind of legal exposure would a patent holder have for Bitbills that are used for illegal activities?

[CIYAM]

What kind of legal exposure would a patent holder have for Bitbills that are used for illegal activities?

Haha - great idea - forward on the patent application to the NSA (although probably not necessary as they would already know about it) and to FinCEN and let them reap the benefits!

[RoadToHell]

I quickly read through the Claims section (which is the meat of any patent), but won't have time to look at the rest of the application until this evening.  Claims 24, 30 and 31 look like they might contain new material.  I think that all of the others can be countered with prior art.  It will be interesting to see if the application detail backs up those claims with any substance.

The application can be found here:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20130166455.PGNR.&OS=DN/20130166455&RS=DN/20130166455

[RoadToHell]

It's a good thing that toilets were invented before the patent offices got all wacky.  Otherwise we'd all be up sh*t creek.

[smoothie]

I'm trying to wrap my head around how you could patent embedding private keys into coins.

[cbeast]

What kind of legal exposure would a patent holder have for Bitbills that are used for illegal activities?

Haha - great idea - forward on the patent application to the NSA (although probably not necessary as they would already know about it) and to FinCEN and let them reap the benefits!

This will take the cross-hairs off of Satoshi since this is someone claiming to own a major part of the idea of Bitcoin.

[casascius]

I quickly read through the Claims section (which is the meat of any patent), but won't have time to look at the rest of the application until this evening.  Claims 24, 30 and 31 look like they might contain new material.  I think that all of the others can be countered with prior art.  It will be interesting to see if the application detail backs up those claims with any substance.

I would think these three claims are nothing more than the same thing described in this post dated Aug 30, 2010 and its followups.

[cypherdoc]

I'm trying to wrap my head around how you could patent embedding private keys into coins.

don't worry about this claim.  it won't go anywhere.

BitBills is a spoiled brat who missed out on the run up precisely b/c they didn't see it coming and now wants to capitalize on everyone else's success.  won't happen.

[Snail2]

A Google find:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html

As I see any third party can enter a protest at the patent office. (I have no idea about the US patent law, so tell me if I'm telling stupid things.)
Maybe TBF should intervene in this case.

[mindtomatter]

A Google find:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html

As I see any third party can enter a protest at the patent office. (I have no idea about the US patent law, so tell me if I'm telling stupid things.)
Maybe TBF should intervene in this case.

Gavin commented on the foundation private forum and said he did not think it was the responsibility of the foundation to get involved.   I don't neccesarily agree with that, I think if they're going to be activist in the community (lobbying) it makes sense for them to file protective patents on publicly derived concepts, which cold storage clearly is.   This would prevent wasted expenditure on unsuccessful attempts to patent obvious parts of the Bitcoin structure.

[Snail2]

Agree. Offline wallets could be a great tool for promoting the usefulness of BTC and could help achieve a wider acceptance (as it looks similar to a well known bank note) so I think it's important to keep trolls away.

[crazy_rabbit]

I may take you up on that, though as it turns out, I may already be well equipped in terms of access to legal talent to put up prompt effective opposition.  My first choice of law firm to handle this has done excellent work for me in the past and also they are highly interested in Bitcoin and so would probably be enthusiastic about this.  So, me challenging this is pretty much a given here.

Will keep your offer in mind just in case for any reason they can't take this one.

This is definitely something that the Bitcoin foundation should also consider taking up. Their mission should be to protect innovation in the Bitcoin community and the last thing we need are patent trolls popping up trying to stifle Bitcoin through their own greed. New technology is legitimate, but not something obvious and discussed in the community at large.

EDIT: Can a formal protest be lodged?

[xxjs]

Overview of the patent system:

The patent covers an invention, and the patent applicant can get monopoly of the use of the invention for a limited time. He can then force others to not use the invention or license it, of his own choosing.

The bitcoin name can not be patented, and also copyright is a fundamentally different thing.

The patent office will only consider the form of the patent application. The basic content of the application is a list of claims, ordered from the most wide claim. The real invention (what the applicant thinks) can be a claim low on the list. Then he adds some more limited claims lower on the list just in case his most valueable claim is shot down. Above his real claim, he will add broader claims (may be he is lucky). The first claim is almost always way to wide. I is not neccessary that the applicant was the first inventor, that has to be decided in the court.

Before the application is accepted and registered, there is nothing. When an application is accepted, it is possible to approach possible lincensees. At that point the applicant has spent some money, and more is needed to register it worldwide. But for real gain on the patent, it has to go through the court system. When the first legal victory is secured, the patent may have some value.

The existence of a patent can put off some small competitors, this is of course negative for competition. On the other hand, patents can also protect a smaller inventor company from bigger fish, who might capitalize on the invention and out-compete the inventor. Patents can be sold, enabling the inventor to get some money without the hazzle and risk of defending it.

[Bobabouey]

I quickly read through the Claims section (which is the meat of any patent), but won't have time to look at the rest of the application until this evening.  Claims 24, 30 and 31 look like they might contain new material.  I think that all of the others can be countered with prior art.  It will be interesting to see if the application detail backs up those claims with any substance.

I would think these three claims are nothing more than the same thing described in this post dated Aug 30, 2010 and its followups.

I am relatively new to these forums, but wonder if there is any way of establishing that the party who filed the patent is aware of the discussions Mike linked to, or other discussions?  I.e. if their handles are known, do they appear in those discussions?

In addition to prior art, another way of attacking a patent is inequitable conduct.  The party applying for a patent has a "duty of candor" that requires them to "disclose to the Patent Office all information they are aware of that is material to the examination of the application".  (See, e.g., http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent/advanced-patent/inequitable-conduct/).  So evidence that bitbill was aware of all these discussions could be useful. 

[giszmo]

mindboggling bullshit going on. (/subscribe)

[karlmarxxx]

I encourage anyone interested to file Prior art to the examiner showing that the "invention" was public domain knowledge at the time of his application in December of 2011. Follow the instruction here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-LUfhogwspcJ:meta.patents.stackexchange.com/questions/105/i-want-to-make-a-difference-how-can-i-submit-prior-art-to-the-patent-office+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The application number is 13/336,779 and the confirmation number is 2427. Submit any relevant online discussions or webpages of people who were already doing this.

According to some research I did, the first instance of a paper bitcoin wallet / note was talked about by Gavin Andresen, Lead Bitcoin Developer in this post:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737.0

That was in 2010, two years before the patent was filed! In addition printcoins.com showed everyone "how to do it" in November 2011, this would constitute public domain prior art , since this patent applicant could have easily seen printcoins.com's work flow. In fact a quick look on twitter show that @printcoin and @bitcoininfo posted how to make bitbills on November 26 2011. This is one month prior to the patent application.

I have already submitted this as prior art via third party to the USPTO, I would urge anyone who likes to keep public bitcoin innovations public to do and submit more research for the examiner to make this patent application either go away or be very restrictive in scope.

[Operatr]

“Considering that cold storage has been used in the open domain for almost as long as Bitcoin has existed, I would suspect this patent will not survive significant scrutiny, but rather serve the purpose of both enhancing Doug’s ability to raise capital and to serve as a barrier to entry for small players unable to afford a patent lawsuit.”

Let's help the patent office see this for the sweeping overreaching bullshit that it is. If I were not so busy I would be happy to do this myself, but someone experienced with the practices of law may be better suited. Any volunteers to organize and file the documents to protest the application?

http://www.ehow.com/how_7240683_protest-patent-application.html


Even if it gets filed, it won't matter. The Internet has a funny way of telling patents and control of ideas to jump off a cliff into a bed of rusty nails. All it would take is an open source cold wallet generator spread widely through equally patent/copyright crushing p2p technology like BitTorrent, and BitBills can only watch helplessly while their presumably paid-for system dies cold and alone. We could see 3D printers used to create offline hard wallets from freely distributed source files. Fighting it in court would only see them waste hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus a simple fact they can't sue the whole Internet. Patents as they exist are incompatible with the Internet age that has been proven time and again. This patent can't remove Bitcoin's ability to generate private keys, technically you would be violating such a broad bullshit patent by writing it down on a piece of paper...

