Can you patent open source software ?

[BitcoinFX]

OK So, CSW and nChain claim to have patents on both Bitcoin and the Lightning Network !

I assert that these patents are worthless and/or cannot be enforced ...

- https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5960/can-i-patent-open-source-project

"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something. Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent. So trying to get a patent on something somebody else invented and implemented in code would be futile. ..."

Discuss ...

[jackg]

The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright (c) 2009-2019 The Bitcoin Core developers
Copyright (c) 2009-2019 Bitcoin Developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

ref

I think this answers the question... but there's a difference between patents and copyright.

Patenting is protecting an idea and copyrighting is protecting the acutal body of code.

If this agreement that they agreed to when they downloaded the software then they are still bound by it, particularly

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

So depending on how much was copied then the license still applied (if thye took a part of the software, such as the hashing algorithm or signature algorithm) they'd have no conflicts with this software (potentially) but may be bound by the copyright of any software/references that are in that part of the code...


Blockchains must have had a theoretical foundation a while ago and hashcash wasn't released with any patent, if this was patented then a filing may be put in place for infringement of anothers' intellectual property.

[hugeblack]

A patent is an award that is granted to those who think outside the box, so unless the amendment is substantial in the idea, it cannot be considered "out of the box."
When it comes to open-source software, the patent here is a hybrid between traditional patents and open source licensing. Intellectual rights are reserved for those who think outside the box and are denied permission to amend them.

All CSW is saying is for the media propaganda. You are indirectly contributing to the publicity of geek fame.

[audaciousbeing]

OK So, CSW and nChain claim to have patents on both Bitcoin and the Lightning Network !

I assert that these patents are worthless and/or cannot be enforced ...

- https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5960/can-i-patent-open-source-project

"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something. Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent. So trying to get a patent on something somebody else invented and implemented in code would be futile. ..."

Discuss ...

I think its a futile exercise to want to patent what you cannot control. People patent what they have proprietary right over, that the invention and control resides in them and without them, the invention can be said to be dead and nothing else. Going the route to wanting to patent bitcoin is a futile exercise because should it be successful, its going to be an indictment on the revolution we have come to believe as it means that the 'inventor' can wake up one morning and just decide to switch it off or maybe government can just acquire the company and everything that we have come to know becomes a myth.

[Theb]

So when it comes to intellectual property I'm kinda new on what is patentable and what is copyrightable since in it sense majority of the technology we have falls under patents and things like literature, song lyrics, artistic works, and even architectural design falls under copyright laws. One big example I have that confuses me is this.

IBM Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Web Browser

This is just one of the many examples how companies try to patent blockchain technology, Patent and not copyright it. Just like what I provided what they are trying to claim a patent are both codes namely the blockchain technology as well as the web browser they are trying to develop yet they can still pursue a patent claim for it. This might not just be a normal understanding for us and with smart lawyers we have they might have a way around on pursuing that much more lucrative patent they are trying to get rather than just a copyright for the codes itself. So I'm leaning to say that codes and softwares can be both copyrighted and patented and there might even be a precedents about it.

[CryptoBry]

OK So, CSW and nChain claim to have patents on both Bitcoin and the Lightning Network !

I assert that these patents are worthless and/or cannot be enforced ...

- https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5960/can-i-patent-open-source-project

"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something. Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent. So trying to get a patent on something somebody else invented and implemented in code would be futile. ..."

Discuss ...

I would not wonder if soon Craig Wright can be patenting the whole of the moon and claim it for himself. As to what value he can get claiming the patents for the whole of Bitcoin only he can answer. This is an open-source technology and anybody can access it anytime, anywhere. The only reason I guess is that he wanted to be famous and to be recognized the whole world as the real guy behind this cryptocurrency. And because he is a big failure with the main test many people are asking (moving the coins owned by Satoshi Nakamoto), he focused his attention into something he can easily do. Good thing that the whole Bitcoin community is not sympathetic to this pathetic man.

About nChain, here some interesting articles about it I find to be useful and entertaining:

https://hackernoon.com/nchain-in-the-brain-return-of-the-fake-satoshi-1415a8b07f04\
https://www.coindesk.com/craig-wrights-nchain-is-hiring-a-lawyer-to-prosecute-its-crypto-patents
https://news.bitcoin.com/nchain-claimed-to-be-largest-acquisition-in-bitcoin-history/

Happy reading, everyone

 

[BitcoinFX]

Indeed. A somewhat rhetorical question ...

Herewith, an interesting discussion from: Re: SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper - thread topic ...

"fake team member and plagiarized white paper" and more ...

"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something. Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent. So trying to get a patent on something somebody else invented and implemented in code would be futile. ..."

