Dash and defensive use of patents

AnarchicCluster

AnarchicCluster

Well-known member
I've stumbled upon this most interesting discussion about blockstream and their patents. As I understand Dash Core team wants to follow similar path and patent certain aspects of Dash technology in order to make sure that patent trolls won't get their hands on them.
This discussion with patent attorney Stephan Kinsella (Big name among austro-libertarians) sheds some interesting light on defensive use of patents. I get an impression that patents are very disliked among the crypto community. I wonder what the rest of Dash community think about patents and Dash Core applying for them.
 
I think we need to not only apply for patents but defend them.
The problem with open-sourcing everything is that all of the IP can be taken for nothing, unless we have patents to defend.
When millions of dollars are spent, I think it's kind of obvious to protect that investment.
 
ok... so copyright is prior art.
...or maybe not :/
Only about half way through, thanks for posting. At a few points there that sounded like a sales pitch and somewhere in the middle of that I could've sworn I heard "blockstream and their associates can sue the arse off anyone who doesn't join their club". Where do you send the cease and desist orders to a DAO?
 
stan.distortion said:
Where do you send the cease and desist orders to a DAO?
Click to expand...
Well, Dash masternodes operators are going to have a legal entity in Switzerland, so maybe there. However, enforcing compliance can be complicated. They would have to track down every (or maybe only majority ) of MNO.
I don't see anything wrong in joining Blockstream's club, or them joining our club as long as it helps preventing offensive use of patents.
 
AnarchicCluster said:
As I understand Dash Core team wants to follow similar path and patent certain aspects of Dash technology in order to make sure that patent trolls won't get their hands on them.
Click to expand...

The one who messes with patents, he is in danger to become a patent troll himself.
 
While I hate agreeing with our resident sociological experiment, that's the impression I got too. I've got to re-watch it as it gets fairly brain numbing but I'm pretty sure he said the only reason to get involved with patents is if you intend going to court. If you come up with something and make it public then its already out there and anyone can use it, it's only worth getting involved with licenses and patents if you intend preventing someone else from using it. Could be wrong on that ofc, will watch it again later.
 
Last edited:
The concern is that if we do not patent our software and technology, any Tom, Dick or Susan can copy it, patent it and then enforce the patent against US, the people that invented it. It sucks, but that's the environment we find ourselves in at the moment.

If we apply for and receive a patent, we can still allow free use of the software/technology/hardware, but nobody else gets to patent it and enforce the patent against US.
 
solarguy said:
The concern is that if we do not patent our software and technology, any Tom, Dick or Susan can copy it, patent it and then enforce the patent against US, the people that invented it.
Click to expand...

Not really. If the technology was out in the open for at least year it counts as a prior art and it's hard to get a patent on it.
 
AnarchicCluster said:
Not really. If the technology was out in the open for at least year it counts as a prior art and it's hard to get a patent on it.
Click to expand...

Making provisional applications for patents - even if they aren't awarded - is a wise move to prevent patent trolls. Provisional applications allow 18 months to complete the full patent application - it basically acts as a placeholder for the idea.
All this technology is going to be made open-source anyway, so there's not much to lose, except the time and resources it takes to make the application(s).

Also, just because something is made public for a year doesn't mean that someone can't be awarded a patent after stealing it - the applicant can omit the prior art and the examiner could overlook it.
Nullifying an invalid patent is a complex and costly matter but fighting a troll in court could drain the treasury.

I fought a Fortune 500 company for 3 years that accused us of infringement, so I know a bit about this.

Overall I'm grateful for this development by Core.
 
solarguy said:
The concern is that if we do not patent our software and technology, any Tom, Dick or Susan can copy it, patent it and then enforce the patent against US, the people that invented it. It sucks, but that's the environment we find ourselves in at the moment.
Click to expand...

Glad to see the core team are living in the real world and not that of the anarcho-fanatics.
 
AnarchicCluster said:
Not really. If the technology was out in the open for at least year it counts as a prior art and it's hard to get a patent on it.
Click to expand...

So....are you saying that for one year, we would be vulnerable to having our technology stolen and we get locked out because they initiate the patent process?
 
solarguy said:
So....are you saying that for one year, we would be vulnerable to having our technology stolen and we get locked out because they initiate the patent process?
Click to expand...
Yes it looks this way, but if I understand it correctly we could make provisional applications for parents and just never follow through with it for a year. That would shield us from exploiting patents by someone else.
However I'm not an expert that's just my understanding of what Kinsella said. I think if the Core wants to go down the patent path they should contact the guy and ask him for best strategy forward.
 
Last edited:
AnarchicCluster said:
Yes it looks this way, but if I understand it correctly we could make provisional applications for parents and just never follow through with it for a year. That would shield us from exploiting patents by someone else.
However I'm not an expert that's just my understanding of what Kinsella said. I think if the Core wants to go down the patent path they should contact the guy and ask him for best strategy forward.
Click to expand...

I reject the temptation to use considerable foul language to describe my feelings for patent trolls and the lawyers who enable them.

But, that's the situation we have to deal with.

I have no inside knowledge of how the Core team is approaching this issue, but I feel confident they are talking to the best of the best in this area.
 
camosoul said:
No, you can't. Once something is in the public domain, you can't get a patent.

Some assholes tried to do this in my market space.

It was hilarious.
Click to expand...


I hope you are correct. I plan for if you are not.

There are complexities, like our opposition makes some slight modification, they patent that, and then the serve us with papers (wrongly).

They're wrong. Everybody knows they're wrong. They especially know they're wrong, but it doesn't matter. They find some judge that is sympathetic to their cause (or they are related--that shit happens). Fighting them in court and "winning" cost 60 grand. Paying them to go away only costs 30. They may even know they will lose eventually, but they just have a pot of money set aside to throw roadblocks at us.

Or, we play the game and use defensive patents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top