[llama]

Hey folks. I'm glad to see some of the conversations that have been happening lately on this subject. I think it's extremely important to have these discussions regarding how bitcoin will interact with intellectual property law in the US and internationally, and what, if anything, can be done about it. We've all recently seen IP litigation that we do not like, and there is a growing consensus that US IP law needs to be updated to better suit modern innovation.

Though I know little about IP law, we registered our name as a trademark and filed a patent on the Bitbills production process on the advice of our lawyers and advisors. As far as we've been advised, it is standard process for a small company with a single flagship product to seek these kinds of protection.

If you haven't already, I encourage you to read the parts of our patent application that have been published [1]. There's a lot of debate going on about what it does and does not say, and the best way to fix that is to read it for yourself. I also strongly encourage you to read some of the other patents dealing with bitcoin products and innovations, of which there are hundreds [2]. Note that many of these have been in fact issued, which makes them more interesting than the applications. In fact I'm a bit bewildered at how much attention this particular application has gotten in light of the others, but I'm certainly glad that the community is beginning to have these discussions about bitcoin and IP law.

[1] http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
[2] http://www.google.com/patents?q=bitcoin

[Operatr]

Hey folks. I'm glad to see some of the conversations that have been happening lately on this subject. I think it's extremely important to have these discussions regarding how bitcoin will interact with intellectual property law in the US and internationally, and what, if anything, can be done about it. We've all recently seen IP litigation that we do not like, and there is a growing consensus that US IP law needs to be updated to better suit modern innovation.

Though I know little about IP law, we registered our name as a trademark and filed a patent on the Bitbills production process on the advice of our lawyers and advisors. As far as we've been advised, it is standard process for a small company with a single flagship product to seek these kinds of protection.

If you haven't already, I encourage you to read the parts of our patent application that have been published [1]. There's a lot of debate going on about what it does and does not say, and the best way to fix that is to read it for yourself. I also strongly encourage you to read some of the other patents dealing with bitcoin products and innovations, of which there are hundreds [2]. Note that many of these have been in fact issued, which makes them more interesting than the applications. In fact I'm a bit bewildered at how much attention this particular application has gotten in light of the others, but I'm certainly glad that the community is beginning to have these discussions about bitcoin and IP law.

[1] http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
[2] http://www.google.com/patents?q=bitcoin

I think what this is more about is that this patent seems to be calming broad ownership to the entire concept of  cold "offline wallets", which is not only absurd, but sickening to those who believe all parts of Bitcoin should be free and open, not killed off by patent lawyers and greedy companies.

Can you explain what the intent of Bitbills is with this? It seemed from things I have read so far you would like anyone that creates a cold wallet product or service should have to license this technology from Bitbills, which is horse crap frankly.

Those links you provided do not provide anything useful, can you show something else?

[CIYAM]

Can you explain what the intent of Bitbills is with this? It seemed from things I have read so far you would like anyone that creates a cold wallet product or service should have to license this technology from Bitbills, which is horse crap frankly.

Assuming this is not their intent then I would guess the problem is that they feel they "need lawyers" (something it seems is in the blood of most USA citizens) who will advise you only in the way that they think they will be able to make the maximum amount of fees from court cases (so the more court cases the better in the mind of a lawyer - thus the advice to make the patent as wide reaching as possible).

This is probably not so much their own fault as the fault of a broken system that pretty much lets anyone patent anything and then lets the lawyers make the money in fighting over whether the patent is actually sensible or just plain rubbish (an exercise that only enriches lawyers).

[llama]

You may read the claims here:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20130166455.PGNR.&OS=DN/20130166455&RS=DN/20130166455

If the images don't load, those may be gotten from the Public PAIR site.

