Response from lawyer applied for Bitcoin trademark
8 comments
I hope he trademarks "douchebag".
My immediate and predictable dislike for this particular lawyer is quickly giving way to anxiety about what the hacker groups are likely to do as a result, using his identity.
It might occasionally be amusing to see this stuff at a distance, but in the end it makes non-technical people distrust technical people out of a blind fear that all programmers are the types of people to do bad things.
Let's see how long this guy's website stays intact.
It might occasionally be amusing to see this stuff at a distance, but in the end it makes non-technical people distrust technical people out of a blind fear that all programmers are the types of people to do bad things.
Let's see how long this guy's website stays intact.
The very nature of the crypto transaction renders it
impossible to trace and prove a completed transaction in
interstate commerce.It should be pretty easy for Mt. Gox to show use in commerce. Same for any of the merchants that has actually accepted bitcoins for goods.
It might be worth writing to the New York bar association about this guy. They might be interested to know they have a lawyer who evidently slept through his "evidence" class in law school.
It might be worth writing to the New York bar association about this guy. They might be interested to know they have a lawyer who evidently slept through his "evidence" class in law school.
Ownership of bitcoin or recipt (in a previous transaction) are easily, provable, what is more, once proof is provided it is irrefutable.
All someone need do is point to a record of a transaction in th blockchain and provide the keys that verify ownership of this address.
This guy doesn't know what he's doing.
All someone need do is point to a record of a transaction in th blockchain and provide the keys that verify ownership of this address.
This guy doesn't know what he's doing.
Hey listen everyone, Mr. Pascazi, Esq. put a lot of creative effort into this literary masterpiece, and he'd appreciate it if the rest of the internet stopped trying to rip him off:
http://www.pascazilaw.com/files/New_Coin_of_the_Realm_062311...
Ok, seriously, wasn't the EFF invented for this sort of thing?
http://www.pascazilaw.com/files/New_Coin_of_the_Realm_062311...
Ok, seriously, wasn't the EFF invented for this sort of thing?
I for one am interested in HOW he is going to claim ownership over my bitcoins. Also how he is gonna try to actually claim ownership, honestly, over any of it.
If he tries to use force to get the domain transferred to him, we can move it.
Try to take control over the bitcoin github? I dont think so.
Try to to take control over all bitcoins?? LOL I dont think so.
There is also plenty of proof of previous commerce. It is built into the block chain.( http://blockexplorer.com/b/1 ) tell me the time of the first block there please?
Dear Sir, I disagree with your stated position. The USA and other common law countries utilize a first to use doctrine whereas the civil law countries like France use a first to file doctrine. As far as I can tell, here in the USA the transactions which you refer to are untraceable & anonymous. Ergo, what evidence will be introduced in federal court supporting any prior use? Articles? I think not, a literary work is not use in commerce in the Nice classification. Who is going to prove that he/she utilized a bitcoin (trademark pending with USPTO) and transferred it to Mr A in interstate commerce with any degree of proof. He said/ she said/ you all said/ will not carry the day in a federal court. The very nature of the crypto transaction renders it impossible to trace and prove a completed transaction in interstate commerce. There will always be the need for some trust me in the purported proof. That will not carry the day in federal court. You should further consider the first to file countries where prior use is irrelevant. My client is in the process of filing in numerous civil law countries such as Japan where whining about first to use is of no moment. One can sue in a US federal court for tortious acts committed overseas so long as the defendant has minimum contacts with the US. Food for thought.
Very truly yours, Michael S. Pascazi, Esq. Pascazi Law Offices PLLC 1065 Main Street, Ste. D Fishkill, New York 12524 U.S.A. Ph: +1 845.897.4219 Fax: +1 845.468.7117* E-mail:[email protected]* Web:www.pascazilaw.com *Service Not Accepted