Topic: Bitbill Patent Published - Encompasses Physical Bitcoins and Paper Wallets - page 2. (Read 8399 times)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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*).

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."

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.

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.


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

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).

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?

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

“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...

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/printing-bitcoins-could-it-work-737

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.

mindboggling bullshit going on. (/subscribe)

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. 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.