Published on: 2018-07-03T06:05:54+00:00
The patent system allows inventors to obtain a state monopoly on their inventions in exchange for fully revealing the design. However, if the design is already known among practitioners, there is no need for a monopoly. Any evidence that the design is known, including publications by the inventor, is considered prior art. Inventors have a grace period after publishing the design to file for a patent, but this period is not unlimited. In the USA, the grace period is only 1 year.In the case of the Lightning design, it is publicly available and continuously published in the lightning-rfc. The design is based on the prior-art Poon-Dryja paper. Neither Poon nor Dryja have applied for patents within a year of the publication of their paper. Due to this, the state will not grant a patent to the inventors of Lightning. It is worth noting that external corrupting influences can impact the ideal operation of patent systems.A question regarding the possibility of patenting Second Level Protocols, such as the Lightning Network, was raised in an email sent by Praveen Baratam on June 22. The question pertains to whether authors or inventors can patent these protocols. However, it is unlikely that these protocols can be patented in the EU, as mathematical methods and computer programs are excluded from patentability. This information was shared on the Lightning-dev mailing list, which is a platform for discussing Lightning Network development.Praveen Baratam recently received information suggesting that Second Level Protocols like the Lightning Network can be patented by their authors or inventors. He expresses confusion and seeks clarification on whether this information is true or if he is missing something.
Updated on: 2023-07-31T20:18:44.247041+00:00