Topic: Apple Digital Credits Patent (Read 2828 times)

Well based on the patent (even as vague and likely reversable as it is) I don't see how it could have any bearing on Bitcoin.  If anything Bitcoin would be the one technology businesses SHOULD adopt if Apple tried to start enforcing this.

Simple version of apple's patent is micro-transactions have prohibitively high transaction costs, so we have user buy credits (single transaction cost from fiat -> credit), then we use a more efficient system for individual purchases credit -> media. Bitcoin doesn't need credits because the transaction cost is free (or at worst in the future very low).  Given consumers tend to hate buying "credits" using Bitcoins over some patented (as dubious as it is) credit system is a competitive advantage.

One example would be mp3s.  Credit card companies have reduced their rates but still make about $0.15 per $0.89 mp3 sold.  Using Bitcoin someone like Amazon could have a transaction processing cost of maybe $0.01 (including exchange fees).  If they were willing to take half the profit margin (about $0.10) they could undercut Apple by $0.20 more.  

ITunes (w/ fiat CC) - $0.99  
Amazon (w/ Bitcoin) -$0.69

The awesome thing is that Amazon couldn't do it without Bitcoin so maybe they have two pricing options. $0.99 per Song by Credit Card or $0.69 per song by Bitcoin.  Imagine what that would do for adoption.

Now I don't think Amazon will adopt Bitcoin any time soon but it shows the potential and the futility of Apple's patent (even if it was enforceable).

That's a good reason to move media services to outside the USA.

Realistically, they could not shut down Bitcoin itself, but they could sue merchants that tried to adopt it as a payment.

A good start would be to recognize social and natural capital and stop trading them for things which can be created without limit at almost no cost. 

Or we can abandon the counterproductive capitalism religion and start acting rationally.

Since litigation has replaced merit in the marketplace of ideas, it follows that bribery will replace jurisprudence in the courtroom. I suspect that hidden partitions and darknets will be the only freedom and hope for justice.

Not only is it a blatantly obvious application, it is what micropayments-for-porn systems were already doing long before 2006, isn't it?

By media do they mean the physical substrate the data is written/drawn/depicted on or are they somehow taking media to mean the information encoded on/in media?

-MarkM-

With all things said in this thread so far, what would be a realistic scenario where Bitcoin network is damaged by Apple Inc.? Right now I can't come up with one.

a careful read of the article would reveal this is the author spouting off about the possible patents effect on Bitcoin, not Apple itself.

What the hell is wrong with the patent office that they would issue such a ridiculous patent?

I live in the real world where Apple does EXACTLY that.  

You have a small business and your legal costs will put you out of business if you lose.  Apple legal costs to attack you are a rounding error.
Your companies entire survival (and likely your personal financial stake) vs a <1 penny difference is EPS on Apple's next qtr earnings.

Sure you may win against Apple if you don't go bankrupt trying to win.  If you have the millions to fund a defense and counter complaint, and the assets to survive any injunction on your cashflow Apple seeks.  Oh and can wait the years Apple can tie it up in court.  Even then both sides are rolling the dice because Apple's complaint won't be completely without merit.  They have a patent (well tens of thousands) and patent found in good standing by the "glorious" USPTO.   

So you are both taking a gamble, however if Apple rolls snake eyes they less than a penny per share.  If you roll snake eyes you business, life savings, and livelihood is gone.  Seems pretty fair to me.

have you ever heard of a cross complaint?  it means that if medium to smaller size company feels a case by Apple has no merit, they can file a cross complaint which will afford them penalties or damages as a result of a frivolous lawsuit.  yes Apple is big and formidable but its not like they can just sue everyone to oblivion by filing non meritorious lawsuits.

Yeah, make sure you guise don't eat at McYonalds. Their packaging will get you sued.

Amen... they would patent the alphabet if given the chance..

You obviously don't know how this game is played.

Defending on basis of prior arts can cost millions and sometimes judges are stupid.  Apple doesn't need to "win" they can just use it as a weapon even if they know they will lose.  Against smaller companies they simply kill them in court.  Many a company has won a patent lawsuit after 7-10 years only to go bankrupt shortly there after.  Some don't even make it that far (those are the profitable ones).

Against bigger companies Apple combines it with the 10,000 other patents they have and uses it as a massive assault.  Filing hundreds of patent lawsuits in dozens of courts.  Then Apple makes their target "an offer they can't refuse".  If your legal teams says that defending is going to cost $80 million and there is a small but possible chance that you will lose 10x as much or you can licensing the patent library from Apple will only cost $10 million guess what happens?

Lastly Apple will use the arsenal of patents as a weapon of mutually assured destruction.  If company X files patent lawsuits against Apple then Apple files them back and both companies are looking at 9 figures in lost profits.  The companies reach an agreement, do a cross licensing deal and only get stronger with increase patent arsenals to bully other companies with.

* Note Apple is just an example every major tech company does the same thing.  US Patent system is a downright joke.  It simply allows companies to finance the destruction of their opponents directly (i.e. how much do you want to pay to kill company X).  Merit doesn't and hasn't had much to do with it in last 20 or 30 years.

That would be hilarious.  No court would accept such a case.

I have a few patents and am familiar with the process so let me chip in my 0.02 BTC.

The patent is claiming purchasing 'media' using credits.

This patent is pretty weak if they try to have a broad application of it. Credits are used to purchase thousands of types of things throughout history. This patent specifically states it covers purchasing 'online media item' from 'an online media store'. If you are not doing any of these, you can stop reading here.

Secondly, narrow patents pass because they can claim a new use for an existing art as novelty. So my opinion (not legal opinion, just a technical opinion) is that Apple wont even be able to enforce this if you buy a non-media item from a media store or buy a media item from a non-online media store.

Lastly, the patent is about credits, BTC is a currency, not credit. So stop worrying and get back to work.

cant they say each individual user of bitcoin is in  patent infringement.

problem is who does this patent belong to... their is no bitcoin corporation

There is no "Bitcoin" to patent anything... on the other hand, there is also no "Bitcoin" to be sued for patent infringement.