Look I'm the guy that discovered the initial trademark filing
https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=26527.0
The term is common already, it's been in use for years now. I personally object to ANYONE holding a trademark of it. It's akin to someone trademarking the term "US DOLLAR" or something along those lines.
I believe that the term is already common and cannot be trademarked as it's already a common name... period.
Topic: USPTO IS NOW FIRST TO FILE!!! Legislation (HR 1249) (Read 5253 times)
I think of an established company within the Bitcoin economy (tradehill, gox, bit-pay, bitcoin forums) were to patent bitcoin on behalf of the community and somehow place a clause making it open to be used for everyone.
How much would this cost, I know a bunch of patent lawyers. I'm gonna look into this.
How much would this cost, I know a bunch of patent lawyers. I'm gonna look into this.
It'd be like me trying to copyright the bible.
So completely feasible and done by multiple entities?(First off, there's a Crown Copyright that never expires on the King James Version in the UK; that particular version has fallen into public domain in the US and most of the world. Though, new "translations" are almost always held under copyright.)
I think all of you are missing the point here. Bitcoin does not need a trademark, and it never will. Let 100 lawyers file all they want, it does not matter. Imagine lawyer got his patent granted tomorrow - what he gonna do? All he gets is favor from government(s). Bitcoin is not created or run by governments, so good luck enforcing your so-called "right". And if government(s) decide to shut it down, that's what they will try to do anyway, patent or no patent.
Also, you need to file within a year of the technology becoming public knowledge.
j
j
It'd be like me trying to copyright the bible.
Well, to be honest, the term limitations on that one expired 1,600 years ago
Well shit, we should get the presses cranking. Cut those Gideons' cocksuckers out of the hotel bible game. The New Folds Edition, complete with modern slang and hip-hop references to hook the kids in. We could all be rich.
It'd be like me trying to copyright the bible.
Well, to be honest, the term limitations on that one expired 1,600 years ago
ALSO, REMEMBER THIS:
Mr. Pascazi pulled his application after he decided it would be too difficult to meet the standard of “first use” required in the U.S. But he’s taking his effort to France, Japan and other countries where the standard is “first to file” rather than “first to use.” If he succeeds, the consequences for the budding Bitcoin movement could be dire.
source: http://www.betabeat.com/2011/07/12/if-bitcoin-community-doesnt-take-action-opportunists-like-trademark-lawyer-could-box-them-in/
Mr. Pascazi pulled his application after he decided it would be too difficult to meet the standard of “first use” required in the U.S. But he’s taking his effort to France, Japan and other countries where the standard is “first to file” rather than “first to use.” If he succeeds, the consequences for the budding Bitcoin movement could be dire.
source: http://www.betabeat.com/2011/07/12/if-bitcoin-community-doesnt-take-action-opportunists-like-trademark-lawyer-could-box-them-in/
He cannot succeed. You can't just stagger up to the patent office or whatever and claim to own something that hundreds of thousands of people already use, and that is protected under open-source licensing. It'd be like me trying to copyright the bible.
No one has tried to patent bitcoin. They tried to copyright the term "bitcoin". There really isn't anything about bitcoin to patent. It is based on long existing algorithms and systems.
Actually, the lawyer tried to trademark the term bitcoin, not copyright.
My mistake, I thought I was using the wrong term, thanks.
No one has tried to patent bitcoin. They tried to copyright the term "bitcoin". There really isn't anything about bitcoin to patent. It is based on long existing algorithms and systems.
Actually, the lawyer tried to trademark the term bitcoin, not copyright.
No one has tried to patent bitcoin. They tried to copyright (edit: trademark) the term "bitcoin". There really isn't anything about bitcoin to patent. It is based on long existing algorithms and systems.
I'm just advocating that someone in the bitcoin community ATTEMPT to patent it, before some jackass lawyer tries and actually gets it.
You are asking someone to commit fraud. It cannot be patented. There is prior art. In order to file for a patent, you must have invented something novel.Does that mean someone willing to commit fraud can't possibly get a patent? No. But we can't fix that by applying for a patent ourselves.
From the bill:
IANAL, but according to this Bitcoin still can't be patented since it is already publicly available.
Quote
‘‘§ 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty
‘‘(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be enti-
tled to a patent unless—
‘‘(1) the claimed invention was patented, de-
scribed in a printed publication, or in public use, on
sale, or otherwise available to the public before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
‘‘(2) the claimed invention was described in a
patent issued under section 151, or in an application
for patent published or deemed published under sec-
tion 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
the case may be, names another inventor and was
effectively filed before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention.
‘‘(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be enti-
tled to a patent unless—
‘‘(1) the claimed invention was patented, de-
scribed in a printed publication, or in public use, on
sale, or otherwise available to the public before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
‘‘(2) the claimed invention was described in a
patent issued under section 151, or in an application
for patent published or deemed published under sec-
tion 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
the case may be, names another inventor and was
effectively filed before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention.
IANAL, but according to this Bitcoin still can't be patented since it is already publicly available.
As others have pointed out the patent thing is, meh...