The application covers the technology we use to create and secure Bitbills. It does not cover "bit checks" that you print from your computer. It does not cover putting private keys on a flash drive and putting that in a safe. It does not cover NFC-type smartphone wallets. This is misinformation that I believe has been unintentionally spread by people who have not read the application.

Assuming this is not their intent then I would guess the problem is that they feel they "need lawyers" (something it seems is in the blood of most USA citizens) who will advise you only in the way that they think they will be able to make the maximum amount of fees from court cases (so the more court cases the better in the mind of a lawyer - thus the advice to make the patent as wide reaching as possible).

Any serious company in this industry that feels like they do not need lawyers is going to have a bad time.

[dillpicklechips]

Any serious company in this industry that feels like they do not need lawyers is going to have a bad time.

You can still use lawyers to protect your business and IP, but using a lawyer to patent other people's ideas is kind of a douche move.

[Bobabouey]

You may read the claims here:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20130166455.PGNR.&OS=DN/20130166455&RS=DN/20130166455

If the images don't load, those may be gotten from the Public PAIR site.

The application covers the technology we use to create and secure Bitbills. It does not cover "bit checks" that you print from your computer. It does not cover putting private keys on a flash drive and putting that in a safe. It does not cover NFC-type smartphone wallets. This is misinformation that I believe has been unintentionally spread by people who have not read the application.

I have read the claims, and from reading the rest of the thread, many others have as well...  Which is why there has been a discussion of prior art, and my point about whether you've satisfied the patent law "duty of candor" in disclosing your knowledge of potential prior art in your communications with the PTO.

Now, given that you've described various things the application does not cover, why don't you confront the question of what it does cover.  Are you of the view that Casascius / Lealana coins infringe your patent?  In particular claims 24, 30 and 31, all of which include as part of their claim a variation of:  "a security feature that can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised."

The intention of those claims is pretty clear to me - lets "call a spade a spade."

[CIYAM]

Any serious company in this industry that feels like they do not need lawyers is going to have a bad time.

I have been in the software industry since the late 80's and have *never* used a lawyer once for anything related to any software business I have been involved with - as I said it's a USA thing (but of course many USA people think that their way of doing things is *the only way*).

[casascius]

The application covers the technology we use to create and secure Bitbills.

Do you mean the specific process you use to put a hologram sticker on top of the secret number you want to hide?  Or just the abstract idea itself, of covering a number with a hologram sticker?

Regardless of the merits, what do you propose it will cost me as Casascius, a maker of physical bitcoins, to license from you the technology you say is yours?  That is, in advance of any USPTO determination as to whether your application (or its parts) are granted/rejected?  Will you license it to me for free?

[firefop]

You may read the claims here:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20130166455.PGNR.&OS=DN/20130166455&RS=DN/20130166455

If the images don't load, those may be gotten from the Public PAIR site.

The application covers the technology we use to create and secure Bitbills. It does not cover "bit checks" that you print from your computer. It does not cover putting private keys on a flash drive and putting that in a safe. It does not cover NFC-type smartphone wallets. This is misinformation that I believe has been unintentionally spread by people who have not read the application.

Assuming this is not their intent then I would guess the problem is that they feel they "need lawyers" (something it seems is in the blood of most USA citizens) who will advise you only in the way that they think they will be able to make the maximum amount of fees from court cases (so the more court cases the better in the mind of a lawyer - thus the advice to make the patent as wide reaching as possible).

Any serious company in this industry that feels like they do not need lawyers is going to have a bad time.

You sir, are a real piece of work.

Amazingly naive to think that one of us wouldn't notice and step in to block your attempt. Also to imagine that it wouldn't affect your future business prospects in all things bitcoin related.  



And hey Cacascius, if you need help with legal fees to deal with this mess just drop us a donation address and we'll get right on that.

[mindtomatter]

The application covers the technology we use to create and secure Bitbills.

Do you mean the specific process you use to put a hologram sticker on top of the secret number you want to hide?  Or just the abstract idea itself, of covering a number with a hologram sticker?

