Topic: Bitbill Patent Published - Encompasses Physical Bitcoins and Paper Wallets (Read 8399 times)

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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:

meanwhile litecoins are unaffected

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

Definitely.


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.


+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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?

IMHO,

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

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?