I am kicking myself for not noticing right off that is what the Op was posting about. While we might could debate some or any reason at all to need a 'patent' as the software is open source and covered under one or more licenses already. The real concern here is the 'Trademark' on Bitcoin......
Someone of any meaningful origination to this project should really give us some insight on what their take is on all this!!!
I am kicking myself for not noticing right off that is what the Op was posting about. While we might could debate some or any reason at all to need a 'patent' as the software is open source and covered under one or more licenses already. The real concern here is the 'Trademark' on Bitcoin......
Someone of any meaningful origination to this project should really give us some insight on what their take is on all this!!!
You can't patent "Publicly Available Information." That's one of the rules that prevents you from patenting a previous patent: by the act of being patented, the previous patent was published as publicly available information by the USPTO. I had some MAJOR issues with this rule/law this past may, trying to argue to the patent clerk that no, the thing I am patenting is NOT like that other thing he found that's publicly published and available. Spoiler: I did end up getting the patent)
If you want to stay safe, just keep a search going on USPTO for any applications with mention or technology keywords similar to bitcoin. The applications will have the patent clerk's name on there as well, and if someone tries this, just contact them and point out to them that it's already public. Also, patent clerks don't get in trouble for rejecting patent applications, but they get in HUGE trouble for approving them, and then having to have the upper management rescind them. This means they have a huge incentive to reject everything they come across, and makes patenting stuff (at least by little, unestablished companies, not like *cough*patent-troll-apple*cough* incredibly difficult)
If you want to stay safe, just keep a search going on USPTO for any applications with mention or technology keywords similar to bitcoin. The applications will have the patent clerk's name on there as well, and if someone tries this, just contact them and point out to them that it's already public. Also, patent clerks don't get in trouble for rejecting patent applications, but they get in HUGE trouble for approving them, and then having to have the upper management rescind them. This means they have a huge incentive to reject everything they come across, and makes patenting stuff (at least by little, unestablished companies, not like *cough*patent-troll-apple*cough* incredibly difficult)
Quote from: kookiekrak
In the bill, when two or more inventors seek a patent for the same invention, the patent would be awarded to the inventor who was the first to file an application.
But if prior art can be documented, neither will be awarded a patent. Do you understand the novelty requirement for patentable inventions?
I understand it, but I'm also saying that the USPTO has a history of screwing up pretty badly; ie giving patents to vague terminology that conflicts with existing patents, giving two patents on the same thing, giving patents on things that shouldn't be patentable etc.
I'm just advocating that someone in the bitcoin community ATTEMPT to patent it, before some jackass lawyer tries and actually gets it.
Quote from: kookiekrak
In the bill, when two or more inventors seek a patent for the same invention, the patent would be awarded to the inventor who was the first to file an application.
But if prior art can be documented, neither will be awarded a patent. Do you understand the novelty requirement for patentable inventions?
ALSO, REMEMBER THIS:
Mr. Pascazi pulled his application after he decided it would be too difficult to meet the standard of “first use” required in the U.S. But he’s taking his effort to France, Japan and other countries where the standard is “first to file” rather than “first to use.” If he succeeds, the consequences for the budding Bitcoin movement could be dire.
source: http://www.betabeat.com/2011/07/12/if-bitcoin-community-doesnt-take-action-opportunists-like-trademark-lawyer-could-box-them-in/
Mr. Pascazi pulled his application after he decided it would be too difficult to meet the standard of “first use” required in the U.S. But he’s taking his effort to France, Japan and other countries where the standard is “first to file” rather than “first to use.” If he succeeds, the consequences for the budding Bitcoin movement could be dire.
source: http://www.betabeat.com/2011/07/12/if-bitcoin-community-doesnt-take-action-opportunists-like-trademark-lawyer-could-box-them-in/
Quote from: kookiekrak
Remember the lawyer who tried to patent Bitcoin? Well he can now file and get a patent on it, regardless if it was used before his patent or not.
I doubt that this bill removes the prior art restrictions. This is probably about inventors who record their ideas without publishing them and then cry foul when someone else files a patent application for one of those ideas. Since Satoshi published a paper describing Bitcoin in detail, it is prior art.
lets hope so. my office's law department interprets this as:
In the bill, when two or more inventors seek a patent for the same invention, the patent would be awarded to the inventor who was the first to file an application.
And then considering the absurdity of software patents in the first place ( http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Software_patents_wiki:_home_page )
we could still get screwed.
i still vote for someone to patent bitcoins to protect the community. One single patent troll lawyer could take down all of bitcoin easily if he wanted to.
The recently passed patent reform bill has changed the patent system from First to Invent to First to File.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1249ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr1249ih.pdf
What this means for Bitcoin:
Remember the lawyer who tried to patent Bitcoin? Well he can now file and get a patent on it, regardless if it was used before his patent or not.
People, we need to patent Bitcoin and protect it, like what was done in the past with Linux.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1249ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr1249ih.pdf
What this means for Bitcoin:
Remember the lawyer who tried to patent Bitcoin? Well he can now file and get a patent on it, regardless if it was used before his patent or not.
People, we need to patent Bitcoin and protect it, like what was done in the past with Linux.
Wow, what a dick.. What is his plan for this? Any purpose at all?
Jump to: