Posts Tagged: "blockchain"

Blockchain technology can serve as a shared database ledger that tracks assets and transactions with little to no oversight but, in theory, unlimited users. Its potential applications spanning smart contracts to blockchaining intellectual property, indicate promise for fluid collaborations, efficient remuneration and thorough intellectual property management. However, there are still crucial issues, including privacy, compatibility, liability and jurisdiction that remain undefined. Moreover, because all fields necessitate specialized codes of conduct and ethics, if blockchain technology is expected to make a significant difference in society, then it too, deserves its own field of ethics, like artificial intelligence (AI), nuclear technology, biotechnology, and space exploration. Leading minds across disciplines need to contemplate how this technology can be shaped to have a positive impact, first by examining what this field is capable of doing and its potential consequences.

Ray Young started RightsLedger.com to give creators control of their content and opportunities for IP monetization, using blockchain technology to authenticate ownership. His latest venture, Milio.io, is the first social media platform to fairly share advertising revenue with users, and already has over a million users. Young spent over two years, since Dec 2019, in Manila working on the company’s launch and is focused on rewarding small and independent content creators with the ability to both protect and monetize their IP. I spoke with Young to better understand how he is helping creators to safeguard and profit from their content online.

Can something called a “Bored Ape” be embodied in a non-fungible token (NFT) and be associated with smart contracts? How could this present unique and challenging issues regarding copyright law? Over the course of the last two months, the general public has tracked what started out as a phishing scam involving actor Seth Green’s NFT from the Board Ape Yacht Club. It then evolved into a public quest to regain the NFT and the rights to develop a broadcast program based on the character depicted in the digital image. The trials and tribulations related to Seth Green’s efforts to ultimately regain his “lost” NFT made for interesting media clicks. It also raised awareness to copyright issues that are yet to be fully resolved. Seth Green may rest easy knowing he is again the rightful owner of his Bored Ape NFT, but the legal community should not be as quick to move on.

Blockchain technology has brought the world a collection of cutting-edge investment opportunities, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) among them. And with the advent of these unique digital assets, comes an entirely novel product segment subject to intellectual property law. For months now, the media has covered stories about NFTs selling for obscene prices. But behind these headlines—and given the onslaught of NFTs that continue to flood the market—are questions regarding trademark and copyright issues raised by these non-interchangeable units of data.

Blockchain’s history begins in 1991, when Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta published a paper describing a cryptographically secured chain of blocks. It took another 18 years before a developer who called himself Satoshi Nakamoto released a white paper that established the model for a blockchain and then, a year later, implemented the first blockchain as a public ledger for transactions using bitcoin. The engine that runs the bitcoin ledger that Nakamoto designed is called the blockchain; the original and largest blockchain is the one that still orchestrates bitcoin transactions today. Blockchain technology was separated from currency in 2014, and that advance opened the door for using blockchain for applications beyond currency. The standout example is the Ethereum blockchain system, which introduced computer programs in a blockchain format, representing financial instruments such as bonds. These became known as smart contracts.

Non-fungible tokens, or “NFTs,” have captured headlines, offering the perfect mix of poorly understood technology and incredible sale prices. The first patent NFT auction by True Return Systems and the newly announced patent NFT exchange under development by IPwe and IBM could not be better timed to take advantage of the buzz. With all of the hype, companies understandably wonder whether they need to “tokenize” their patent portfolios to NFTs in this first wave simply to get ahead of the inevitable transition. For most companies, prudence counsels stepping back and letting the technologies and the markets mature. First, blockchain technology, as it currently exists, only creates clarity of ownership though harsh outcomes. Second, creating highly liquid patent license markets may interfere with the existing patent strategies of many patent owners.

Investors, both speculative and strategic, are adjusting to the emergence of a bold new category of assets—digital collectibles. NFTs, or Non-Fungible Tokens, are so called because they are irreplaceable or one-of-a-kind artifacts–effectively, digital “limited editions.” NFTs trade on blockchains or distributed ledgers, typically without middlemen or brokers. The primary advantage of most blockchains is transparency and efficiency. Agreements are recorded on an open ledger for all to see. This is especially attractive to frequent traders who require accurate pricing and full disclosure for difficult-to-value assets. Now, two stalwarts in the intellectual property world, IBM and IPwe, believe that NFTs can be used to take patent monetization to new heights.

