×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

209 comments

Punish Trolls (5, Insightful)

jarich (733129) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681378)

This beautifully illustrates why there should be some punishment for this type of behavior. He's obviously ignoring all prior art and forcing an already overloaded system to deal with this crap. Fine him.

Re:Punish Trolls (3, Interesting)

Ice Tiger (10883) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681406)

I guess he thought the wikipedia stub for Bitcoin created 8th March 2009 doesn't count as prior art or something.

Re:Punish Trolls (0)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681494)

There is no thing called "prior art" with trademarks. This isn't patents.

Re:Punish Trolls (5, Informative)

pacergh (882705) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681512)

While the term 'prior art' is a patent term, there is something directly similar called prior use. So the argument is still valid, even if the terminology is not legally exact.

Re:Punish Trolls (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681412)

Nice rant, but unfortunately your knowledge of intellectual property laws is about on par with the rest of slashdot. First, you can't trademark troll, since trademarks are only valid if in active use. Second, there's no such thing as prior art in trademark law. If Coca Cola went out of business tomorrow, and nobody bothered to buy up their trademark, it would be perfectly legal for me to start my own soda company called Coca Cola. Third, most of the fault here is Bitcoin's, as they should have registered the trademark themselves, or failing that, protected their trademark without registration.

Re:Punish Trolls (1, Offtopic)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681464)

I had mod points yesterday, but they're gone today, or I'd mod you up. Too bad too that you posted as AC.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681468)

IANAL, but registering trademarks is not necessary.
As far as I understand a registration was needed in the US in the past, but to harmonize with international laws that was changed.

Still, registering a trademark helps to determine who has priority, but with a term like bitcoin it would be quite easy to prove that one has been using that term commercially way before this lawyer tried to trademark it.

Re:Punish Trolls (3, Informative)

pacergh (882705) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681534)

Registering a trademark isn't necessary. It's never been necessary. International laws have not changed trademarks like they have changed copyright.

Even a registered trademark can be restricted geographically. An example is Waffle House. Waffle House is a chain of diner-like restaurants in the Southeast US. It has a federal mark for 'Waffle House.' However, a chain of Waffle House restaurants geographically located in Indiana (or Illinois, can't remember exactly) had used the mark in that geographic location prior to Waffle House seeking the federal registration.

The result is that Waffle House cannot use the Waffle House name for its restaurants in Indiana because of the already-existing Waffle House restaurants. Instead, it goes by Waffle Steak.

Re:Punish Trolls (2)

cusco (717999) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681976)

Thanks for the warning, I'll make sure to avoid them, too. (Although the term 'Waffle Steak' would probably have scared me off anyway.)

Fault is on the perverse jewish system! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681490)

It is not the fault of the author/community of bitcoin for not honoring some made up rules that the jewish system claims is law.
God's law is the only just law.
When that lawyer is killed (not murdered, as it would be self defense), then that will be justice done. So says my law. He didn't agree to my law? Well, we never agreed to the jew's law.

Re:Punish Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36682030)

Is the name "internet" already registered? If it can't be, then bitcoin should have the same status.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682386)

> Third, most of the fault here is Bitcoin's, as they should have registered the trademark themselves, or failing that, protected their trademark
> without registration.

I was unaware that an abstract unit of measurement could trademark itself. The whole point o fbitcoin was to design a currency system with no central issuing authority. There is no single, cohesive organization that backs bitcoin. The closest thing to that would be the person generally recognized as the lead developer but, it is really more like being a reference implementation developer because if he makes changes that people don't like, people will just stop using his client and develop others.

Re:Punish Trolls (3, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681430)

"Prior art" is about patents. Trademarks have more to do with "common use" and in this case, I believe that can be easily demonstrated. Bitcoin is a "thing" not a brand and so it should not be eligible for trademark any more than "web browser" would be.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681504)

A McDonalds Big Mac is a thing too, and I'd wager McDonalds has a registered trademark for it.

The idiots behind Bitcoin.org don't even seem to have bothered to declare common law trademark, i.e. , on the term.

