[Cryptography] Hashgraph

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:13 AM, Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
>
> Obviously a patented technology cannot give us what we want, and the
>> patent is an indication that the creators of this technology have
>> absolutely no intention of giving us what we want.
>>
>
> Not entirely true; for example the "
> ​​
> setuid" concept in Unix was patented precisely to stop others from doing
> so, and yet was released unencumbered.


​Given that setuid was one of the very first software patents, the notion
that it was filed as a defensive measure sounds like an example of
revisionist history to me. ​

Bell labs existed to file patents and software patents did not become
notorious until much later. UNIX did not become an open system until much
later on, all the early UNIX flavors were licensed from AT&T.

Yes, defensive patents are common today but I can't see SwirlID being
likely to have amassed the millions of Venture Capital they have without
promising rewards.

At the end of the day, the voluminous prior art of the Certificate
Transparency 'gossip' proposals is likely our best defense.

​The big problem with US patents is that you can use a technology for a
decade while an application is varied to thread itself through the eye of
the needle. So when assessing patent risk it is the potential claims, not
the actual ones that are the issue.
​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20180102/879bcba6/attachment.html>