Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Attempts To Trademark Bitcoin
An anonymous reader writes "A NY based lawyer has submitted an application to the US Patent and Trademark Office claiming first use of the term bitcoin on June 22nd, 2011. The evidence of first use in the form of a letter detailing his wife's offer to sell "bitcoin" for $17.50 on June 23rd. A pdf extolling the virtues of bitcoin has also been uploaded to his law firms webpage."
This beautifully illustrates why there should be some punishment for this type of behavior. He's obviously ignoring all prior art and forcing an already overloaded system to deal with this crap. Fine him.
Agile Artisans
so sad......
computer is nothing without a power just lika as bullet in nothing without a gun
my first documented use of the word dollar being today when I said enthusiastically, "oh a dollar sign... how cool would that be if every one paid me a dollar every time they used the word dollar" ;)
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
Seriously, prior use can be proven with a simple google. Unless he is patenting something special, a trademark might be tough to hold.
Is this guy claiming the first use was last month? I think there would be a lot of prior art by, you know, the creators.
why not?
I am quite confident that he will lose in court, since bitcoin is already being used by a large group of people to describe the very thing he is attempting to trademark it on. There is of course a possibility that he is filing for this trademark for the purpose of preventing some other business from using the term to apply to anything other than the existing bitcoin. If it is the latter, it might make some sense. However, it does not look like that is the case. We will have to wait until we have more information.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No bitcoin user is going to cough up the $300 required to counter his claim.
In a reply to an email sent to him he said the following as a defence for his use being 'the first':
"The very nature of the crypto transaction renders it impossible to trace and prove a completed transaction in interstate commerce."
If he really thinks this, he is about to get a crypto asskicking...
"Bitcoin transactions are virtually anonymous, and untraceable."
4 lines later:
"a public list of all previous transactions is collectively maintained by the members (peers) on the network."
i guess it should be expected from someone trying to do something like this.
$ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
I just checked, it's actually in the US Patent & Trademark Office's trademark database:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85353491
By the looks of it, it will be three months before it is assigned to an attourney for review.
I wonder if there is a fine for fraudulently claiming a trademark?
And ask him how well trademarking "Linux" worked for him.
For the following words and characters:
first
post
copyright
patent
plus
+
apple
troll
euro
.
I could apply for some more but I figure these will generate enough money for my needs. I am not greedy and selfish.
- "If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how much love we as a togetherness can create."
2. Collect a royalty everytime someone uses them
3. Profit! He'll soon be a Bitcoin [tm] millionaire*
* which will buy him a BigMac [tm] in the real world once that phony currency collapses.
Maybe he should have googled it before trying to trademark it. A google of "bitcoin" returns 8.7M hits. Seems like it is in pretty wide use. Maybe he can do like Band-Aids (Band-Aid brand bandages) and use "Bitcoin brand absurdity."
It's so sweet to see a anarcho-cypherpunk currency all grown up... A lawyer, trademark claims, probably a white picket fence and a golden retriever in the suburbs...
More seriously, though, while it isn't clear that this guy is entitled to the trademark, it also isn't obviously deleterious for 'Bitcoin' to be a trademark(rather conveniently, the definition of a bitcoin is a quite specific bit of math, rather than some natural language handwaving, so it would arguably be a better defined trademark than many). Since(unlike patents and copyrights, which are enforceable against all comers with only a few 'fair use' and such exceptions) trademarks are quite broadly usable by others(so long as they aren't being used deceptively), somebody actually associated with Bitcoin having a trademark for 'Bitcoin' to the effect that "If it conforms to the protocol spec and cryptographic details laid out in the spec, it's a Bitcoin, and conveniently anybody who wishes can mathematically verify it on the spot..." wouldn't obviously be a bad thing.
More broadly, what I will be interested to see is if we ever run into the issue of there being multiple, parallel, issuings of "quasi-bitcoins". At least as best I understand it, there is a finite supply of Bitcoins according to the present definition; but that the present definition incorporates some arbitrary starting constants and then follows the defined protocol from there. A 'second issue' using a different set of arbitrary constants would not be compatible with the 'first issue'; but it would be equally amenable to following the protocol and being used for transactions, and would presumably trade at some discount against the original. Unless there are rather tight technical constraints on the initial values, there could potentially be thousands of different Bitcoin-sub-N chains in simultaneous existence...
Stunts like this should get lawyers disbarred on the spot.
please help him, there are missing steps in his business model:
1 - Trademark bitcoin
2 - ???
3 - ???
4 - Profit!
:-/
It's clear that this guy has no claim to the trademark, and as a lawyer he would likely know this. So where's the rest of the story?
I hope that rather than $US, he is going to try to pay the registration fee in bitcoin.
Now, normally, I am not a fan of vigilante justice, I should make that clear.
The problem I see however is that it is clear that our system no longer has justice for the common man. Justice can be bought in America, this is clear. Judges routinely tear up the constitution in order to protect corporate interests.
Lets say that a group of guys beat this guy down. I'm talking hardcore. Would the next guy think twice? What about beating 10 of these trolls down? How many beat downs would it take for the message to get out that the people are not going let you fuck them any more?
Stunts like this should get lawyers disbarred on the spot.
Stunts like this should get lawyers dismembered on the spot.
The trademark claim is so easy to dispute, I'm guessing the lawyer is just trying to get attention.