If they lose it they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681542)

The idiots behind Bitcoin.org don't even seem to have bothered to declare common law trademark, i.e. , on the term.

Stupid /. still doesn't do Unicode or even ordinary Latin-1. C'mon /., this is the 21st century. Get with the program. Honestly---

There was supposed to be a little superscript TM between i.e. and ,. That's what I get for not looking at the Preview before Submitting.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681584)

Uh... I think you misunderstand. McDonald's Big Mac is a branded thing. The "thing" type is hamburger sandwich which is not eligible for trademark. For more examples, "Kleenex" is a brand of thing type "tissue paper" and "Coke" or "Coca-Cola" is a brand of thing type "soda" or "soft drink."

Whatever the case, the term was in use by Bitcoin.org prior to this lawyer's filing. Whatever he is up to, I am sure a judge presiding over a case surrounding this issue will see through it.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

rapiddescent (572442) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682112)

In the UK - "Hoover" became very concerned in the 70's that their vacuum cleaning products and those of other manufacturers were being called by their trademark - i.e. the term "hoover" had entered the english language - because, as soon as it does that - it cannot be trademarked anymore.

"To google" has done the same thing to the Google trademark in the UK.

(this could be a nuance of the UK trademark system)

Re:Punish Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36682186)

By your logic (which I agree with BTW), BitCoin is a branded thing. The "thing" type is "money" although not "fiat money" since it is not issue by a government.

Re:Punish Trolls (-1, Troll)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682194)

Bad news to you. The name "Hamburger" is trademark to McDonalds too, and corresponds to the simplest hamburger sandwich. Ever notice how none of the big competition dares to use that specific name, always getting around, by calling stuff "burgers" and the likes? Only small booths get away with it because McD never bothers.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682250)

That is bad news. The term "hamburger" predates the existence of McDonald's. That is most interesting.

Re:Punish Trolls (0)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682260)

Actually, I have seen off brand "Kleenex". "OffBrand Kleenex" or stuff like that. Kleenex in particular has become genericized.

You can't trademark a generic term, like AppStore. Kleenex has been so synonymous with tissue, that there is no distinction with common usage. Because Kleenex was TM'd, it is effectively grandfathered in. Other companies can sell "Kleenex", but they must very distinctly place their brand name in front of it as not to confuse customers.

Your example still stands, but I just wanted to point out that bit of trivia.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681586)

May seem like semantics, but there is a reason companies fight tooth and nail over how people refer to their products. Back when I was still subscribing to writing magazines I'd marvel at advertisements designed not to market a product, but to explain "X is a brand of Y product. Don't use X, use Y."

A McDonalds Big Mac is a hamburger which is a thing. The trademark is on the branding of that type of hamburger.

The bitcoin creators have already lost. Either they failed to trademark a trademarkable thing and lost. Or, their product could be ruled that bitcoin is the thing, not the name of their type of this thing. All things of this type will be considered bitcoins, like Velcro(tm). What the heck is Velcro(tm) and Velcro(tm) like products except called velcro?

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681660)

As somebody who has worked at several companies making products that include it, Velcro is a particular brand of hook and loop fastener. And their lawyers will let you know it.

I wish they'd spend half that effort letting everyone know what the generic name is.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682232)

If they lose it they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.

They can't lose it unless they simply don't respond to this fraudster's action. Use establishes trademarks, and prior use is always senior.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

pacergh (882705) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681562)

Trademarks are not about common use but, rather, about how consumers will identify the mark. If the mark makes consumers think of the company claiming the mark then it can be registered.

Your argument that Bitcoin is a 'thing' is an argument that it is a generic term. This isn't really a good argument for Bitcoin because it's not generic. It is not really descriptive, either. It's more suggestive. This is neither the weakest nor the strongest type of mark. (There is a spectrum, in order of weakness to strength: generic, descriptive, generic, fanciful or arbitrary.)

The real reason why Bitcoin shouldn't be registered is that it fails to be a source indicator for any one entity. If I say Bitcoin, do you think of a company? No.

