Topic: [2014-05-06] Western Union Obtains Alternative Currency Exchange System Patent (Read 2763 times)

I was addressing commenter Enewit on the broader issues implied by this story.

I agree -  patents, in general, are nonesense, but think you underestimate the permanence & 'validity' of patents held by multinationals.  Typically, these are only challenged or defeated by other well-capitalized multinational corps.

Further, I beg to differ on your assessment of the patent's content - it is clearly intended to stake claim on digital currency systems [at-large].  "Alternative Value Exchange Systems And Methods" includes sweeping generalizations and illustrates more than just exchange functions.  It could be interpreted to characterize the underlying digital asset itself.  The language describes abstraction layers as opposed to a normative exchange/brokerage system.  In fact, It goes so far to cover very specific cryptocoin functions such as Proof-of work/stake, 'miner' fees, and programmable escrow:

"'Consequently, although the invention has been described with respect to exemplary embodiments, it will be appreciated that the invention is intended to cover all modifications and equivalents within the scope of the following claims.....
'The method includes creating, at an alternative currency platform..
'An alternative currency platform, the platform comprising:
one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored on a memory device...
creating a plurality of user accounts
'In a further embodiment, an alternative currency platform is disclosed. The platform includes one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored on a memory device..
'The instructions further include publishing the one or more users to the first user, receiving a selection of a second user from the one or more users from the first user, and extending the alternative currency exchange offer from the first user to the second user. Furthermore, the instructions include in response to receiving acceptance of the offer from the second user, verifying the associated assets of the first user and the second user, and in response to verification of the assets of the first user and second user, providing settlement ...
'each of the issuers and the operator of the alternative currency platform may receive a fractional amount of the trade as compensation for providing the exchange service. In another example, the alternative currency platform may act as an escrow for one or both parties by holding value from one or both parties pending performance by the other...
'wherein the sets of instructions when further executed by the machine, cause the machine to, receive, authenticate, and store a scrip value in one of the plurality of user accounts, wherein the scrip includes an associated issuing body...
'In one specific example, the alternative currency platform communicates with the issuers of the alternative currencies involved in the trade and arranges appropriate amounts to be transferred between accounts. In accordance with this example, each of the issuers and the operator of the alternative currency platform may receive a fractional amount of the trade as compensation for providing the exchange service. In another example, the alternative currency platform may act as an escrow for one or both parties by holding value from one or both parties pending performance by the other. ....
'It should be noted that FIG. 3 is meant only to provide a generalized illustration of various components, any or all of which may be utilized as appropriate. FIG. 3, therefore, broadly illustrates how individual system elements may be implemented in a relatively separated or relatively more integrated manner...


More historical perspective on disruptive technologies, gummint looters, & WU patent battles:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-0698-91234/unrestricted/ch4.pdf
"Sherman took a very different tact in his proposal. Sherman recognized that telegrams and letters
were different in both their nature and purpose. While it was true that both were forms of written
communications, the telegraph was fundamentally different than a letter because of its immediacy
of transmission and receipt. It was the speed of communication which changed the communication,
and, in essence, the uses found for the new type of written document. An expanding and dynamic
economy relied on speed of information, and turn around of response, in order to fuel the
commercial transactions of the nation - thus the telegraph played a major role in the commercial
development of the United States. Sherman also recognized that the novelty of the telegraph, and
its developing uses, required that the Federal government move slowly in this area before making
any final, and irrevocable, decisions. The best way to accomplish this development, and at the
same time to bring competition back into the market place, was for the Federal government to
underwrite the construction and operation of another private telegraph system."

May be... if you start a fiat-to-Bitcoin and Bitcoin-to-fiat exchange in the US. If you are living in some developing or under-developed nation, I don't think you have to worry too much about it.

India does not care about patent , europe does not CARE about this kind of patents , OFFSHORE company's are NOT subject to this kind of patents!!!! , btc-e for example is existing of multiple OFFSHORE company's PLEASE READ! , and watch the tax free tour! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4o13isDdfY

Will WU sue me if I do Bitcoin transfers?

Such patents are void. Exchanges are supranational often

Bitcoin is a big threat for WU and they understand it.
They have to adapt and not to ignore it.

on the end of the road the patent does not matter , it can not be enforeced , bitcoin does not care!
its that simple! , also exhages in bulgaria , iceland , africa India  don't give a F**k , its that simple so , there is notting that can be done about it!
If government make a law that state PI must be 2.64 , PI will still be 3.14 , there is no way government  can force PI to enforce its rule!
India does not care about US patents! , europe does not care about this kind of US patents , Africa does not care about patents at all!
it most it wil force a exchange to operate outsite the USA , the same is now happening in china , does it matter?
No.
Welcome in the word of offshore company's a good guide in this world is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4o13isDdfY "The Tax Free Tour (VPRO, Marije Meerman)" welcome in the world of LEGAL tax free and
royalty/patent avoiding company's

DeathAndTaxes thanks for being a voice of reason.

