Patents on Bitcoins

One of the questions that comes up often for IP attorneys is  "who owns Bitcoin'? 

In a sense, no one owns Bitcoin.  It is a distributed peer-to-peer unit of exchange. However this answer rarely satifies people who have come to you for your indepth legal opinion.

It should be noted that the concept of a network wide, anonymous, crypto-currency was only really implemented in 2009 by an individual known as Satoshi Nakamoto. Mr. Nakamoto (we have no way of knowing if that individual was/is a he/she/cybernetic construct from the future) published a paper describing the basic elements of the bitcoin system and released the software that underpins the peer-to-peer networking aspect. This software was released open source, without restriction. As such, no one legally has the right to prevent others from modifying or using the software for their own purposes. Thus while the Nakamoto Hivemind owns the software that bitcoin are mined with, it does not own the underlying conceptual framework.

There is some speculation that a Neil King, et al, listed inventors on US 2010-0042841 A1 (now abandoned for failure to respond to an office action) are the true inventors of bitcoins. Even if true, the patent office found several prior art references. Thus, the attempt to patent the concept appears to have been abandoned.  However, there is a thriving trade in bitcoin patent applications. People can, and do, attempt to file patent applications on the use of bitcoins for all manner of transaction. However, these patents do not reach back to the underlying concept of the Bitcoin and its use as a digital currency.

The actual software implementation of bitcoin generation is somewhat complex, but involves scanning for a value that when hashed twice with SHA-256, begins with a number of zero bits (you don't want me to explain this in more detail that that but ... a hash is an algorithm which takes a arbitrary amount of data and generates a fixed length of data. This is useful when attempting to use encode something for privacy. It is easy to hash something, and it is easy to verify that the data matches the hash, but hard to fake the data if you were up to no good. I am not a cryptanalysis guru and this was all distilled from 3 or 4 really good Wikipedia articles).

This is all a long winded way of saying that the process of generating bitcoins is technically complex and rests on the security and usibility of the SHA-256 Hash Function. However, in one of those ironic twists of fate that only happens in America, the NSA, bane of anonymous privacy advocates everywhere, actually owns the patent on the SHA-256 Hash function.

US Patent 6,829,355 to Lilly, and assigned to the NSA, covers the technical details employed in using the SHA-256 function to authenticate data (e.g. bitcoin transactions). All is not lost, the US has granted the world a royalty-free license to the patent.

However, the terms and conditions of this royalty agreement are murky. The royalty-free notice was filed in 2004. However, there is no easily available record of the exact terms of the grant of a royalty free (i.e. is it irrevocable?).

Thus, the long answer to the question of "who owns anonymous peer to peer government agnostic pro-privacy transaction crypto-currency" might, in fact, be the United States Government.  It is their world, we are just trading digital currency in it.

Jordan Garner
jgarner@leasonellis.com
(c)2013

IP-Data.biz [Scam Alert]

Just a quick note about IP scams. Recently, a client sent me a document which claimed to be from a patent database provider. They were offering to publish the client's PCT application in their publicly accessible database. All they wanted in return was 2600.00 USD.

IP-Data.biz and companies like them make money based on the lack of information surrounding patents, publications and international filings. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) already publishes the applications. It is part of the outrageous fee you paid them about 18 months prior.

Safe to say, the only international authority you should pay (assuming you have filed a PCT application and done so pro-se is the national receiving office of the PCT.  This will be a reputable organization, like the USPTO located in Washington or the EPO located in Brussels. It will not be a nondescript drop box in Bratislava. 

Hopefully, if on one falls for their scams, they will move on to other, less low hanging fruit.

Yuletide Patents: Reconstruction to the Long Depression (1860's to 1900's)

One of the reasons that I find IP Law so fascinating is the depth and breadth history that patent records provide.  Patents provide an alternative, focused history into the mindset of inventors and designers. Problem solvers and money makers have used the patent system for hundreds of years to disclose to the world their version of a better mousetrap. The patent office is a near perfect record of the changes that have taken place in design, manufacturing and technology.

This is the start of a series looking at holiday patents through the years.A trip through the patent office records will find patents on various weapons, vehicles, rocket ships and toys. The diligent observer will also find technologies directed to freeing man from the onerous chores that have plagued the human condition since time immemorial.

Of course, one of the plagues beset  heavily on the shoulders of mankind is Christmas decorations. Untold families have been torn asunder by arguments concerning the de-tangling of lights, proper Christmas tree display orientation angles and proper ornament positioning.

The following patents show that the issues around Christmas, the quest for easier decorations, for simpler trees, for time saving autonomous devices, has changed little in the last 150 years.


The featured patent at the top of the post is the earliest patent I could find which used the term Christmas.  Patent No. 18,238 was filed in 1868; and concerns a design patent on a particular figure for a Christmas tree ornament.

Slightly more recent, from 1881, Patent No. 237,026 describes a paper Christmas Tree decoration. As industry and commerce stalled during the Long Depression, the inventor, Mr. Kanuff probably hoped that his Christmas decorations would help life spirits as well the balance of his bank account.











Of course, nothing goes better with paper draped over a wooden, rapidly drying, vertical piece of kindling than an open flame. This is why Mr. Schroeder's idea, patented in 1903, for a "Candle holders for Christmas Trees" was likely a big hit.
