Re:Punish Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681564)

This instance applies to trademarks, but a similar situation could arise with patents, especially if inventor priority based on "First to File" becomes law. Think of something slightly less ridiculous, involving a common practice in a specialized trade that hundreds, rather than hundreds of thousands of people know about. People will try to pull a fast one on the USPTO.

Re:Punish Trolls (2)

m50d (797211) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681570)

So if I started a fresh root with a more sane mining rate policy, would/should I call it bitcoin?

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681766)

Actually, you make a good point and I accept it. I think I was wrong in my initial assertion. After reading the lawyer's description of bitcoin, he identifies it as thing type "digital currency" and also as thing type "encrypted currency" as well as thing type "peer to peer currency." These things make sense.

However, if someone did come up with a rival to bitcoin and called it "something bitcoin" I think it would be acceptable to me. And I agree that bitcoin does identify a very particular type of thing... so yeah, perhaps my initial thoughts on the matter are wrong.

Re:Punish Trolls (0)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681832)

"Prior art" is about patents. Trademarks have more to do with "common use" and in this case, I believe that can be easily demonstrated.

You are aware that Apple was allowed to Trademark the term podcast even though it was in quite common use by podcasters all over the world.

The problem with both Patent and Trademark law is that "common use", "prior art", and "obviousness" are all insufficiently sourced, and there is no approved database for the PTO to use to discover these things (even though the web does exist, and would be a viable source, IMO).

I've commonly referred to my web applications as Web Apps, and used the terms" Java Applet" and "Java App" to distinguish browser targeted Java programs from non-browser applications; Additionally I've used the term "mobile apps" to refer to my J2ME programs (specifically for Nokia phones). Yet, Apple was allowed the trademark on "App Store"...

Despite any common sense or logical reasoning, whatever is currently in the Trademark or Patent database is what's primarily searched when they look for "prior art" or "common use". The USPTO can not really filter all the worlds use cases, or prior art through the minimal number of trademark or patent attorneys attending each case; Additionally those employed by the USPTO are verifiably incompetent; See above podcast trademark, and ridiculous or even duplicate patents (of which there are many examples available via any web search -- Swinging on a Swing Sideways).

Common Use sort of means: Commonly Used By Established Companies, or a "household name" -- Though BitCoin may not be a household name in the patent examiner's neighbourhood, I assure you it is in mine; I also assure you that there is no "Application for inclusion as a household to be questioned, and which also commonly uses the following names: ____".

Your argument is very flawed, and/or irrelevant. Allow me to illustrate:
It could have been easily demonstrated via any web search engine that the term "Podcast" was in common use as a "thing" not a brand and so it should not have been eligible for trademark any more than "App" would be. Yet both are Trademarked terms; the latter term as part of a name created by the addition of a sole word meaning general term for place of purchase -- "App Store".

I'm not trying to single out Apple Inc; I'm sure there are other instances of companies that throw many ideas and terms at the PTO just to see what sticks...

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681964)

Being allowed to apply and having it accepted is very different from the results of a challenge. It will be challenged eventually, and I believe the results will be found in favor or those who originally coined the term.

And yes, I agree that my initial argument is flawed.

That said, I do recall the "podcast" thing and but I don't think any court decision has been rendered on the matter -- Apple has only sent out C&Ds to my knowledge and I believe "podcast" is still a term in use by other parties not affiliated with Apple Computers inc. The App Store thing is also a matter currently in contention as the mark is too generic and I believe it will eventually fall under challenge. I believe Amazon is still in the process.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

Bradmont (513167) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682028)

Bitcoin is a "thing" not a brand and so it should not be eligible for trademark any more than "web browser" would be.

or "app store..." wait...

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

fredrikv (521394) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682076)

... it should not be eligible for trademark any more than "web browser" would be.

Or "app store".

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

Lectrik (180902) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682170)

Bitcoin is a "thing" not a brand and so it should not be eligible for trademark any more than "web browser" would be.

Well, i doubt anyone has trademaked the term Dollar.... I'll be right back....

Re:Punish Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36682180)

I believe that can be easily demonstrated. Bitcoin is a "thing" not a brand and so it should not be eligible for trademark any more than "web browser" would be.

