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
invention"
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf

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
fact):

***
_
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/

+1

(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
jpotvin@opman.ca
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
>
>


-- 

<819-593-5983>