Judicial Problem: Defending Free Speech Is More Likely When Justices Agree With The Speech

Western Union Gets A Patent On An Exchange For 'Alternative Currencies'

from the because-moneychanging-is-a-new-concept? dept

Wed, May 7th 2014 3:34pm — Mike Masnick

Remember how the USPTO isn't supposed to be granting patents on "abstract ideas" like escrow services or payment settlements? Right, so it appears that on April 1st (yes, April Fool's Day) of this year, the US Patent Office granted Western Union a patent on an exchange for "alternative currencies." The patent (8,688,563) is technically for "Alternative value exchange systems and methods." And while it was filed in October 2009 -- nearly a year after the original Bitcoin paper -- it was before people were really talking about Bitcoin. So the filing doesn't mention Bitcoin, but does mention many of the more popular digital currencies that came before it (mostly from online games) as well as local currencies which have become increasingly popular as well:

There are many different types of alternative currencies (herein also “alternative forms of value” or simply “alternative value”), each currency representing what the community holds valuable (e.g. time, labor/skill, goods/services, etc.). Alternative currencies currently in use include: “LindenDollars”—Second Life; Amazon.com's “Quest Gold”; World of Warcraft's (WoW) virtual “Gold”; Ithaca Hours (Ithaca, N.Y.); Carbon credits; regional currencies in Germany; “Dotz” (Brazil); Tradebank “Credits” (Construction-centric barter network); “Lassobucks” (Time/Skillset currency); Maha Vitaran—Indian power utility barters with other utilities for power; “Bartercard”—Loaded with goods & services (not cash), used in exchange for other goods & services. Many others are planned or currently in development.

But here's the problem: exchanging currencies is not a particularly new idea. In fact, it's a very, very old idea. If you read the actual claims of the patent, they're basically describing the same abstract idea of any currency exchange platform -- having people offer to exchange currency, determining the values of the different currencies, and determining at what "price" to do the exchange.

It's unclear exactly what Western Union will do with the patent -- the company itself has mocked Bitcoin -- but it does remind us that there's likely to be a growing number of patent battles in the Bitcoin space before too long. eBay has also received some attention for seeking a patent on a Bitcoin currency exchanger -- but that's still an application that has yet to be approved. Still, there are a lot of others rushing in to patent aspects of Bitcoin, and I imagine it's only a matter of time until some entity, having nothing to do with Bitcoin, seeks to claim key aspects of Bitcoin as its "intellectual property."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: alternative currencies, bitcoin, currency exchange, patents
Companies: western union

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

RD, 7 May 2014 @ 3:54pm

Ah, yes
Ah, yes, the ever-popular "file a patent on an existing process but at 'on the internet' to it" game.

Remind me again why our USPTO keeps giving these out when they are a) obvious and b) have plenty of prior art?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2014 @ 4:02pm
  
  Re: Ah, yes
  Why do you think first to file came out?
  
  Just another step towards getting prior art eliminated.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mason Wheeler (profile), 7 May 2014 @ 4:16pm
  
  Re: Ah, yes
  Anyone else find it odd that, around here, taking an existing, well-understood concept, adding "on the Internet," and attempting to patent it is denounced as non-innovative and harmful, but taking an existing, well-understood business model (such as running taxicabs or hotels) and adding "on the Internet" is praised as innovative and disruptive and must be a good thing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FauxReal (profile), 7 May 2014 @ 4:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Ah, yes
    Actually doing it is innovative from a service perspective. The idea of doing it or using the Internet to organize it is not.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2014 @ 4:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Ah, yes
    I do not recall any cheer leading here on TD for any patents claimed upon the "taking an existing, well-understood business model (such as running taxicabs or hotels) and adding on the Internet".
    
