The Case for a Financial Engineering Art Unit at The PTO

If you understand the formula to the left, then congratulations, you are probably a financial engineer.

Financial engineering is a multidisciplinary approach to finance that uses mathematical modeling, computer algorithms, and economic principals to develop various sophisticated financial instruments. The goal, as with every alchemist, it is generate something of immense value from something of very little value.

Where the end product of financial engineering intersects with IP law is the notion of the "business method patent".  Most of the concern regarding Non-Practicing entities (Patent Trolls), are focused squarely on the validity of patents relating to financial engineering implementations.

 The U.S. Supreme Court has recently granted Cert. in CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation. The internet is full of blogs explaining the merits of each parties' position, and i have nothing useful to add to that conversation.

What I do add is this: The general disposition of people opposed to business method patents is that the concepts are abstract, and do not do anything new with old concepts. Unfortunately, that opinion confuses the prohibition on non-patentable subject matter (Sec. 101) and novelty (Sec 102).

If the argument is that a financial engineering concept, like the 3rd party escrow arrangement in ALS, were abstract, then why are we arguing about it? Clearly someone implemented the idea, hence making it tangible. Once something can be made tangible, it is no longer abstract.  Really, most positions on business method patents collapse into a novelty argument.

The patent office was issuing loads of patents on financial concepts tied to various computer implementations. When these patents are challenged, the argument is always that the patentee is merely applying the concept with a computer. The parties could point to the prior art, but they usually find it lacking. Thus, they settle into a long patent-eligible subject matter argument instead of a novelty, obvious argument.

The result is that Congress, the President and various industry groups are attempting to change the law to suit the goal of eliminating harmful business method patents.

A better way to solve the problem is to move the issue back into the patent office. It is my theory that one of the reasons that business method patents get through the patent office is that most of the Examiners in the art unit have a computer science background and not a financial engineering background. If the PTO actively recruited a financial engineering unit, and stationed them in a Manhattan Satellite Office, they would have the synergy of a examiner corp that is familiar with high-end financial concepts, and a store of knowledge as to what constitutes prior art.

Why Manhattan? Proximity  to Wall Street; home to several leading financial engineering graduate programs. Supply of former and current financial industry employees who can transition into the examiner role.

Before we close off an entire field of patentable subject matter, we should at least try to diligently examine them.

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

Historical Patent Trolls: James Beaumont Neilson Edition

James, massive Troll and Fit model for Scrooge 

It is often argued, with copious amounts of digital ink, that patents are a net drain on innovation and our economy.

I tend to push back against this position, mainly out of enlightened self-interest.  I work in the IP field, if we did away with it at the whim of a subset of libertarian minded technocrats, I would have a hard time finding gainful employment. Or, at least a hard time finding employment which affords me the opportunity to opine on various sundry matters of a historical / philosophical sort. 

However, the impetus to push back against the characterization of this, or any time period, as a particularly unique moment in human history is fueled by those same historical pursuits.

The arguments against non-practicing entities (Trolls) stem from the proponent's perceived enlightened self-interest.  The core position of the patent detractor is a belief that the system as it stands (and has stood for 200 years) benefits the lazy at the expense of the industrious. The arguments are premised on a belief that the worker, the programmer, the system builder is innovating, advancing commerce and technology, creating jobs. In contrast, the dilettante inventor, the thinker, the small time experimenter with her one-off patent, is holding progress hostage to her insatiable appetite for licensing fees and royalty payments. Better, the argument goes, to scrap the patent system than for some to pay for technology which they use but do not place much value upon. 

This argument is usually presented in the context of software, as though the concept of non-practicing entities and expensive legal battles over the scope and value of patent rights came into being with the advent of the internet.

In fact, this exact line of thinking was espoused almost 200 years ago by an association of Iron works industrialists who were desperately seeking a way to avoid paying for technology leashed to "extortion-level" licensing fees.  

A brief aside regarding British ironworks in the 1820's. When one has spent all day acquiring iron ore from the heart of some lonely mountain and that same someone wishes to turn that iron into rail lines, rifles and other fine instruments of the Imperium, one needs to smelt the iron.  Traditionally, that was done by blowing (blast) cold air over coke (a purified form of coal that has been roasted) and iron inserted into this (blast) furnace. 

Enter Mr. James Beaumont Neilson. Neilson, manager and engineer of the Glasgow Gasworks, discovered that if you raise the temperature of the air you are injecting into the furnace ( to around 300F), you need far less coke.  Additionally, and most importantly, depending on the temperatures levels and coal type, you could switch from expensive fancy coke, to the normal everyday-get-a-lump-in-your-stocking coal as your fuel (something of which the British Isles had plenty). 

Neilson proceeded to obtain a series of patents in Great Britain, Scotland, and Ireland in 1828-29 on this hot blast technology.  Neilson then set about licensing this technology. By 1835, hot blast furnace technology was in every ironwork in Scotland, save one. The license fee was set at the low price of 1 pound per ton of iron produced. This licensing scheme was considered by Neilson to be of a low enough price that people would not circumvent the license and become wanton infringers.  

Neilson was wrong. Almost immediately, Scottish Iron Masters formed an association, which bound the members under penalty of 1000 pounds, to resist:

 "by every method which a majority should recommend, any practical acknowledgment of the validity of  Neilson's patent." 

At the same time, several English Ironmasters were making use of the hot blast technology while refusing to take out licenses.  Neilson eventually won judgments against the English Iron Masters, but spent the next 9 years battling the Sottish Association, Harford Coal, Household Coal, and finally Baird Ironworks.  

Baird initially took a license, determined later that it was 'extortion of the highest sort' and ceased payment. The resulting litigation, Neilson v. Baird, turned into a spectacle. The jury trial lasted 9 days, with more than 100 witnesses called. Estimated attorney costs were multiples of the typical costs for patent infringement in the mid-19th century.  The witnesses spanned the range from businessmen to what modern Patent litigators would classify as testifying experts on enablement, inventorship, validity and damages issues.

When the testimony was compiled, the full picture of Neilson's technology and the scope of infringement was painted. In the 10 years that Baird used the hot furnace they has seen an increase in net profits of more than 260,000 pounds  (more than approx 180,000,000 in USD). The jury sided with Neilson and awarded damages of 11,000 pounds, roughly 10 million dollars in modern sums. He had asked for 20,000 pounds). 

According to modern interpretations, Neilson was a troll of the highest order. He never once claimed to be in the business of iron smelting, only in the allied field of gas works. He had a broad based licensing program that went, sometimes aggressively, after an entire industry. Lastly, he was not shy about litigating his patents and seeking damages from those he accused of infringement.

However, Neilson is widely considered a celebrated inventor, the father of the Hot Blast Furnace, and major contributor to the industrial revolution. If one seeks to modify the patent system, one must account for the Neilsons as well as the standard trolls. What separates their actions in the minds of the public? What anti-patent troll statute would have allowed Neilson to prevail, while barring those egregious abusers of the patent system? I am not sure I have seen a good answer. 

Jordan Garner