Blah blah blah, in other words, it'll be accepted anyway because the United States Patent and Trademark Office will whore out to anyone :P

Re:Punish Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681558)

c'mon guys, be nice to him... it was indeed the first time that he used it, so it must be new to everyone else, right?

Re:Punish Trolls (4, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681608)

Fine him? he's a lawyer. disbar him. He's obviously unfit to be legal council.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681732)

punishment? what are you talking about.

If the creator is stoopid enough not to trademark his idea, then he's an idiot.

Unless I am mistaken, this guy has simply noticed that the word has not been patented - and is capitalising on it.

It's no different to a) people buying up domain names similar to popular companies and then trying to flog them to them, b) the person that was smart enough to patent "21st century fox" before 20th century fox thought about it, c) alexander graham bell - who "patented/stole credit for" the telephone because the inventor didn't, d) insert plenty of other similar stories here.

If anyone is guilty of anything, it's the inventor for not patenting.

Re:Punish Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681744)

Fine him? He's a lawyer. Compost him! That's the only positive contribution lawyers can make to the world.

Re:Punish Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681872)

Fine him? He's a lawyer, compost him! That's the only positive contribution lawyers can make.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

gid (5195) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681894)

For the record, I hereby make up the word exacoin and define it as 10^12 bitcoins. I figure with a bit of inflation this term might eventually start getting pretty popular.

Re:Punish Trolls (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682254)

Bad news to you, Bitcoin is a strictly deflational currency and its inherent nature prevents it from ever reaching such number.

Media Hog or Brilliant Unmasking of Creator? (2)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682210)

It's obviously a publicity stunt, as there is no real money to be gained from this. He has (successfully) made himself famous, now placed on Wikipedia and on news outlets eating up bitcoin news *cough*slashdot*cough*. Fame CAN be bought.

The other thing to consider is whether or not this is a ploy to unmask the original creator of Bitcoin, who disappeared and remains completely anonymous. The lawyer might argue in a court case that only the original creator can defend or fight his claim. In that case... who is this lawyer working for that is trying to unmask the bitcoin creator?

I hereby move to trademark the word "dollar" (5, Funny)

youn (1516637) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681386)

my first documented use of the word dollar being today when I said enthusiastically, "oh a dollar sign... how cool would that be if every one paid me a dollar every time they used the word dollar" ;)

Re:I hereby move to trademark the word "dollar" (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681488)

I have a PO box everyone can send their dollars to so I can collect them for you.

Re:I hereby move to trademark the word "dollar" (4, Funny)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681548)

my first documented use of the word dollar being today when I said enthusiastically, "oh a dollar sign... how cool would that be if every one paid me a dollar every time they used the word dollar" ;)

Even better, every time they pay you, ask them "How much was that again?..." and they would reply "Oh, just a dollar..dammit!". You would be raking it in, so much so that you would have to construct some sort of special multi-rake machine to get it all.

Re:I hereby move to trademark the word "dollar" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681784)

Can I choose the type of dollar? If so, I choose Z$. Here's $100,000,000,000,000 [lee.org] to pay for all future uses of the word.

Re:I hereby move to trademark the word "dollar" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36682006)

hahaha can't help but think of dr evil when i see that. that is awesome.

Did the guy even try to google "bitcoin"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681396)

Seriously, prior use can be proven with a simple google. Unless he is patenting something special, a trademark might be tough to hold.

Wait...what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681400)

Is this guy claiming the first use was last month? I think there would be a lot of prior art by, you know, the creators.

I'll trademark the term 'lawyer' then. (2)

morikahnx (1323841) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681422)

why not?

Re:I'll trademark the term 'lawyer' then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681682)

Because the second you do, your eyes will turn red and start glowing, you will grow a tail and horns, and a swarm of insects will follow you everywhere you go.

Re:I'll trademark the term 'lawyer' then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681788)

Too late, I already trademarked the term "slimy pondscum", and you can't register something that close and at risk of causing confusion.

WTF? Who cares about bitcoin? It's irrelevant (-1, Redundant)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681428)

You might want to care more and spend some time looking at what your government and banks are doing to your national currency.