    Perhaps you could refresh my memory since you think it is something denoting a hypocritical posture with respect to the aforementioned "aking an existing, well-understood concept, adding on the Internet, and attempting to patent it".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2014 @ 4:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ah, yes
      Those were business models not patents. That is the difference.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2014 @ 6:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah, yes
        Yes, the implementation was applauded, not any patents thereof.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2014 @ 5:09pm
    
    Re: Re: Ah, yes
    The innovation you speak of is when someone actually makes it work in practice. It's not so innovative to write it up as a theory on paper so that they can charge others who actually make it work in practice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 7 May 2014 @ 5:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Ah, yes
    Anyone else find it odd that, around here, taking an existing, well-understood concept, adding "on the Internet," and attempting to patent it is denounced as non-innovative and harmful, but taking an existing, well-understood business model (such as running taxicabs or hotels) and adding "on the Internet" is praised as innovative and disruptive and must be a good thing?
    
    You're confusing a few different issues, starting with the difference between innovation and invention. Invention is coming up with something new. Innovation is putting something into practice in a way that people find useful.
    
    We support innovation wherever possible. Our problem is with patents that hold back innovation by assuming that the idea is the valuable part, and thus a monopoly can be given based on the idea.
    
    Companies that are actually doing things that are making the world a better overall place are innovating. Companies (or individuals) who are getting a patent on a concept and doing nothing with other than blocking others... are not.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2014 @ 7:09pm
    
    Re: Re: Ah, yes
    Taking something old and offering it on the Internet maybe a good idea. Getting a patent on it is not a good thing (at least not for anyone other than the patent holder. Patents should serve the public good).
    
    Politicians limiting competition in the hotel and taxi cab industry in exchange for personal gain is a bad thing. Competition in these markets would be a good thing. Are you against competition? Do you agree that politicians should stop limiting competition? Or are you saying that governments limiting competition is a good thing?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2014 @ 4:50am
    
    Re: Re: Ah, yes
    Cause they didn't patent it afaik.
    
    Feed the trolls!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 7 May 2014 @ 4:05pm

Competence
Because why would anyone with a modicum of confidence want to work at the patent office?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
avideogameplayer, 7 May 2014 @ 4:07pm

Another reason not to mess with untested crypto-currencies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2014 @ 4:07pm

Patents=Innovation?
OK, can someone explain to me exactly what sort of innovation is supposed to have been done by Western Union here? Because that patent basically just says "a dozen or so companies were already doing this, so we should get exclusive rights to it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2014 @ 6:20pm
  
  Re: Patents=Innovation?
  trading currency where currency value is determined by community vs
  trading money where money is determined by issuing authority
  
  never mind that community is an issuing authority
  
  It's the difference between trading apples for oranges and trading apples for oranges. Only the patent office understands the context and difference.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2014 @ 4:23pm

Who the hell passed this patent from the Patent Office? I want him outed and public shamed. Does he live in a cave passing patents from it? How can he award this patent, when there's a TON of prior art out there, IN-USE today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2014 @ 4:51pm
  
  Re:
  Can you spell Conflict Of Interest?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2014 @ 5:54pm
  
  Re:
  Patents are a form of law. Each patent has the effect of law and is, for all practical purposes, a governmental law. If those approving patents are anonymous what we effectively have here are a bunch of unelected, anonymous, people writing and/or approving our laws. So I agree, in the interests of democracy, the personal identity of who approved each patent should be made publicly available. We have a right to know who writes each law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2014 @ 6:07pm

Would work for food......
But the homeless don't have the money to pay the patent licensing fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 8 May 2014 @ 6:42am
  
  Re: Would work for food......
  *Cough*Monsanto*coughcough**hack**cough*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger Strong (profile), 7 May 2014 @ 8:12pm

Almost there:
Western Union is the go-to company for combining Nigerian scams and grandmother phone scams with currency exchange.

Add "alternative currencies" to this mix, and they have something innovative and patentable that they can call their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 8 May 2014 @ 2:53am

At least bitcoin is open which will make it much more difficult to bring it down. And I'm betting there are some that are profiting from that market that will weight in if there's a lawsuit with the required financial resources.

That said, the patent is fairly weak. The issue here is that it will have to be contested in the courts. And this can be very expensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 8 May 2014 @ 8:31am

Am I in violation of this patent if I buy clams with US dollars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]