Regardless of the merits, what do you propose it will cost me as Casascius, a maker of physical bitcoins, to license from you the technology you say is yours?  That is, in advance of any USPTO determination as to whether your application (or its parts) are granted/rejected?  Will you license it to me for free?

Llama, would you like to come on Let's Talk Bitcoin to make your case to the community about why this patent is warranted?  If there are complexities I don't understand, I think it might be a good opportunity to educate the community on the issue.

[phillipsjk]

The more broad claims seem to cover currency tokens not related to bitcoin at all: for example PlayStation Network cards. They use a secret stored under latex. It appears they use capital alpha-numeric characters, rather than base-58. The fact that Sony uses a central server is just an implementation detail not actually covered by the Patent.

[karlmarxxx]

Llama, my problem with your patent is that other people clearly taught you how to make a physical bitcoin, be that Gavin Andresen, Cas, printcoins.com, bitaddress.org, etc. You took their teachings and public domain information and tried to patent a product that was open and free for anyone to use.

I don't mind you having the product, in fact that can only help bitcoin, what i mind is trying to own an idea that is not yours. The only reason to get a patent is to enforce your rights on that patent, and allow for your product to be the only one in the market space. How can you figure that you have ownership over a market that clearly has many players that started way before you?

[peonminer]

IMHO,

Mr. Feigelson is a dickhead. Only a matter of time before dickheads try to fuck something of value.

[Littleshop]

You may read the claims here:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20130166455.PGNR.&OS=DN/20130166455&RS=DN/20130166455

If the images don't load, those may be gotten from the Public PAIR site.

The application covers the technology we use to create and secure Bitbills. It does not cover "bit checks" that you print from your computer. It does not cover putting private keys on a flash drive and putting that in a safe. It does not cover NFC-type smartphone wallets. This is misinformation that I believe has been unintentionally spread by people who have not read the application.

Assuming this is not their intent then I would guess the problem is that they feel they "need lawyers" (something it seems is in the blood of most USA citizens) who will advise you only in the way that they think they will be able to make the maximum amount of fees from court cases (so the more court cases the better in the mind of a lawyer - thus the advice to make the patent as wide reaching as possible).

Any serious company in this industry that feels like they do not need lawyers is going to have a bad time.

I believe there is clear prior art from a year before.  Do you intend to sue people who use technology that was published prior to your patent?

[odolvlobo]

I don't think this patent could survive a challenge. Tell me this is not a very detailed description of an Amazon gift card or even a scratch-off lottery ticket.

"1. An apparatus comprising a physical device that carries value and can be physically delivered in a transaction, the physical device comprising a representation of the value carried by the physical device, the representation being usable to transfer the value from the physical device to a digital domain, and a security feature that can change from a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device has not been compromised to a state indicating that the value carried by the physical device may have been compromised, the change in state being detectable, the representation of the value carried by the physical device being inaccessible except in a manner that causes the security feature to change state."

[NewLiberty]

Overview of the patent system:

The patent covers an invention, and the patent applicant can get monopoly of the use of the invention for a limited time. He can then force others to not use the invention or license it, of his own choosing.

No. That is almost as bad as claiming that since there are police, there is no crime.

A patent doesn't do what you described here very well, that would give the law magical powers that it doesn't have.  Patents are routinely violated, they never result in monopoly.  What they do is provide an offensive legal weapon to point at those that attempt to do something like what you have patented.

Using a patent is an expensive proposition, and may not succeed, so you aren't going to enforce it unless the perp is rich.  Win or lose you have to pay.  Lose really badly and you have to pay for the other guy's legal costs too.  If you do ultimately win your patent defense case, you aren't done.  All you get is the court sending you to another case to figure out what the "reasonable license fee" is, and that's what you get.  If you win a good award, then you have to try to collect it.

Do you know how many patents get profitably violated?  All the good ones.

[karlmarxxx]

Overview of the patent system:

The patent covers an invention, and the patent applicant can get monopoly of the use of the invention for a limited time. He can then force others to not use the invention or license it, of his own choosing.

No. That is almost as bad as claiming that since there are police, there is no crime.

