EBay Files Patent Application for Bitcoin Currency Exchanger(ecommercebytes.com)
ecommercebytes.com
EBay Files Patent Application for Bitcoin Currency Exchanger
http://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/abblog/blog.pl?/pl/2014/3/1394372710.html
8 comments
If this patent gets accepted, I think US may never see any Bitcoin exchange except EBay. This is completely stupid. There's nothing fundamentally special about a Bitcoin exchange. Trading engine and all the other parts are, of course, difficult, but hardly a new type of software.
Can someone please explain how this is possible/allowed?
Also wouldn't this patent (if granted) be refutable due to prior art, etc?
From the article:
> BitMit was the first successful Bitcoin marketplace (well, second if we count Silk Road) and actually launched its service the same month and year of the eBay patent filing.
Also wouldn't this patent (if granted) be refutable due to prior art, etc?
From the article:
> BitMit was the first successful Bitcoin marketplace (well, second if we count Silk Road) and actually launched its service the same month and year of the eBay patent filing.
I think/believe you're looking at invalidating it the wrong way.
Patent should be non obvious (I don't remember the exact wording). The prior art for this is not "another bitcoin exchange", its another currency exchange period; adding a new currency to your currency exchange is an obvious step, and should be treated as such.
If the judge act as an idiot and pretend this is new, then you can complain prior art for bitcoin exchange specifically. This way, you don't have to do it again and again and again with the gazillion crypto-currencies out there.
Patent should be non obvious (I don't remember the exact wording). The prior art for this is not "another bitcoin exchange", its another currency exchange period; adding a new currency to your currency exchange is an obvious step, and should be treated as such.
If the judge act as an idiot and pretend this is new, then you can complain prior art for bitcoin exchange specifically. This way, you don't have to do it again and again and again with the gazillion crypto-currencies out there.
If common sense applied to patents, we wouldn't be in this mess. No doubt they've added some ridiculous limitations that add trivial "advancements" to what the patent office can find documentation of, but it will cost millions of dollars and a trip to Marshall, TX if you want to fight it out with them.
But that's the problem, "common sense" IS applied to the problem. Thing is, "common sense" is just a bullshit phrase we like to apply out of laziness and lack of empathy for how hard it is to establish and maintain a solid foundation of knowledge in any field, let alone tech where "common sense" can change year to year. (although I'm sure it has a legal definition with lots of precedent in the two centuries before the internet)
The patent office is over worked and most patent examiners have no idea what "common sense" is in most tech fields, each of which requires a familiarity that few of us here on HN can claim, let alone a bureaucrat with terrible guidance from legislators. All it takes is a single small gap, like what a crypto currency is, or a misunderstanding of how currency exchanges operate, or even outright semantic manipulation by legal counsel, and the poor patent examiner has no choice but to approve the patent. This is why we have appeals and the legislature, the former to fix the failings of "common sense" and the latter to be bought to manipulate it.
The patent office is over worked and most patent examiners have no idea what "common sense" is in most tech fields, each of which requires a familiarity that few of us here on HN can claim, let alone a bureaucrat with terrible guidance from legislators. All it takes is a single small gap, like what a crypto currency is, or a misunderstanding of how currency exchanges operate, or even outright semantic manipulation by legal counsel, and the poor patent examiner has no choice but to approve the patent. This is why we have appeals and the legislature, the former to fix the failings of "common sense" and the latter to be bought to manipulate it.
Yes, they've found a bright line that's in a bad place and stick to it because it makes the patent bar a lot of money. I don't think it's the best place to be and I have thought quite a bit about a 'triviality' test where if you can tell someone skilled in the art what to make without telling them how and they could still make it, your "invention" is too trivial to be worth protecting.
But I'm certainly open to the notion that we're moving too fast for patents to be worthwhile in some fields...
But I'm certainly open to the notion that we're moving too fast for patents to be worthwhile in some fields...
And if you don't approve it, they adjust the wording and refile.
"In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,”" [1].
[1] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerni...
[1] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerni...
Note that this is still just an application for a patent. It may get denied (but probably won't).
The U.S. recently (last year?) switched to a system where it's first to file, not first to invent - so that basically leaves everything open until someone spends money to patent it.. That's my current understanding anyhow. I can only imagine people who like seeing money spent (e.g. money being spent by default is good for the economy) and lawyers are the ones who pushed that change through.
The lawyers had no problem making lots of many with first-to-invent since a patent dispute was a long arduous process of attempting to document the timeline of an invention that frequently ended with a judge having to decide a case where both sides present equally plausible claims. First-to-file gives a hard record of who wins when two people create the same invention in a short period of time.
Neither situation is well suited to software patents because software patents shouldn't exist in the first place.
Neither situation is well suited to software patents because software patents shouldn't exist in the first place.
How is it possible? Well you can TRY to patent ALMOST anything (except a few things like a perpetual motion machine) That doesn't mean it will be granted.
Fuck EBay and the stupid patent system. You should have to actually invent something before you can patent it. This is written so broadly as to encompass almost anything involving exchanging non-physical items of value using networks and computers. Yet this has been going on for decades in financial markets.
OT but it's been a while since I saw webdesing that looked as 90's as this site.
It looks about 2002-2005 to me.
[deleted]
Idea: 1-click Bitcoin Currency Exchanger.
Not a 1-click currency exchange, but the calculator tool I've just co-developed is a neat way to keep track of all your cryptocurrency investments. The fact that competition between the exchanges is wide open is obviously a great thing, so http://www.countmycrypto.com makes it easy to aggregate your total balance (and keep it in local storage) even if your different coins are split over multiple exchanges and offline wallets
That's pretty much how all of them work. You put in the amount and value and click submit.
He's joking as Amazon patented 1-click checkout so he's suggesting to put two of these ridiculous patents together to create a super ridiculous patent.
https://www.google.com/patents/US20130173416
The claims are on the right on Google Patents and at the end of the official PDF. Independent claims are the most important; dependent claims are only valid if the claims that they depend upon are also valid. Here, claim 1, which is independent, involves a lot of language having to do with digital goods and inventory. Already that's confusing because digital goods don't tend to have inventory; they're digital. Claim 2, which is dependent upon claim 1, gets into digital currencies. The other focus of the patent application relates to combinations of digital goods. I'd expect the examiner to push back on claim 1 to clarify what they're actually talking about and limit it accordingly.
Is there a lot of prior art out there dated before December 29, 2011 (the application's priority date) that could block this applciation from ever going anywhere? Yeah, there is. Will I file some with the USPTO in a few minutes? Yeah, I will.
Meanwhile, keep in mind, patents are inherently confusing because by the time one gets granted it has three numbers already, and that's just in the U.S.: there's the application number, which here is 13/340,494, the publication number (before publication, no one can see the application so it can't yet be considered prior art in others), which here is US20130173416 A1, and the grant or issue number, which right now would be somewhere in the 8 million range were it to be granted. A lot of people and institutions mix these numbers up, including even Westlaw, which calls publications "applications". A publication is a snapshot of an application at a particular point in time.
Anyway, don't freak out. There's worse [actually granted] patents out there. Also, none of this is legal advice and I'm not a lawyer.
Update: I just filed the following potential prior art:
1. http://www.google.com/patents/US20020161692
2. http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/14/gumroad-lets-you-sell-anyth...
3. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/