Fwd: FYI - iSignThis

Per below...
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 at 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: FYI - iSignThis
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>

The 19 June 2014 landmark case in the U.S. Supreme Court, CLS Bank
International v. Alice Corporation, determined: " the claims at issue are
drawn to the abstract idea..., and that merely requiring generic computer
implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible

Specifically, the US Supreme Court dree three conclusions in its decision
on this case. Here's part of the summary I (in my capacity as an economist
& project manager, not a lawyer) prepared for Episode 2 of the
"Free/Libre/Open Works Video Series" of the OSI (which is being animated
and produced by the University of Southern Queensland in Australia, in

First, they clarified that information, such as accounting rules for
transactions, stands as a set of abstract ideas. Expressing abstract ideas
in a structured language, such as that of a computer program, does not
change their abstractness. At least as far back as ancient Greek physics
and metaphysics, tangible substance has been distinguished fundamentally
from abstract essence.
Second, the court concluded that making a general-purpose electronic device
operate according to rules expressed in a structured language, such as that
of a computer program, is not to be considered as turning those abstract
rules into a part of the physical device. Installing an instruction file
into a general-purpose electronic device shall be deemed in law to exist as
two separate things under the law: a file with some information, and a
generic device. To give an analogy, when a story is published in a book,
the law maintains different sets of rules for the story and for the book.
When you buy a “story book”, you own the book, not the story.
Third, the court observed that the simple idea of putting an intermediary
between a buyer and a seller in a transaction is nothing but a fundamental
economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce. It's hardly an
original idea.


RE: http://www.defensivepublications.org/


(Tim, could you please forward this reply to the W3C Credentials Community
Group. I' not subscribed to that one.)

Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
Mobile: 819-593-5983

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Anders Rundgren <
anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2015-05-04 08:20, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>>   "Based in Melbourne, Australia,*iSignthis Ltd [ASX:ISX]*has been
>> granted patents that significantly enhance online payment security and
>> internet identity to assist eCommerce operators meet ever increasing
>> compliance requirements, to combat online fraud and money laundering. Their
>> patent is an easy identification verification service that unlocks the
>> identity from regulated e-payment instruments by using the data and
>> metadata associated with routine electronic transactions.
>> Entities that require customer identification can now use their standard
>> e-payment transactions to provide a basis for anti-money laundering
>> regulation compliance, safeguard against online fraud, whilst also
>> processing payment for their services.
>> According to the company, they are the first to specifically offer
>> identity proofing of persons in conjunction with payment services."
>> Source:
>> http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/whats-happening-share-price-isignthis-ltd/2015/05/04/
> This may be great news for investors but personally I'm skeptical about
> actually making money on patents of this kind.
> In fact, these days I mainly worry that something in my own designs could
> be encumbered since that could lead to legal processes I cannot afford, not
> to mention how unattractive such a solution would be as a foundation for
> standard (de-facto or real).
> Just in case there could be something "innovative" in my work (how can you
> actually know...), I routinely use this free service
> http://www.defensivepublications.org/
> to "destroy" possible IPR as much as possible:
> https://priorart.ip.com/IPCOM/000215433
> IPR considerations are probably one of the major reasons why I believe
> Google, Microsoft and Apple won't engage in the W3C Web Payment
> initiative.  In the end, lawyers are probably the only real winners because
> no matter which side they represent, they can charge ridiculous amounts of
> money.
> Anders



Received on Monday, 4 May 2015 10:18:04 UTC