Why JP Morgan’s Blockchain Patent Application Is Not That Surprising

[GiddyUp]

This will give us something to think about... there is a lot that we have already discussed here, the article kind of brings it all into focus...

https://cointelegraph.com/news/why-jp-morgans-blockchain-patent-application-is-not-that-surprising

"Saying that, JP Morgan is specifically applying for a patent on a “method for processing network payments using a distributed ledger”. This begs the question; can you have a P2P payments network based on blockchain without utilizing a digital token in some shape or form to process such payments?"

"Some community members don’t believe that you can, even arguing that the bank would be in direct competition with Ripple’s cross-border transfer platform:"

“It's not the competition part that is off... it's the fact that they are describing the exact thing Ripple is currently pushing into the market. There is no way this patent goes through, and if it does, prior art will protect Ripple as they have this working already. It's (as someone else stated) like filing a patent for an electric vehicle today.”

[pucksterpete]

Fuk  JP

[69GTOjudge]

From: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents

"In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,”

It would seem to me that their application would fail on this basis?

[Champipple]

Even on the off chance they did, Ripple is light years ahead of them. 

[GiddyUp]

57 minutes ago, Champipple said:

Even on the off chance they did, Ripple is light years ahead of them. 

Agreed, so... my thinking is that this may be cover for JPM to adopt Ripple/XRP. That's pure speculation on my part, but if Ripple and JPM had to get together to work out possible "patent infringement" issues, that could provide grounds for a negotiated partnership, allowing JPM to on-board with Ripple/XRP and also save face.

From the article:

"JP Morgan’s proposed system therefore depicts a payment protocol with direct communication or messaging between beneficiary and originator banks, used in conjunction with a reconciliatory distributed ledger blockchain."

"In essence, this is a very similar system and process to that used by Ripple, basically describing an interbank messaging and reconciliation protocol based on distributed ledger technology in order to eliminate expensive intermediaries, speed up transaction time and extend the global remittance reach."

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by GiddyUp
better pic

[Guest]

Wasn't there like 13 or 15 JPM  top brass at a Ripple meeting of some sort last year?

 

 

Edited May 19, 2018 by Guest

[Archive]

46 minutes ago, RikkiTikki said:

Wasn't there like 13 or 15 JPM  top brass at a Ripple meeting of some sort last year?

Timing is off a little.  Think patent was filed on 10/30 and the meeting was mid December 2017.

[jag216]

This looks more like a more cumbersome version of ILP than anything else.

[Javim777]

Or JP Morgan buys Ripple ??

[ade]

On 5/19/2018 at 8:56 AM, RikkiTikki said:

Wasn't there like 13 or 15 JPM  top brass at a Ripple meeting of some sort last year?

 

 

Probably studying how it’s done. JP are like the Chinese..... copy everything. 

[theGlitchKing]

 

Quote

Probably studying how it’s done. JP are like the Chinese..... copy everything. 

If JP Morgan is interested, they'll likely just try and buy it. If they can't control it, their general MO is to purchase the technology or the patent.

Edited May 21, 2018 by theGlitchKing

[cmbartley]

When it comes to US patents the law favors the entity that is first to file, not first to invent. Inventions not filed with the US patent office do not count at prior art as far as I know. 

That said, it should be worth nothing that Ripple already has many issued patents for their tech. They also have patents that aren't under their corporate name... If you look hard enough you'll find them. 

[DevNullProd]

On 5/21/2018 at 2:27 AM, cmbartley said:

When it comes to US patents the law favors the entity that is first to file, not first to invent. Inventions not filed with the US patent office do not count at prior art as far as I know. 

 

This is false. Patent Claims are prioritized by filing date, but "prior art" is not just limited to filed patents:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art#Duty_of_disclosure

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html

An example from the gov website:

"A THESIS PLACED IN A UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MAY BE PRIOR ART IF SUFFICIENTLY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC"

----

 

In any case, I'd be interested in hearing more as this story develops. I'm curious as to what JP Morgan's angle is. Their legal team must know about the prior art & Ripple, so I'm guessing this is more of a negotiating tactic than anything else. After all JP Morgan has far more legal resources and $$$ at hand than Ripple does, this may be an attempt to force Ripple to waste precious resources fighting this or negotiate with the bank with favorable terms, especially at this critical stage of the game.

JP Morgan has been doing this as long as they existed, trying to "influence" inventors and small businesses through patent and other litigation is not new to them.

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by riptidel

[cmbartley]

37 minutes ago, riptidel said:

This is false. Patent Claims are prioritized by filing date, but "prior art" is not just limited to filed patents

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent

If the prior art is not obvious and not publicly disclosed, say an invention inside a black box that is sold commercially but no knows how it works, it may be considered a corporate secret and therefore still patentable if independently derived. 

The thesis example refers to common knowledge as far as I understand. Common or publicly disseminated knowledge is understandably not patentable. Ripple's xCurrent, xRapid, and xVia inventions are usable by the public but the manner in which the inventions work is not public as the code is proprietary. The fact that xTechStacks exist does not make them prior art.

That is, I agree that the scope of the "prior art" is not limited to filed patents, but my point was that an invention that is not known to the public and not yet filed with the USPTO does not count as prior art.

Edited May 24, 2018 by cmbartley