Instead of defending the trademark, the lawyer is promoting the virtues of Bitcoin. He is probably just trying to generate publicity to pump up the price of Bitcoins that his wife is selling. I doubt the lawyer is stupid enough to think he can be successful trademark Bitcoin.
It's obviously a publicity stunt, as there is no real money to be gained from this. He has (successfully) made himself famous, now placed on Wikipedia and on news outlets eating up bitcoin news *cough*slashdot*cough*. Fame CAN be bought.
The other thing to consider is whether or not this is a ploy to unmask the original creator of Bitcoin, who disappeared and remains completely anonymous. The lawyer might argue in a court case that only the original creator can defend or fight his claim. In that case... who is this lawyer working for that is trying to unmask the bitcoin creator?
I8-D
Does Anonymous have a public humiliation arm? If not, does anyone want to start one?
You might want to care more and spend some time looking at what your government and banks are doing to your national currency.
Some would argue, that's exactly why bitcoin is relevant!
http://launch.is/blog/l019-bitcoin-p2p-currency-the-most-dangerous-project-weve-ev.html
Okay, we're done. Next case please.
Patent or trademark: which is it?
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
You conjure out of thin air what this guy is thinking and then declare him an idiot as a result.
As you were the one that actually came up with the thought you ascribed then logically that would make you....?
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Oh ... wait ... somebody already said that. Well, no matter. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Copyright (C) 2011 Squire Toad, all rights reserved.
Hate the game. Not that I agree with what he's doing, but he's simply playing the game. What really needs to be fixed are the game's rules.
giggity
All these arguments are great, except that they mean nothing if the mark gets published in the Official Gazette and no one files a notice of opposition within 30 days. Then the mark will be presumed valid and harder to overturn. After a certain point, the mark can no longer be challenged, so it's best to get in opposition as early as possible.
If it gets past the first examiner, it will be published in the Official Gazette in the coming weeks (it's a weekly publication). That's when the notice of opposition should be filed. It costs $300, and requires proof of service to the applicant.
My first free Bitcoins were received on July, 12th 2010. Sounds like someone needs to learn what patent means.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
Unfortunately for him, he'll be paid in bitcoins.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I think this has been used for centuries: 2 bits, 4 bits, 6 bits, a dollar...
http://www.pascazilaw.com/files/
The chief enemy of trademarks isn't "Prior Art" but becoming "Generic".
It doesn't absolutely matter who used what first (unlike prior art & patents).
What matters is :
- In the market where a the trademarked product is sold, does this name clearly identifies the product as a separate marketed entity ?
- Does the company owning the trademark actively work in order to avoid the term becoming generic.
The first is why, sometime, plain normal dictionary words are acceptable as a trademark. Because in that market the word clearly is the specific product. As an example : an apple is a fruit. But Apple, in the IT world, is clearly the maker of Mac and iProducts, that's why its trademarkable. Then, when it moved into the music sector, things started to get problematic, because the Apple name was also widely known for a music publishing company. On the other hand you can't name a media player "Player" and attempt to trademark it this way, because the word "Player" is already used to describe the whole category of this product. It's not specific.
(Also that explains why some words can be trademarked for lots of separate products by separate companies. There is a brand of diapers called "Unix". But the chance of making a confusion between an operating system and an accessory for babies).
In today situation, bitcoins can't be used for a product name, because in the specific domain where lawyer attempts to trademark the word (in the realm of virtual currency) the word "bitcoin" has been already in use to designate a virtual currency. He can't claim the name for his own product. (Or at least not alone. He can still try to market his shop "Mama Jess' all honest Bitcoin trade" - or something along this idea)
The second is why we very often see completely stupid suits happening now or then about trademarks. The owner has to be active preventing the word becoming generic. That's why Google is publishing explanation about how to correctly use this name. Otherwise there's a risk that people will start using as verb, and then use the verb to describe "searching on any search engine".
Now, if the lawyer start pretending that in fact, he's also been working on his very own virtual currency-based product, that he back then decided to call "bitcoin" and is only filing the trademark now :
Well, theorically, he could try filing the trademark so late (as said above, timeline isn't relevant), but the problem is that until now that he's filing it, he hasn't done anything to try to protect the trademark. Even if he genuinely wanted to call his product "bitcoin", it's too late because that word is now widely use to describe the virtual currency we all know about, not specifically the product that this lawyer has been trying to sell.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The problem with our legal system it does what most of us know instincitvly not to. It feeds trolls.
They grow up with huge pudgy bellys and have little trolls. Before you know it there are more trolls than lawn gnomes and crack whores combined.
If this lawyer refers to every time he and his wife have sex as the "first time he ever had sex." This so clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding the word "first", they he should literally have his examined. Let't not be too harsh on the guy. I can understand someone doing that as a consequence of having suffered a stroke. Perhaps he has a history of mental illness. There is all kinds of mitigating factors to explain this filing. "First use" doesn't have to be first if the person doesn't understand what "first" means. Maybe he simply needs to have a clot in his brain removed. No need to be too harsh on someone this mentally ill. Of course, he could be just relying on the Big Lie theory.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
to the sound of the word 'bitcoin'. So I am claiming prior fart.
Sorry, McDonald's doesn't accept bitcoin.
http://www.betabeat.com/2011/07/07/bitcoin-flamers-force-lawyer-to-drop-u-s-trademark-application-so-now-hes-trying-it-abroad/
Well, at least he didn't try to trade it.
Are those for boy or girls? Or just universal?
Apparently : they are unisex.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
LOL Look at this website http://michaelpascaziscammer.com