Published on: 2014-05-20T10:30:37+00:00
In May 2014, a discussion was initiated by Adam Back on the bitcoin-dev mailing list regarding non-development related topics. He expressed concern about the lack of a convenient mailing list format for such discussions and suggested that web forums were not ideal. Jeff Garzik informed the group about a little-used "bitcoin-list" on SourceForge that could be used for general discussions. Garzik proposed new rules for the list, including being respectful and only allowing topics related to decentralization, consensus, proven data structures, or crypto.In an email conversation, Mike Hearn mentioned that most companies have banned their staff from reading patents. However, the application of patent protocols to Bitcoin is seen as different from Google. While Google can survive single or triple damages from patent violations, Bitcoin has a narrower scope. Even a single patent infringement resulting in commercial death needs attention. The right approach for Bitcoin regarding patents is not straightforward, as it involves money and potential legal consequences. A transcript link was provided for more details.Avoiding patent infringement no longer requires paying a patent attorney for a freedom to operate review. However, reading patents may not always be productive. If a company learns that it violates a patent but continues doing business, it becomes a willful violator. Despite this, it is argued that reading patents never makes sense as there is only potential for loss.In a 2014 email exchange, Gregory Maxwell discussed the potential benefits of filing for a patent as a defensive approach. By filing for a patent, the work is entered into the USPTO database, which examiners consult during prior art searches. While they may also search the internet and other resources, consulting existing patents and applications is guaranteed. The idea of letting the patent application lapse as a viable strategy was raised but not addressed.In the same email exchange, Mike Hearn advised against looking for patents due to US law that triples damages for knowingly infringing. However, this advice is outdated as the precedent was overturned. Reading patents may not always be productive, but filing a patent can ensure that the work is included in the USPTO database, potentially preventing others from patenting the same material later. Patents can also be used defensively in licensing negotiations or to secure a place at the negotiating table with someone who holds relevant patents.The discussion also touches on the impact of patents on Bitcoin. One person suggests that discussing patents only within the Bitcoin community limits the ability to educate people about their negative aspects. They propose finding examples outside of Bitcoin to discuss the patent system more broadly. However, another person argues that keeping patent discussions off mailing lists is appropriate and wise, suggesting discussing Bitcoin-relevant patents elsewhere. The former person disagrees, stating that such discussions are common in tech news.The email addresses the first rule of patents, which advises against actively searching for them due to US law tripling damages for knowingly infringing. Many companies have banned their staff from reading patents to avoid legal issues. The author argues against keeping patent discussions off mailing lists, especially when tech news is full of such discussions.The author provides a crash course on patents, emphasizing the first rule of not actively seeking them. This is because US law imposes triple damages for knowingly infringing on a patent. Companies have prohibited their staff from reading patents to avoid legal complications. The author urges against patenting any Bitcoin-related research, highlighting that defensive patenting is ineffective and fighting back against a patent is not a viable strategy. Instead, new ideas should be put into the public domain. Additionally, suing people using Bitcoin based on patents will not gain any support.The writer questions the need for patents in the bitcoin industry and suggests that companies consider placing their patents into a Linux Foundation defensive pool. They caution against the dangers of individual or company-held patents, citing an example of digicash patents causing innovation delays after the company went bankrupt. The patents were sold to a large company, preventing others from using them until they expired. The writer concludes by stating the non-dev related nature of the topic and the lack of a convenient mailing list format for such discussions.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T09:21:07.341266+00:00