Thank you for the detailed explanation! ☺


On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:25 AM ZmnSCPxj <> wrote:

> Good morning Praveen,
> The patent system, has intent, that the inventor will completely reveal
> the design of the invention, in exchange for a (time-bound) state monopoly
> on the construction and sale of the invention.  The intent, is that the
> inventor is compensated for the toil in creating the invention, while the
> revealed design may help future inventors to consider, an improved
> designed, after the granted monopoly has ended.
> Thus, the patent system, has the concept, "prior art".
> If the item being patented, is in the past ("prior") already known among
> practitioners ("art"), then there is no need for the state to "pay for"
> revealing the design by granting a monopoly.  Already, the design is
> revealed and known, so why should the state pay the inventor with a
> state-enforced monopoly?
> Importantly, any evidence, that the design of the invention is known, is
> prior art. This includes publications made by the inventor himself or
> herself.  It is prior art since the fact of publication indicates that
> other practitioners now know of the art of the new design.
> Another consideration, is the "grace period".
> An inventor may publish, the design of the invention, at some past point,
> and then file for a patent afterward.  However, the fact of the
> publication, even initiated by the inventor, is itself prior art, and is
> evidence that the invention is known (and that the state must, logically,
> not pay for it by enforcing a patent-backed monopoly).
> Of course, an inventor may publish an invention with intent to patent it
> later. Thus, the state allows, a grace period, after the inventor publishes
> the design, to patent the design. Importantly, this grace period is not of
> unlimited duration.  The de facto global state government, the USA,
> provides a grace period of 1 year only.
> For reference, the Poon-Dryja whitepaper for Lightning was published in
> 2016, and the current year is now known to be 2018.
> As the current Lightning design is designed publicly and continuously
> published in the lightning-rfc (thus a continuous evidence that the design
> of Lightning is already known), and is in any case based on the prior-art
> Poon-Dryja paper, and neither Poon nor Dryja have applied for patents of
> the Lightning design within a year of publication of the Poon-Dryja paper,
> then the state will not bother to grant a patent to the inventors of
> Lightning.
> (the above describes the ideal operation of patent systems. it should be
> noted, that agents operating patent systems are known to run on cognitive
> substrates that are highly amenable to external corrupting influences, and
> thus non-ideal operation may occur in practice.)
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
> Sent with ProtonMail <> Secure Email.
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On June 22, 2018 11:21 PM, Praveen Baratam <>
> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> I just heard from a friend that Second Level Protocols such as Lightening
> Network can be patented if the author/inventor chooses to!
> Is it possible? Am I missing something?
> Best,
> Praveen Baratam
> <>
> ᐧ

Dr. Praveen Baratam <>
Lightning-dev mailing list

Reply via email to