Re:WTF? Who cares about bitcoin? It's irrelevant (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36682298)

You might want to care more and spend some time looking at what your government and banks are doing to your national currency.

Some would argue, that's exactly why bitcoin is relevant!

Will lose in court (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681448)

I am quite confident that he will lose in court, since bitcoin is already being used by a large group of people to describe the very thing he is attempting to trademark it on. There is of course a possibility that he is filing for this trademark for the purpose of preventing some other business from using the term to apply to anything other than the existing bitcoin. If it is the latter, it might make some sense. However, it does not look like that is the case. We will have to wait until we have more information.

Why he will succeed (2)

TurinPT (1226568) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681450)

No bitcoin user is going to cough up the $300 required to counter his claim.

Re:Why he will succeed (2)

timholman (71886) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681472)

No bitcoin user is going to cough up the $300 required to counter his claim.

Will the USPTO accept payment in BTC instead? :-)

Re:Why he will succeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681764)

No bitcoin user is going to cough up the $300 required to counter his claim.

What about the owner of bitcoin.de and bitcoins.de that were recently bought for 29000 Euro? I'm sure they'd put up $300 to counter any attack.

He doesn't even understand bitcoin (1)

Chris Down (2350174) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681462)

In a reply to an email sent to him he said the following as a defence for his use being 'the first':

"The very nature of the crypto transaction renders it impossible to trace and prove a completed transaction in interstate commerce."

If he really thinks this, he is about to get a crypto asskicking...

Re:He doesn't even understand bitcoin (2)

Bryan3000000 (1356999) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682158)

Apparently he thinks that all previous uses of the term "bitcoin" to describe the system were made in untraceable cryptographic transactions, so that no evidence can be produced that his use is not the first. If this is the case, he's proven himself to be more than somewhat of an idiot.

How did he even get through law school?? (2)

bigrockpeltr (1752472) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681466)

from his PDF:

"Bitcoin transactions are virtually anonymous, and untraceable."

4 lines later:

"a public list of all previous transactions is collectively maintained by the members (peers) on the network."

i guess it should be expected from someone trying to do something like this.

Re:How did he even get through law school?? (3, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681498)

You don't get it. Bitcoin transactions are VIRTUALLY anonymous, not REALLY anonymous.

He should talk to William Della Croce Jr (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681486)

And ask him how well trademarking "Linux" worked for him.

I have already applied for copyrights (3, Funny)

slackzilly (2033012) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681526)

For the following words and characters:

first
post
copyright
patent
plus
+
apple
troll
euro
.

I could apply for some more but I figure these will generate enough money for my needs. I am not greedy and selfish.

Re:I have already applied for copyrights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36682230)

I've applied for a copyright on just two words:

a
the

I figure those two should be enough fro my needs.

His business model makes sense to Slashdot crowd (2)

turkeyfeathers (843622) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681552)

1. Trademark the term Bitcoin [tm]

2. Collect a royalty everytime someone uses them

3. Profit! He'll soon be a Bitcoin [tm] millionaire*

* which will buy him a BigMac [tm] in the real world once that phony currency collapses.

Maybe he should have googled it (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681556)

Maybe he should have googled it before trying to trademark it. A google of "bitcoin" returns 8.7M hits. Seems like it is in pretty wide use. Maybe he can do like Band-Aids (Band-Aid brand bandages) and use "Bitcoin brand absurdity."

Aww... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681588)

It's so sweet to see a anarcho-cypherpunk currency all grown up... A lawyer, trademark claims, probably a white picket fence and a golden retriever in the suburbs...

More seriously, though, while it isn't clear that this guy is entitled to the trademark, it also isn't obviously deleterious for 'Bitcoin' to be a trademark(rather conveniently, the definition of a bitcoin is a quite specific bit of math, rather than some natural language handwaving, so it would arguably be a better defined trademark than many). Since(unlike patents and copyrights, which are enforceable against all comers with only a few 'fair use' and such exceptions) trademarks are quite broadly usable by others(so long as they aren't being used deceptively), somebody actually associated with Bitcoin having a trademark for 'Bitcoin' to the effect that "If it conforms to the protocol spec and cryptographic details laid out in the spec, it's a Bitcoin, and conveniently anybody who wishes can mathematically verify it on the spot..." wouldn't obviously be a bad thing.