There seems to be some confusion (maybe some because people don't read).  The patent is not about digital currency systems in general or a blockchain based digital currency.

The patent is regarding AN EXCHANGE which deals in the conversion of digital currencies for "real" currencies.   The patent is still nonsense and if there is any justice will be thrown out the first time WU tries to enforce it.  In no case would Bitcoins, Bitcoin transactions, the blockchain, mining, miners, mining pools or proof of work fall within the scope of the patent.

If successfully enforced traditional bitcoin exchanges like BitStamp, BTC-e, etc would be the target.  It isn't immediately clear if the scope would cover bitcoin "dealers" and non-traditional systems like coinbase, BitSimple, etc.

So those saying the genesis block is prior art are missing the point.  That would be like saying amazon can't patent "1-click" checkout because the dollar existed two hundred years prior to that, or a commodity exchange can't patent a novel order matching system because Gold has been around for thousands of years.

 

bitcoin is one very specific implementation.   the abstract notion of digital currency isn't claimed by any pub domain systems or processes to my knowledge.  Even if WU or someone else explicitly referenced bitcoin as a mechanism for said business method application, it still would not preclude awarding them patent - in fact, citing btc as prior art might even help their case. fucking savages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Telephone_Cases
"The Telephone Cases were a series of U.S. court cases in the 1870s and 1880s related to the invention of the telephone, which culminated in the 1888 decision of the United States Supreme Court upholding the priority of the patents belonging to Alexander Graham Bell. Those telephone patents were relied on by the American Bell Telephone Company and the Bell System –although they had also acquired critical microphone patents from Emile Berliner.
The objector (or plaintiff) in the notable Supreme Court case was initially the Western Union telegraph company, which was at the time a far larger and better financed competitor than American Bell Telephone. Western Union advocated several more recent patent claims of Daniel Drawbaugh, Elisha Gray, Antonio Meucci and Philip Reis in a bid to invalidate Alexander Graham Bell's master and subsidiary telephone patents dating back to March 1876. Had Western Union succeeded it would have immediately destroyed the Bell Telephone Company and then Western Union stood to become the world's largest telecommunications monopoly in Bell's place."

http://www.iphandbook.org/handbook/ch10/p01/
"U.S. patent law does not require the patent applicant to search for prior art (that duty falls to the patent examiner). However, if the applicant or inventor is aware of prior art, it must be included. The duty to disclose exists under the requirement that applicants act in “candor and good faith” when dealing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) during the patent-prosecution process. A breach of this duty can be considered inequitable conduct and may result in the patent being unenforceable, but there is nothing to prevent intentional ignorance of prior art on behalf of the applicant. In fact, since 2001, when the PTO began to record which citations were added by the examiner, 40% of U.S. patents have resulted from applications in which the applicant has listed no prior art at all.16
It is unclear how thoroughly examiners search for prior art. Patents, both domestic and international, are a kind of prior art that allows for relatively easy and expeditious searching. Defensive publishing, however, depends on the ability of patent examiners to find publications in nonpatent prior art searches."

http://keithsawyer.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/can-you-patent-a-process/

Every Country has their own Patent Bureau. So a registered Patent just Count for one Country. That means that an international Company has to patent their Invention in every single country
As far as I know(I worked in a Company that distributed a Software for Intelecutal Property) the USPTO is the worst. So, if they got the patent in the US, it doesn't mean they also get it in other countries.

How can this be patentable? This is already in the public domain, isn't it?

This patent will be challenged and it will be never imposed. Even if it is somehow forcibly imposed in the US, most of the other nations will not comply with it, especially those nations which are hostile to the US.

they will adopt it within 2 years is my prediction 

(No direct connection)
That sounds about as absurd as things they let Monsanto get away with.

Unless WU starts suing everybody doing Bitcoin transfers. Governments might decide that this is a good pretense for getting rid of uncontrolled Bitcoin transfers, and enforce the patent.

Sometimes it's useful having a ganster pimp (aka Western Union) when a corrupt cop (aka FBI/NSA/IRS/Fed etc..) shows up. 

Well if they use that patent maybe they wouldn't become an obsolete money transfer service in the future

makes me wonders, who decide all these patent case? I only see dumb patents coming out of US. Like a rectangle shape of a phone......

They cannot legally try to collect "patent related fees" from Cryptsy (or another exchange), can they?
That would seem ridiculous......I hope they can't.