Having attained the title of the world’s second-largest economy, along with a constant influx of innovative companies and massive breakthroughs in digital development, China – often referred to by natives as “Zhongguo” – indubitably ranks among the strongest global tech leaders. While China has lately found itself in arduous times dealing with the dangerous COVID-19 virus, the country’s determination for progress surely hasn’t faltered. Such determination can deliver various results in various forms, and, considering China’s increasing size and global power, protecting intellectual property rights is one of those progressive outcomes.

This week in our nation’s capital, the House of Representatives hosts a number of committee hearings related to technology and innovation. Various hearings will explore online sales tax impacts on small businesses, unsafe counterfeit products bought by American consumers, uses of blockchain technology among small businesses, issues with veteran electronic health record systems, U.S. Cyber Command’s 2021 budget and the role of advanced nuclear reactors in creating a cleaner economy. Over in the Senate, a pair of hearings on Wednesday will discuss issues with securing the 5G supply chain and data surveillance concerns caused by partnerships between major tech firms and China. Elsewhere in D.C., the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and the Aspen Institute host a joint event focused on reducing sources of carbon from industrial processes.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issues an updated AIA Trial Practice Guide following SAS Institute v. Iancu; the AM-FM Act is introduced into Congress to update copyright law for terrestrial radio stations; VoIP-Pal.com defeats remaining IPRs challenging its patents at the institution phase; the Copyright Royalty Board announces cost of living adjustments in certain royalty rates; a Senate report shows that U.S. law enforcement didn’t adequately respond to Chinese IP theft for 20 years; China outpaces the rest of the world in terms of blockchain patent filing activities; and Apple joins Intel’s antitrust actions against Fortress Investment Group’s patent assertions.

Today, blockchain projects are proceeding in nearly every major industry and occur in more than 140 countries. According to blockchain IP landscape research by Perception Partners, over the past three years, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of patent families publishing in the United States, Europe, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), China, Japan and Korea is about 23%. The space has more than 13,000 global competitors of every size with nearly 23,000 inventors or authors disclosing or researching blockchain innovations. Much has been written about Bitcoin and blockchain technology, including a prior article in which we provided an overview on “The Bitcoin Network, Blockchain Technology and Altcoin Futures.”  To keep pace with the evolving nature of blockchain intellectual property and technology, below we provide some sample use cases of how blockchain innovations are already being leveraged in commerce and likely to be exploited in the near future.

This week on Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives is in recess but in the Senate, committee hearings will focus on the rescheduled oversight hearing for the U.S. Copyright Office, regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies and blockchain, and implementation of positive train control technologies. Elsewhere in Washington, D.C., the Brookings Institution will look at international threats to American space security while the Center for Strategic and International Studies will host an event with multiple panels exploring innovation and security issues in 5G networks. Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office also hosted an event in Alexandria, VA, discussing the agency’s trademark auditing program.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: Senators Rubio and Cornyn introduce a bill to prevent Huawei from buying and selling U.S. patents; the CASE Act to create a small claims system for copyright claims is voted onto the Senate floor; the USPTO releases an updated trial practice guide for America Invents Act trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; IBM increases its blockchain patent filings, while carbon mitigation patent filings have dropped around the world; Google faces patent lawsuit for “brazen” infringement; a settlement in a trademark case allows historic Yosemite sites to resume use of their names; and Microsoft boost in cloud sales in the latest quarter leads to a big beat on revenue.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Supreme Court’s decision in Return Mail prohibits the federal government from petitioning for America Invents Act (AIA) patent validity trials; the TERM Act is introduced into the House of Representatives to reduce patent evergreening; the leadership of the Senate IP Subcommittee calls for a restoration of America’s patent system before wrapping up its third patent eligibility hearing; Huawei asks Verizon to license more than 200 patents; the Ninth Circuit decides to rehear “Stairway to Heaven” copyright case en banc; Princeton University and Facebook are targeted with copyright and trade secret claims for scraping 3D image database; and the U.S. ban on supplying components to Huawei leads to decrease in Broadcom’s revenue.