More broadly, what I will be interested to see is if we ever run into the issue of there being multiple, parallel, issuings of "quasi-bitcoins". At least as best I understand it, there is a finite supply of Bitcoins according to the present definition; but that the present definition incorporates some arbitrary starting constants and then follows the defined protocol from there. A 'second issue' using a different set of arbitrary constants would not be compatible with the 'first issue'; but it would be equally amenable to following the protocol and being used for transactions, and would presumably trade at some discount against the original. Unless there are rather tight technical constraints on the initial values, there could potentially be thousands of different Bitcoin-sub-N chains in simultaneous existence...

Re:Aww... (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681968)

Rather conveniently, the definition of a bitcoin is a quite specific bit of math, rather than some natural language handwaving, so it would arguably be a better defined trademark than many — unlike patents and copyrights, which are enforceable against all comers with only a few 'fair use' and such exceptions, so long as they aren't being used deceptively.

FTFY, by removing those unsightly parentheses. It's almost understandable now!

Re:Aww... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682078)

Sorry, ever since my first math class with grouping symbols my writing has gone all to hell. Just be glad I wasn't nesting them this time...

Re:Aww... (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682362)

You are basically correct. Someone could take the existing software even and tweak a couple of things and start their very own block chain. There is one such block chain already in use for the test network. But that block chain wouldn't be compatible with the current bitcoin block chain. It would be like another country's currency.

Utterly unethical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681590)

Stunts like this should get lawyers disbarred on the spot.

let me fix that for you (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681848)

Stunts like this should get lawyers disbarred on the spot.

Stunts like this should get lawyers dismembered on the spot.

Please help this guy (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681620)

please help him, there are missing steps in his business model:

1 - Trademark bitcoin
2 - ???
3 - ???
4 - Profit!

Re:Please help this guy (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681738)

No, no... step #1 is missing too. He's not going to get that trademark.

1 - ???
2 - ???
3 - ???
4 - Money!!!!

"The love of money is the root of all evil" - Jesus Christ

what an idiot (n/m) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681624)

:-/

There has to be more to this (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681636)

It's clear that this guy has no claim to the trademark, and as a lawyer he would likely know this. So where's the rest of the story?

Use bitcoin to pay fee (1)

grahamm (8844) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681668)

I hope that rather than $US, he is going to try to pay the registration fee in bitcoin.

Vigilante justice (2)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 2 years ago | (#36681780)

Now, normally, I am not a fan of vigilante justice, I should make that clear.
The problem I see however is that it is clear that our system no longer has justice for the common man. Justice can be bought in America, this is clear. Judges routinely tear up the constitution in order to protect corporate interests.

Lets say that a group of guys beat this guy down. I'm talking hardcore. Would the next guy think twice? What about beating 10 of these trolls down? How many beat downs would it take for the message to get out that the people are not going let you fuck them any more?

Re:Vigilante justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36681940)

Worked well for witches. We used to burn them. They are totally not a problem now.

Re:Vigilante justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36682038)

You forgot to post as AC, now you can be detained for terrorism.

Re:Vigilante justice (1)

ninthbit (623926) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682088)

But the people will let you fuck them. Over and over again... in public... with props. If people get thier American Idol and Survivior they really don't care who, how often, or how they get fucked.

Publicity stunt? (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682026)

The trademark claim is so easy to dispute, I'm guessing the lawyer is just trying to get attention.

Fuc4! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36682058)

has run f4ster staNdpoint, I don't

Publicity Stunt (4, Insightful)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#36682070)

Instead of defending the trademark, the lawyer is promoting the virtues of Bitcoin. He is probably just trying to generate publicity to pump up the price of Bitcoins that his wife is selling. I doubt the lawyer is stupid enough to think he can be successful trademark Bitcoin.

Re:Publicity Stunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36682378)

You seriously underestimate how stupid/greedy/spiteful lawyers can be.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...