A patent doesn't do what you described here very well, that would give the law magical powers that it doesn't have.  Patents are routinely violated, they never result in monopoly.  What they do is provide an offensive legal weapon to point at those that attempt to do something like what you have patented.

Using a patent is an expensive proposition, and may not succeed, so you aren't going to enforce it unless the perp is rich.  Win or lose you have to pay.  Lose really badly and you have to pay for the other guy's legal costs too.  If you do ultimately win your patent defense case, you aren't done.  All you get is the court sending you to another case to figure out what the "reasonable license fee" is, and that's what you get.  If you win a good award, then you have to try to collect it.

Do you know how many patents get profitably violated?  All the good ones.

Firstly I agree, a patent doesn't stop anyone from doing anything. Just because you have a patent granted doesn't stop anyone from knowingly infringing upon your patent. Either way I think most of the discussion thus far is acting like the patent was granted. In fact it has just been published and will get the first office action rejection in a few months.

I'm not sure how deep the inventors pockets are but he is gonna have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees just arguing that there is anything patentable here. His claims will be worn down in scope and numbers as his lawyers have to pare down the original claims. I would fully expect at least 4 rounds of office action rejections before anything is even close to being approved.

Even then after approval I fully expect that any granted claims will be highly likely to be overturned. This is IMO a huge waste of money and time for these guys, they made mistake number 1, never trust your lawyers. Lawyers get payed to scare you into spending way more than needed, and often in patent law, will say you have a great shot at getting a patent. They are not technically lying to you, they might be able to get 1 or 2 of the claims through, though they probably wont be the ones you wanted nor have the coverage to enforce much of anything, if they can even withstand a re-examination.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Why does anyone need a patent to create their own bills? It would seem to add unnecessary cost to something that you are producing and the free market will crush you for trying to make scarce.

[karlmarxxx]

Why does anyone need a patent to create their own bills? It would seem to add unnecessary cost to something that you are producing and the free market will crush you for trying to make scarce.

One doesn't, one only gets a US patent to prevent someone else from making and selling a paper wallet in the United States. This will only alienate this company from people in the bitcoin community, it is a terribly expensive mistake.

[smoothie]

I honestly don't see how this "patent" claim will hold up when challenged.

In my view it seems a little too broad about covering a password with a hologram/sticker/etc.

If that were to be the case then getting security holograms custom-made that allow for securing passwords underneath it, would be impossible.

[Boussac]

If the patent is granted, I will burn my one and only 1BTC bitbill on you tube and tell the world not to touch anything made by the patent troll..

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Any serious company in this industry that feels like they do not need lawyers is going to have a bad time.

I have been in the software industry since the late 80's and have *never* used a lawyer once for anything related to any software business I have been involved with - as I said it's a USA thing (but of course many USA people think that their way of doing things is *the only way*).

Definitely.

what do you propose it will cost me as Casascius, a maker of physical bitcoins, to license from you the technology you say is yours?

If you easily accept to pay a single dime to license anything from this despicable piece of shit, I'll lose part of the respect I currently have for you.
Outsource your production to China, change the brand, or even stop this business and find something else to do, but please avoid easily falling for this attack. This creature deserves to be ostracized completely. He doesn't deserve a single penny.

If the patent is granted, I will burn my one and only 1BTC bitbill on you tube and tell the world not to touch anything made by the patent troll..

+1
Actually, I think you should do it right now. In spite of this patent passing or not, the intentions of Bitbill manufacturer are pretty clear. That alone is enough to conclude he doesn't deserve any support.

[vintagetrex]

wow this is disgusting. 

As an independent inventor I have my fair share of qualms with the patent system and those who attempt to abuse it.  I would like to say, it is possible that Feigelson has a provisional patent (a placeholder in line at the patent office) that goes back to December 2010... I would recommend finding prior art before this date to make sure. 

On the other hand, his intellectual property will be software or code allowing anyone to make "bit bills,"  the code will be ripped and stored into the Anarcorp block chain, allowing everyone to use it anonymously, while paying the crafty bugger who ripped the code to Feigelson's precious "bit bills". 

