Steampunk, Patents & IBM

Steampunk as a genera was set to explode in 2013.  For those who don't know the difference between steampunk, cyberpunk and retro-future, let me provide this definition. A common definition could be provided as a sci-fi / fantasy sub-genre based around Gothic machinery and the industrialized civilization of the 19th Century. However, it should be noted that the definition of Steampunk differs from adherent to adherent. The common elements are a heavy influence by the works of Jules Verne, the inventions of Nikola Tesla and Victorian fashion. The genera adheres a retro-futuristic style that puts critical emphasis on ascetics, at times to the detriment of function.

According to IBM (a retro-futuristic enterprise if there were one) Steampunk was set to evolve into a cultural meme, jumping cultural domains like some sort of mechanical fish. IBM came to that conclusion through the use of its sentiment analysis system which scans social media for "chatter". In this case, the chatter said that Steampunk is set to explode. This "steam explosion" will see the transition from "high-cost" low volume Steampunk inspired devices to mass market production. See there analysis here. 

Naturally giddy at the prospect of this explosion in felt hats and brass goggles, I fired up my ISPDR Terminal (More on this another time) and went looking for Steampunk patents. 

Unfortunately, the only issued patent that felt "Steampunk-y" is the above illustrated "gear-heart" pendant. U.S.P. 666116.  Some additional patent applications were directed to video games having a Steampunk feel, but no additional physical device. No giant steam powered spider-automaton diagrams, no difference engines powered by AEther. Just some odd electrode wielding walking sticks and some flogs. 

Of course, it is possible that all of the really fancy jewelry is being copyrighted and not design patented.  However, if you thought your designs were going to go mass market, and you were working in a genera as unique and ascetically diverse as Steampunk, why wouldn't you seek design patent protection.  

The general take away should be about focusing your development efforts to conform to some 10,000 foot analysis, as opposed to developing and IP portfolio which serves current business needs. Clearly, those high-cost low volume manufacturers are not having a problem with rampant infringement. Otherwise they would have masses of patents and pending applications. 

Chatter about trends, technologies, or concepts are just that, chatter. Even with powerful computer analysis it is difficult to determine the direction of technology and style. Therefore, you never know what ideas and technology might take off tomorrow. This makes it difficult to justify the costs associated with IP protection. However, the opposite is true too. One well placed patent might control the market, or a genera. A balanced IP portfolio strategy, based on real world feedback, is always the right style. 

Jordan Garner

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