JP Morgan files for anonymous online payment system

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25326289

by debugunit • 13 years ago

55 21 13 years ago

bbc.co.uk

nh• 13 years ago

I would think BBC would do some fact checking. I posted this comment in another blogger's article. [1]

"The author's entire premise is off. The recent filing is a continuation of an application filed on Feb 3, 2000 (see patent 6,609,113). So, Chase wasnt taking a 'swipe' at Bitcoin because the original application was filed 13 years ago."

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6878442

ripberge• 13 years ago

The author's premise is not off because it's a continuation of an existing patent. My company does the same thing because its much easier to get a continuation through the patent office than a whole new patent (which will take several years). Shockingly the continuation doesn't even have to be that closely related to the original patent in my experience. So if we have an idea even remotely related we just do a continuation.

jasonwatkinspdx• 13 years ago

Patent applications filed before the end of 2000 were not published. You can in effect file a continuation as many times as you like, and rewrite the patent substantially as you do. This leads to a tactic called submarine-ing, where you keep filing continuations on a patent that is repeatedly rejected for being overly broad. Then once a concrete target appears on the horizon, you narrow the patent to cover it before prior art, etc is well established.

It's no longer possible to do this with patent applications filed after the end of 2000 due to reform. The period the patent is in force no longer shifts forward with the continuations. But previous applications were grandfathered in.

aklein• 13 years ago

Bitcoin is continually referred to as "anonymous" in the press, but it is just the opposite [1]. Maybe confusion over what cryptographically secure identification is? Some simple network analysis on the public ledger can reveal a whole lot of "identifying" info ...

[1] http://bitcoin.org/en/faq#is-bitcoin-anonymous

wmf• 13 years ago

To a layman, anything less than "know your customer" is "anonymous".

Sambdala• 13 years ago

The layman is going to be familiar with "Know Your Customer"?

nitrogen• 13 years ago

This is a dangerous oversimplification that can lead to gross misunderstandings.

est• 13 years ago

But once you know a little bit of your customer means know basically everything?

pmorici• 13 years ago

Here is a article I read earlier today talking about how they are basically trying to patent BitCoin's features

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/jpmorgan-chase-building-bitcoin-k...

RexRollman• 13 years ago

You just know the anonymous part will never fly; our survellence overlords won't allow it.

castis• 13 years ago

Which, to me, makes this extremely suspect.

steven2012• 13 years ago

I guess they are trying to take control of all Bitcoin/digital currency payments by patenting a payment system, and making it as broad as possible.

shmerl2• 13 years ago

I'm not sure however, how can they patent it now, if it was created in the past, i.e. way before the time of filing?

spinlock• 13 years ago

Would their patent be enforceable? Their claims include anonymity. How do you know who to sue if the payments are anonymous?

jacques_chester• 13 years ago

You sue any company with a "Bitcoin accepted here" logo.

shmerl2• 13 years ago

Patents? No thanks, especially not from some greedy bank.

ris• 13 years ago

Hands up who trusts JP Morgan

reovirus• 13 years ago

Very interesting, thanks for sharing

wbl• 13 years ago

Can people read? The patent claims are very distinct from Bitcoin: claim 1 requires 2 institutions with customers at each. Bitcoin has no such institutions.

newsmaster• 13 years ago

Call me paranoid but sounds like they're trying to stop institutions adopting bitcoins as payment to each other otherwise they'll sue? What's the definition of institution anyway? If it's got customers then isn't it the same as a company/business?

mrobot• 13 years ago

Owning anonymity is an attack on privacy. It means if i want to set up a system where people pay for things without being tracked i have to pay the guys who are tracking all purchases.

Theoretical full ownership of all anonymous payment processes means consumers cannot own their own behaviors without paying a tax on doing so.

If i can hold on to my anonymity i can actually own and even sell my own behaviors. As one example, I could prove to someone that a bitcoin wallet was my own.

JP Morgan files for anonymous online payment system

Related Stories