JPMorgan Files Patent Application On 'Bitcoin Killer' 292
Velcroman1 writes "Banking giant JPMorgan Chase has filed a patent application for an electronic commerce system that sounds remarkably like Bitcoin — but never mentions the controversial, Internet-only currency. The patent application was filed in early August but made publicly available only at the end of November; it describes a 'method and system for processing Internet payments using the electronic funds transfer network.' The system would allow people to pay bills anonymously over the Internet through an electronic transfer of funds — just like Bitcoin. It would allow for micropayments without processing fees — just like bitcoin. And it could kill off wire transfers through companies like Western Union — just like Bitcoin. There are 18,126 words in the patent application. 'Bitcoin' is not one of them."
Like bitcoin? (Score:2, Informative)
BitCoin is not anonymous, and it does have fees. How is it just like BitCoin?
For the billionth time (Score:4, Informative)
>The system would allow people to pay bills anonymously over the Internet through an electronic transfer of funds â" just like Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is not anonymous. There is a very clear, public trail linking your wallet to your purchases.
Re:Maybe the Patent Office will notice (Score:2, Informative)
Trolling (Score:5, Informative)
Troll summary for a troll article.
The patent has nothing to do with Bitcoin. It's a payment processing system that's set up so it can use anonymized IDs rather than actual account numbers.
Just like BitCoin? (Score:5, Informative)
Bitcoin isn't anonymous. [bitcoin.org]
Processing fees are common with Bitcoin. [bitcoin.org]
Wire transfers are largely an oddity of the USA. Most of the rest of the world doesn't use wire transfers anyway.
Re:Maybe the Patent Office will notice (Score:5, Informative)
No, first to file doesn't affect the issue of publicly disclosed prior art.
First to file only sets the priority of the application.
Re:Maybe the Patent Office will notice (Score:2, Informative)
JP has the money to avoid that little inconvenience. This will go thru, and the will sue bitcoin.
This isn't bitcoin, or a cryptocurrency (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Maybe the Patent Office will notice (Score:5, Informative)
First to file still considers prior art.
This predates Bitcoin (Score:5, Informative)
The original application on which this is based is dated May 3, 1999. So this predates Bitcoin. Only prior art earlier than the priority date is relevant.
The life of the patent counts from the priority date, so this patent, if issued, will run out in 2019. The USPTO doesn't consider this patent to contain patentable subject matter; they've issued a 101 Non Final Rejection. (You have to look up the patent application in USPTO Public PAIR [uspto.gov] to see this. Public PAIR has the status info for all patents as they go through examination, and images of all the actual documents. All the letters and forms back and forth between the applicant and the USPTO are in there. PAIR is kind of slow, and there's a CAPTCHA to prevent it from being scraped in bulk, so the data in PAIR isn't indexed by search engines.)
Re:Being able to do the same things is irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I'm skimming the patent, and I don't see how this is like Bitcoin. It's not a decentralized currency. It's just a different interface for using existing bank accounts they control. It's only anonymous to the users. The whole system runs on trusted servers they control and can see what's happening on.
The stuff that made Bitcoin revolutionary isn't that it works over the internet, or has receive-only addresses. The revolutionary part was that it was decentralized. It didn't rely on any trusted or privileged groups or servers. All nodes that people run are equal. There is no central minting group who can secretly mint more or change the minting rules. The currency itself is limited. This proposal does not involve any of that.
Re:Maybe the Patent Office will notice (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but I'm thinking more of USPTO process in this case. The patent can still be granted unless someone files a petition citing prior art. After that it may be invalidated based on Bitcoin existing, but my point it that it's still possible that the bank can receive this patent.
Except that it is almost exactly unlike bitcoin. Because it deals in real bank account and real money. Money you can spend anywhere.
The novel part is the fees-free micropayments, which will allow you to use things on the web without being flooded with ads for things
you don't want. Payments as low as factional pennies. Its a frangible currency.
However, SCOTUS is currently reviewing this whole field [scotusblog.com] of "do something via computer" and get a patent, and the whole business practices thing is as likely to be tossed out or more tightly limited in the aftermath.
Coin is coin. And doing it by computer is not that new. Micro-payments are not that new. They were simply too expensive to deal with in the past.