Possibly as a result of uncontrollable fires resulting from placing candles in Christmas tress, enterprising inventors sought to do away with the tawdry notion of an actual tree. Why fell a potential hazard when you can construct a safe tree with the tools of science. For example patent 255,902 describes an "Imitation Christmas tree"













Of course, no Yuletide celebration would be complete without the accompaniment of music. The modern era is complete with Ipads and Spotifys, belting out the latest Christmas versions of your favorite artists.

 Engineers of the later 19th Century had solved the problem of stored music, a perfect accompaniment to the roaring fire which is quickly engulfing your candle lit Christmas tree.

Reed Organs had been around for some time. However Mr. Metzger found useful improvements in the art of delivering canned Christmas music. All the elements are there of the modern electronic system of music. A recordable medium, a software instruction set, and a hardware amplification device.






Patent Office records provide a wonderful source of inspiration for designers and inventors. The technology illustrated in these patents still exists, only in more refined forms. Anyone who loves graphic or industrial design owes it to themselves to take a trip through the patent office records.

Jordan Garner

Monetization of IP : This bearded, vegetarian hipster made about 600k this year for doing nothing.

This hipster musician, otherwise known as Paul McCartney, makes tons of money every year.  At last count, he makes something like 35 Million dollars a year.

Now, to complicated financial wizards sitting at a prop trading desk, that might not seam like a large sum. However, taken over the course of this Beatles's 4 decade career, it adds up to a net worth somewhere in the 800 million dollar range.

Some portion of that income comes from touring. However, a large portion of his income comes from royalties from his later Beatles, solo endeavors and Wings catalog.   McCartney is one of the most prolific songwriters of his generation, with a number of songs he has written hitting the tops of the Billboard Charts.  One of those songs you might be listing to right now. It is called "Wonderful Christmastime."

Paul is careful to retain rights in all of the work he produces. This is a by-product of being burned by his early record company EMI, which paid the Beatles a penny an album. They still got rich, but nowhere near the level they should have.

To salt the wound, EMI would eventually sell the royalty rights to the Beatles' early hits to a Sony / Michael Jackson joint venture (the catalog included  4000 other songs including hits by Bob Dylan and was bought for 47 Million dollars in the 1980's. - it was sold by Michael Jackson prior to his death for 375 Million). 

This experience, getting sharked by EMI, is probably why when McCartney came up with the idea for "Wonderful Christmastime", he retained both writing and preforming rights. As such, when a royalty check does come in, it goes straight into the no-pig based bank. By current estimates the continuous playing of "Wonderful Christmas Time" nets Paul about 600k a year, every year, since 1979.

Since Copyright in the US is Life plus 70 years, Paul's children will be having a wonderful Christmas time for the remainder of their lives.

Every so often, I meet someone who argues with me about the value of Copyright protection or the necessity to spell out with clarity who owns the rights in a particular literary or artistic endeavor. Usually they argue that the potential benefit is minuscule relative to the cost and expense of hiring someone knowledgeable to handle the matter. Alternatively, people argue that the potential awkwardness of having that conversation with band mates or collaborators is not worth the effort.  99 times out of a hundred, these people are not completely off base. Unfortunately, most copyrighted material is not worth much to anyone other than the creator.
However, it is that one-off, that one in a million occurrence which makes the entire process worth it.

No one wants to be an Ex-Beatle hawking Christmas jingles because they got hosed on their first record deal. Well, no one except Ringo.

IP in the age of self-replication technologies

During a recent business trip to Asia, I had the opportunity to discuss the Bowman case with many colleagues and clients.

For the unaware; in Bowman, the US Supreme Court held that chemical giant Monsanto's patent rights in its Ready Round-Up seeds could not be exhausted through the first sale doctrine. A farmer, Bowman, tried the circumvent the patent license on a genetically modified soybean plant by purchasing the seeds from a plant grown from Round up seeds AS opposed to Monsanto directly.

The Supreme Court held that each time the plant produced a new seed, or that seed grew into a new plant which in turn produced new seeds, that event was a new infringement of the patent. The reasoning was that the plant "manufactured" new seeds. By harvesting the seeds, you were essentially harvesting the seed technology, in violation of the patent.

Many commentators have pointed out that the Court's reasoning was highly specific, only applicable to the particular facts at issue. However, I am not convinced.

A reasonable argument could be made that any self-replicating technology, be it biological, informational or mechanical is the functional equivalent to a seed.

For example, computer viruses have the peculiar nature of replicating themselves. Is a software agent which is able to package a copy of itself into a compressed format for transport (i.e. a seed) any different from a biological entity which is able to produce a small portable package containing its build and execution code base (DNA)?

In both instances, the technology has all the features of a seed; storage, portability and self-replication. A single computer virus is capable of replicating itself infinite times. So are seeds.

This opens the door to all manner of self replicating technologies.  For example, imagine a patentable custom-made virus or bacteria designed to infect a person with the goal of generating a specific medicine to treat a chronic illness. Once in the body the organism replicates and continues to provide live saving medicine. Excellent. However, what if the patient decides he doesn't want the treatment? It is possible that even after a course of antibiotics, or anti-viral, the organisms could continue to live on in the subject.

Is that patient now infringing? If not, why not? How is a patient who schemes to contract this patentable virus from a friend, not the same as Bowman?

Autonomous technology is a fascinating field which holds significant promise to reshape the very basic tenants of society, economics and health.  However, it is too easy to try to fit essentially identical technologies into different classes based on how we intuit them. Seeds are different from computer viruses, which are different from designer organisms. The principals underlying all these technologies are highly correlated. We would all be better off if we formulated a framework now, then doing it piecemeal later.

Twitter:JordangarnerEsq