From praveen.baratam at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 06:05:54 2018 From: praveen.baratam at gmail.com (Praveen Baratam) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 11:35:54 +0530 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Second Level Protocols - Lightning - Patents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for the detailed explanation! ? ? On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:25 AM ZmnSCPxj 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 Secure Email. > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On June 22, 2018 11:21 PM, Praveen Baratam > 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 > ? > > > -- Dr. Praveen Baratam about.me -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: