Slashdot Mirror
Australian 'Bitcoin Founder' Quietly Bidding For Patent Empire (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Craig Wright, the Australian who claimed to be the inventor of bitcoin, is attempting to build a large patent portfolio around the digital currency and technology underpinning it, according to associates of his and documents reviewed by Reuters. Since February, Wright has filed more than 50 patent applications in Britain through Antigua-registered EITC Holdings Ltd, which a source close to the company confirmed was connected to Wright, government records show. Interviews with sources close to EITC Holdings Ltd, which has two of Wright's associates as directors, confirmed it was still working on filing patent applications and Britain's Intellectual Property Office has published another 11 patent applications filed by the company in the past week. The granting of even some of the patents would be significant for banking and other industries that are trying to exploit bitcoin technologies, as well as dozens of start-ups scurrying to build business models based around it. Patents that Wright has applied for range from a mechanism for paying securely for online content to an operating system for running an "internet of things" on blockchain. A patent schedule, one of a number of documents relating to the applications shown to Reuters by a person close to the EITC Holdings, outlines plans to apply for about 400 in total.
As most of this had been already publicly released how comes that they don't fall under prior art (and the fact that software patents are not enforceable in Europe)?
Trying to lure out the real Satoshi, are we?
... these will probably be granted and fiercely defended. People M-DEL Leeches who attempt to profit from the hard work of a community make my blood boil.
I am of course assuming he has no legitimate claim to them given he declined to give evidence that he is in fact Satoshi Nakamoto.
The real satoshi has a mathematically incontrovertible signature he can use to sign and publish messages to the world, so there is no need to lure that person out. The original also, intentionally, released and spread his paper and code, and distributed efforts throughout a community for both development and adoption, which would indicate any claims of infringement to copyright (the validly applicable area of law, unlike patents, which would cover inventions in the computing machine or some other hardware, but not mere instructions).
More interesting is what happens if Wright gets legally recognized: I say freeze his accounts and assets, and then demand that he move sufficient bitcoin to cover the back-dues in tax and penalties. If he can't, or the money comes from elsewhere (rather than Satoshi moving his chunk of the blockchain and converting into cash), then we know he is either a psychopathic, entrepeneurial conman, or the face of a government operation to try to engineer its way into owning and controlling bitcoin via legal grants and decree.
It sure looks like someone is making a lot of money from creating bitcoin, and it's shameful. Bitcoin was developed as a tool to allow criminals to easy pay for contraband or illegal services without being tracked by law enforcement.
Are you sure about that? In my more paranoid moments I wonder if the whole Bitcoin ecosystem was created as a honeypot by a three letter agency. Sure, if you're scrupulous about it you can preserve your anonymity - but it only takes one slip.
Are you trolling? Bitcoin does not actually provide any anonymity and every single transaction is tracked for all time. Amazon accept bitcoins, as does Paypal and many banks.
He didn't claim to be the inventor of BitCon, he was CLAIMED TO BE the inventor of BitCon. Fuck BitCon and fuck that guy, but at least fucking try to be objective in the descriptions.
It's clear you like to make up things and then be sad and guilt others about these fictions.
Bitcoin isn't a tool, it's a currency.
It wasn't developed to allow criminals to pay. It was developed to create a decentralized currency.
It has nothing to do with law enforcement tracking avoidance -- the blockchain is public. The users are not but can be backtraced.
Legitimate businesses (like Dell) do accept Bitcoin but that's a chicken/egg argument and doesn't add nor detract from BCs legitimacy.
Rogue currency - currencies aren't rogue. Rogue means "dishonest or unprincipled". Currencies don't have either. You're just trying to paint it in your colors.
It's sad and genuinely shameful to read your hate piece on BC. Sorry you know nothing about it.
I think BC is speculative crap but at least I don't make up falsehoods like your stuff above to get there.
E
Drop it like it's hot! Drop it like it's hot! Will the real Satoshi please stand up? I repeat, will the real Satoshi please stand up?
If you don't patent your invention then someone else eventually will. You can whine and bitch all night long about how unfair it is, it won't change anything. Life is unfair. The real satoshi could easily have patented it and given the patent to the community. He chose not to. Oh well, too bad.
Hell, even Dell took bitcoin for a while there...
I agree that it seems like a honeypot, but for the reason that Bitcoin is incredibly UN-anonymous, and perfectly traceable. I think that some government anti-crime agency set it up to catch stupid criminals.
I don't respond to AC's.
400 patents for one idea? What the fuck! I think Bitcoin could probably be fully explained in less than 1,600 words, if well thought out. That's a patent for every four words.
:T:R:A:N:S:
I'm gonna patent cupping a fart in my hand and shoving it in someone's face. When is this nonsense going to stop.
Published at London Review of Books, it's a very interesting read (not finished it myself yet).
I'm not personally involved in Bitcoin in any way what-so-ever, but I stayed up way, way too late last night reading the LRB article.
O'Hagan also has one about Julian Assange, who I also have not one bit of interest it, that I couldn't stop reading.