I would think BBC would do some fact checking. I posted this comment in another blogger's article. [1]<p>"The author's entire premise is off. The recent filing is a continuation of an application filed on Feb 3, 2000 (see patent 6,609,113). So, Chase wasnt taking a 'swipe' at Bitcoin because the original application was filed 13 years ago."<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6878442" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6878442</a>
Bitcoin is continually referred to as "anonymous" in the press, but it is just the opposite [1]. Maybe confusion over what cryptographically secure identification is? Some simple network analysis on the public ledger can reveal a whole lot of "identifying" info ...<p>[1] <a href="http://bitcoin.org/en/faq#is-bitcoin-anonymous" rel="nofollow">http://bitcoin.org/en/faq#is-bitcoin-anonymous</a>
Here is a article I read earlier today talking about how they are basically trying to patent BitCoin's features<p><a href="http://letstalkbitcoin.com/jpmorgan-chase-building-bitcoin-killer/" rel="nofollow">http://letstalkbitcoin.com/jpmorgan-chase-building-bitcoin-k...</a>
Owning anonymity is an attack on privacy. It means if i want to set up a system where people pay for things without being tracked i have to pay the guys who are tracking all purchases.<p>Theoretical full ownership of all anonymous payment processes means consumers cannot own their own behaviors without paying a tax on doing so.<p>If i can hold on to my anonymity i can actually own and even sell my own behaviors. As one example, I could prove to someone that a bitcoin wallet was my own.
Can people read? The patent claims are very distinct from Bitcoin: claim 1 requires 2 institutions with customers at each. Bitcoin has no such institutions.
I guess they are trying to take control of all Bitcoin/digital currency payments by patenting a payment system, and making it as broad as possible.