Re:Maybe the Patent Office will notice (Score:5, Informative)
Applying for a patent is a negotiation process in which you throw out a bunch of claims looking to get the best deal you can. You start with Claim 1 being a claim on the sidereal universe and all it contains and work your way down to more specific stuff. Depending on the skill of those writing the patent you will get more or less of the invention you actually wanted.
As you can see in the application they have already dropped the first 154 claims in the original application.
Looking at the application it seems to me what is most interesting is the last claim.
That is:
A computer-implemented method of providing an anonymous payment from a mobile device to a payee device to enable an electronic payment between a payer and a payee without provision of an account number or name from the payer
So its a mobile anonymous untraceable payment, something that BTC doesn't address but something a lot of smartphone users would probably like.
Micropayments are discussed in the specification but aren't mentioned in the claims so are just some bullshit to make the examiner think this is cool new stuff or something.
Not really what the story is talking about, but that's not surprising since Slashdot is pretty weak on anything to do with patents.
Re:Maybe the Patent Office will notice (Score:4, Informative)
That's not what first-to-file means. Even if Bitcoin is never patented, the Patent Office can still (and should) reject the JP Morgan application based on the Bitcoin prior art. First-to-file means that if JP Morgan files first, the Bitcoin people cannot obtain priority over JP Morgan, as JP Morgan filed first despite inventing second.
Not via the methods you suggest... (Score:5, Informative)
From the USPTO PAIR database, "By this preliminary Amendment, claims 1-154 have been canceled..."
154 claims canceled?!? Typical patents have around 21 claims. USPTO charges per-claim over 21 total claims. JP Morgan's application had 170 claims — way beyond even a 3-sigma deviation for all patent applications. That is, it's amateurish. But, somehow they managed to avoid paying the $80/each for the excess claims.
It's actually pretty standard in many instances - i.e. there's nothing amateurish about it. Specifically, if someone comes up with a half dozen related-but-different inventions, it may be more efficient to write one giant application than a half dozen applications that repeat parts of each other. That one giant application may then have [drumroll] 170 claims. And when you file it, you actually file one and cancel claims 21-170 in a preliminary amendment on the filing date, "somehow managing to avoid paying the excess claims fees". And then later (or at the same time), you file a divisional application and cancel claims 1-20 and claims 41-170. And another canceling claims 1-40 and 61-170. Etc.
Let me guess... in spite of your description of this standard practice as "amateurish", you're not a professional in the field?
So, anyways, from the USPTO PAIR database — JP Morgan are claiming that their filing is under pre-AIA conditions. That is, that they are first to invent, and are not subject to the current first to file rules. Big difference. The inventor filed an "oath" regarding the invention date. Uh huh.
Well, yeah. This was first filed in 1999, long before the first to file rules. Of course it's subject to the first to invent rules. 1999 vs. 2013? Big difference. Uh huh.
USPTO also says, "Claims 155-175 are allowed over the prior art of record based on the earliest priority of the parent applications." I couldn't find the priority date that they are claiming, or whether it is before their filing date, but one might guess they are trying to get a pre-BitCoin patent priority date. Jerks.
You apparently couldn't find paragraph 1 of the application:
[0001] This application is a continuation of U.S. Ser. No. 09/497,307 filed Feb. 3, 2000 and is based on and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Applications Nos. 60/132,305, filed May 3, 1999; 60/150,725, filed Aug. 25, 1999; 60/161,300, filed Oct. 26, 1999; 60/163,828, filed Nov. 5, 1999; and 60/173,044, filed Dec. 23, 1999, the entire disclosures of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
Gosh, being really clear about the priority dates? What a bunch of jerks.
If only someone knew of some actual prior art, and that this person also knew the name and contact information for the patent examiner. Hmmn...
Ah, here we are: From their non-final rejection, "Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAGDISH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6748." I'm sure he has an email address as well.
Yeah, go ahead and call the Examiner, in spite of the fact that it's explicitly illegal without a letter of authorization from the patent applicant:
[T]he Office prohibits third parties from submitting any protests under 37 CFR 1.291 or initiating any public use proceedings under 37 CFR 1.292 (without the express written consent of the applicant) after publication of an application... Office personnel (including the Patent Examining Corps) are instructed to: (1) not reply to any third-party inquiry or other submission in a published pending application; (2) not act upon any third-party inquiry or other submission in a published application, except for written submissions that are provided for in 37 CFR 1.99 and written submissions in applications in which the applicant has provided an expres