No sh*t. Relevance?

Did you somehow forget your dev is crypto's biggest patent troll?

Apparently being a fraud and a conman wasn't low enough for him.

This ^

- https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE

"Open BSV License
Copyright (c) 2019 Bitcoin Association

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

1 - The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
2 - The Software, and any software that is derived from the Software or parts thereof,
can only be used on the Bitcoin SV blockchains. The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined,
for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767
with the hash "000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b" and
the test blockchains that are supported by the un-modified Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.



Version 0.1.1 of the Bitcoin SV software, and prior versions of software upon which it was based,
were licensed under the MIT License, which is included below.

The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
Copyright (c) 2009-2015 Bitcoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2009-2017 The Bitcoin Core developers
Copyright (c) 2017 The Bitcoin ABC developers
Copyright (c) 2018 Bitcoin Association

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE."

...

Which came first the chicken or the egg ?

CSW is not Satoshi and BSV is not Bitcoin.

It's time to BUILD, a solid legal case against BSV. - SWIM

...

- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/blockstream-commits-patent-nonaggression

...

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (5/8) Movie CLIP - Invincible Sword Goddess (2000) HD
- https://youtu.be/X5SaZ8EmSpw *Satire*

...

This is an interesting discussion (see below)  regarding whether the original whitepaper is open source or whether copyright applies.

The release of the whitepaper was by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list.  
The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/

How convenient for the next public display of ignorance to come so quickly. Copyright is established the instant a work is affixed in tangible form. That copyright exists fully independent if any registration thereof. Absent any explicit delegation of rights to the public at large by its creator, the Bitcoin white paper is not public domain.

The bitcoin whitepaper was first distributed by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list. The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/

So that is still for the jury to decide.

The intent of the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL) is to inform users that they are free to use and redistribute the indicated work or any derived or modified work in any manner they choose. Works distributed under the CPL are in the Public Domain.

Cypherpunks of which Satoshi Nakamoto (and later CSW) were members of clearly state:

The enforcement of IP law and anonymity are in direct conflict. To fully enforce IP laws, anonymity would have to be outlawed. Cypherpunks believe this would be a bad thing, because control of information imparts power, and anonymity gives individuals control over disclosure of information about themselves and their actions.

So there are two scenarios:

CSW is not Satoshi Nakamoto in which case he is presenting fraudulent documents and attempting to commit a fraud.

CSW is Satoshi Nakamoto and breached the moral principles of the group of people that directly assisted him with the creation of bitcoin.
Used their knowledge, skills and time in the creation of something that he later would try to claim IP rights to contrary to the groups goals. Resulting in a feeling of exploitation and huge betrayal.

Your choice. Which do you pick ?

...

The most important and relevant bit ...

... "Background

The CPL is written from a mindset which derides the very concept of Intellectual Property restrictions as being incompatible with a free society.

Cryptographically assured anonymity and anonymous use of Internet resources mean that denizens of cypherspace can ignore copyright, licenses attempting to control use and distribution of works, and patents on ideas. It is not possible to enforce IP laws by calls to government legal systems when the flaunter is strongly anonymous. " ...
- http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL/

...

- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flaunter



...

The original Bitcoin whitepaper has no copyright or any form of licensing whatsoever.
- https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

It isn't even copyleft. It is literally copy left.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

"@COPYLEFT ALL WRONGS RESERVED"

...

Only Signed and Verified will do i.e. Cryptographically assured (as above).

Copyright is automatic. It does not have to be displayed or enforced.

However - there was a conscious choice by Satoshi Nakamoto to publish it on the cypherpunks mailing list.

This makes it subject to the CPL of the mailing list - which makes it public domain.
Satoshi received consideration in return (the ability to distribute the publication) so (in my opinion) it is a legally binding contract.

Indeed this is one for the lawyers to argue over. Are we assuming Satoshi was an American based in America here, for example ...

3 Commonly Misunderstood U.S. Copyright Concepts
- https://www.copyrightlaws.com/u-s-copyright-law-misinformation/

International copyright treaties
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_copyright_treaties

Universal Copyright Convention
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention

Public domain
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Again, I believe that it is a valid legal argument that only the proven originator can enforce.

This also goes a long way in explaining CSW's claims and actions as a 'bad actor' and impostor here.

[xtraelv]

I wish you wouldn’t keep talking about me as a mysterious shadowy figure, the press just turns that into a pirate currency angle. Maybe instead make it about the open source project and give more credit to your dev contributors; it helps motivate them.

Satoshi in an email to Gavin.
https://news.bitcoin.com/satoshis-final-messages-leave-tantalizing-clues-to-his-disappearance/
Bitcoin has a MIT open source license.