His lawyers will send letters to Anarcorp, telling them to take the infringing work down, and Anarcorp won't give a damn because thats Anarcorp's business model... suing Anarcorp would be as difficult as suing Bitcoin, it can't happen

[franky1]

hmm so bitbill's is the new 'treasury' office of bitcoin..? the only ones legally entitled to make physical bitcoins if the patent is granted.

if true, this goes totally against the grain of bitcoins freedoms.

edit:

0077] FIG. 9--Bitbills are Bitcoins in tangible form

meanwhile litecoins are unaffected

[cbeast]

hmm so bitbill's is the new 'treasury' office of bitcoin..? the only ones legally entitled to make physical bitcoins if the patent is granted.

if true, this goes totally against the grain of bitcoins freedoms.

edit:

0077] FIG. 9--Bitbills are Bitcoins in tangible form

meanwhile litecoins are unaffected

If I recompile my client and change the name, it will then be cbeastcoin_btc and hence unnafected.

[NewLiberty]

hmm so bitbill's is the new 'treasury' office of bitcoin..? the only ones legally entitled to make physical bitcoins if the patent is granted.

if true, this goes totally against the grain of bitcoins freedoms.

edit:

0077] FIG. 9--Bitbills are Bitcoins in tangible form

meanwhile litecoins are unaffected

There are so many ways around it, as well as demonstrable prior art.  The patent wont be granted and if it is, will be useless.  Why worry, just pity them.  They lost their way, the little fellows.

[giszmo]

http://patents.stackexchange.com/

might generally be a good idea to know and check out this page from time to time.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html

[karlmarxxx]

An update from the USPTO basically they have accepted the bitcointalk forum posts as prior art:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7nOVGhPgqTEY2FIenFpdVlNRzg/
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7nOVGhPgqTEdnowcS1jZm02d1U/

you can view more from the USPTO here:
http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
Use application number: 13/336,779

[odolvlobo]

If you are aware of any prior art, please submit the information here: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/4702/patent-application-20130166455-creating-and-using-digital-currency-prior-art

[wtfvanity]

An update from the USPTO basically they have accepted the bitcointalk forum posts as prior art:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7nOVGhPgqTEY2FIenFpdVlNRzg/
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7nOVGhPgqTEdnowcS1jZm02d1U/

you can view more from the USPTO here:
http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
Use application number: 13/336,779

wow. That seems like the examiner is actually looking at this closely. Gavin, you're famous.

Isn't that just the kick back though, and he can continue prosecution of the patent?

[casascius]

I have actually paid an attorney a retainer to work on this as well.  (Those of you who have expressed an interest in contributing - I might say buying my coins is more than plenty helpful and thanks are due everyone who has bought my coins - as the attorney is being funded and retained by "Casascius LLC" using none other than the proceeds of Casascius Coin sales.)

Last time I visited with him, we agreed that it would be a good idea if I were to provide him a shared Google doc or similar with the most cross-referenced work possible, so that his time would be spent actually assembling and formatting it, rather than his firm "looking" for the prior art (something he's not going to be able to do as well as we can).

I am unsure of whether any of these existing efforts are being done with the aid of an attorney, but if it's being "crowdsourced", I'd be more than happy to provide the attorney to actually take the crowdsourced work product and transform it into what the PTO expects to see.

One of the things he had advised me to do is, for each claim, provide specific references into the prior art, without making conclusory statements as to whether something "clearly" anticipates the invention.  He seemed to suggest that was generic USPTO advice, as though the USPTO explicitly asks for facts only, and don't want to be fed pre-formed conclusions.  I notice the already-submitted piece goes against this advice, so it makes me wonder whether it was done by a non-attorney, or whether it was done by an attorney who simply favors a different approach.  Either way, I think it would be highly advantageous to make sure that for each claim, there's a specific page to tell the examiner to look at, so he isn't burdened with finding the actual reference that he might miss.