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.
Trying to lure out the real Satoshi, are we?
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.
... which is why Craig went on the whole trying-to-claim-he's-Satoshi spree which was immediately proven to be a fraud. One of the things he did was to insert current info into old posts, and backdating things, to make it appear he's been "in" Bitcoin longer than he has.
He's hoping there's enough doubt at the patent office to grant him the patents, with those dates as precedence.
it's in my head
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
He chose to publish instead. You can't patent something you've already publicly described. And no one else can either.
This assumes the patent office is a rational actor following the law of course.
Say goodbye to HTTP and HTML then! Since they weren't patented someone will surely patent them and shut down the web!
It was the fact theses technologies were not prohibitively encumbered by copyright and patents that enabled their broad adoption.
Many Gopher daemons required expensive commercial licensing fees and sent many requests for payment of license to users of the Gopher software, often when they were being used for personal or hobby use. This is why permissive licenses and the GPL expressly permit commercial use.
Patent trolls will be trolls. This does not mean that patents are good for business. Nor do patents protect your business. If you have a few patents then a business or troll with a larger portfolio can still sue you out of existence. NPR's This American Life podcast covered this subject: "When Patents Attack"
There is no evidence that patents are beneficial or necessary. We made it all the way through the personal computer revolution without having patents on any software. It's time to do the experiment and abolish patents. If we want we can reinstate them later after gathering evidence to determine whether they're good or bad. Until then the hypothesis that "patents = good" is a bunch of untested bullshit unsupported by any facts, and ignores all the evidence from industries not protected by copyright or patents (such as automotive design and the fashion industry) which are innovative and more lucrative than any other industries which have "Intellectual Property".
Oh noes! Whatever shall we do? Clothing and Car designs can't be patented! Every car and wardrobe will be exactly the same stagnant design because their's no patent incentive to innovate!
Welcome to the real world, here's your reality check. Have your geek card stamped at the door, every tenth post the karma is free.