Praveen Baratam [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-07-03 📝 Original message: Thank you for the ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-07-03
📝 Original message:
Thank you for the detailed explanation! ☺
ᐧ
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:25 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
> Good morning Praveen,
>
> The patent system, has intent, that the inventor will completely reveal
> the design of the invention, in exchange for a (time-bound) state monopoly
> on the construction and sale of the invention. The intent, is that the
> inventor is compensated for the toil in creating the invention, while the
> revealed design may help future inventors to consider, an improved
> designed, after the granted monopoly has ended.
>
> Thus, the patent system, has the concept, "prior art".
>
> If the item being patented, is in the past ("prior") already known among
> practitioners ("art"), then there is no need for the state to "pay for"
> revealing the design by granting a monopoly. Already, the design is
> revealed and known, so why should the state pay the inventor with a
> state-enforced monopoly?
>
> Importantly, any evidence, that the design of the invention is known, is
> prior art. This includes publications made by the inventor himself or
> herself. It is prior art since the fact of publication indicates that
> other practitioners now know of the art of the new design.
>
> Another consideration, is the "grace period".
>
> An inventor may publish, the design of the invention, at some past point,
> and then file for a patent afterward. However, the fact of the
> publication, even initiated by the inventor, is itself prior art, and is
> evidence that the invention is known (and that the state must, logically,
> not pay for it by enforcing a patent-backed monopoly).
>
> Of course, an inventor may publish an invention with intent to patent it
> later. Thus, the state allows, a grace period, after the inventor publishes
> the design, to patent the design. Importantly, this grace period is not of
> unlimited duration. The de facto global state government, the USA,
> provides a grace period of 1 year only.
>
> For reference, the Poon-Dryja whitepaper for Lightning was published in
> 2016, and the current year is now known to be 2018.
>
> As the current Lightning design is designed publicly and continuously
> published in the lightning-rfc (thus a continuous evidence that the design
> of Lightning is already known), and is in any case based on the prior-art
> Poon-Dryja paper, and neither Poon nor Dryja have applied for patents of
> the Lightning design within a year of publication of the Poon-Dryja paper,
> then the state will not bother to grant a patent to the inventors of
> Lightning.
>
> (the above describes the ideal operation of patent systems. it should be
> noted, that agents operating patent systems are known to run on cognitive
> substrates that are highly amenable to external corrupting influences, and
> thus non-ideal operation may occur in practice.)
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com>; Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On June 22, 2018 11:21 PM, Praveen Baratam <praveen.baratam at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> I just heard from a friend that Second Level Protocols such as Lightening
> Network can be patented if the author/inventor chooses to!
>
> Is it possible? Am I missing something?
>
> Best,
>
> Praveen Baratam
>
> about.me <http://about.me/praveen.baratam>;
> ᐧ
>
>
>
--
Dr. Praveen Baratam
about.me <http://about.me/praveen.baratam>;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180703/6dbe7fe7/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:
Thank you for the detailed explanation! ☺
ᐧ
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:25 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
> Good morning Praveen,
>
> The patent system, has intent, that the inventor will completely reveal
> the design of the invention, in exchange for a (time-bound) state monopoly
> on the construction and sale of the invention. The intent, is that the
> inventor is compensated for the toil in creating the invention, while the
> revealed design may help future inventors to consider, an improved
> designed, after the granted monopoly has ended.
>
> Thus, the patent system, has the concept, "prior art".
>
> If the item being patented, is in the past ("prior") already known among
> practitioners ("art"), then there is no need for the state to "pay for"
> revealing the design by granting a monopoly. Already, the design is
> revealed and known, so why should the state pay the inventor with a
> state-enforced monopoly?
>
> Importantly, any evidence, that the design of the invention is known, is
> prior art. This includes publications made by the inventor himself or
> herself. It is prior art since the fact of publication indicates that
> other practitioners now know of the art of the new design.
>
> Another consideration, is the "grace period".
>
> An inventor may publish, the design of the invention, at some past point,
> and then file for a patent afterward. However, the fact of the
> publication, even initiated by the inventor, is itself prior art, and is
> evidence that the invention is known (and that the state must, logically,
> not pay for it by enforcing a patent-backed monopoly).
>
> Of course, an inventor may publish an invention with intent to patent it
> later. Thus, the state allows, a grace period, after the inventor publishes
> the design, to patent the design. Importantly, this grace period is not of
> unlimited duration. The de facto global state government, the USA,
> provides a grace period of 1 year only.
>
> For reference, the Poon-Dryja whitepaper for Lightning was published in
> 2016, and the current year is now known to be 2018.
>
> As the current Lightning design is designed publicly and continuously
> published in the lightning-rfc (thus a continuous evidence that the design
> of Lightning is already known), and is in any case based on the prior-art
> Poon-Dryja paper, and neither Poon nor Dryja have applied for patents of
> the Lightning design within a year of publication of the Poon-Dryja paper,
> then the state will not bother to grant a patent to the inventors of
> Lightning.
>
> (the above describes the ideal operation of patent systems. it should be
> noted, that agents operating patent systems are known to run on cognitive
> substrates that are highly amenable to external corrupting influences, and
> thus non-ideal operation may occur in practice.)
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com>; Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On June 22, 2018 11:21 PM, Praveen Baratam <praveen.baratam at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> I just heard from a friend that Second Level Protocols such as Lightening
> Network can be patented if the author/inventor chooses to!
>
> Is it possible? Am I missing something?
>
> Best,
>
> Praveen Baratam
>
> about.me <http://about.me/praveen.baratam>;
> ᐧ
>
>
>
--
Dr. Praveen Baratam
about.me <http://about.me/praveen.baratam>;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180703/6dbe7fe7/attachment-0001.html>;