Please don't use uppercase for emphasis on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No, the main points of these already exists and is called multisig with a copayer being the bank and accepting or denying transaction proposals based on some rules.

So, this is one existing tech combined with another existing tech?

This is something already built.

Risk scores for blockchained-based transactions were already built by someone else? Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Can you please provide a link?

Yes, sure: Sig3 (https://sig3.io) and CryptoCorp (https://cryptocorp.co/). One of my companies work with Sig3.

Huh, never heard of it. Thanks.

It seems that while these patents should not be granted, one should know what's happening in the field to know that these technologies already exist, wouldn't you agree? My original point about "on first glance" and hysteria about "Bank of America PATENTED BLOCKCHAIN" still stands.

Indeed. Perhaps instead of griping, the correct answer is to read the patents and file objections if they are already obvious or patent something already known (especially if in the public domain, like bitcoin).

TITCR

Even if that is true, it hasn't been examined yet and it hasn't issued as a patent. Patent Publications just print whatever someone filed. So, if you wanted to waste money, you could file a patent on the wheel, and 18 months later it would publish as a pre-grant publication. That doesn't grant you a patent to the wheel.

> [The] claims must meet relevant patentability requirements, such as novelty, usefulness, and non-obviousness. (wikipedia)

Novelty may be fulfilled, but like in many software patents, the “non-oblivious” part is really questionable here.

Questionable — agreed. This doesn't make it something that was already implemented.

> This doesn't make it something that was already implemented.

That's exactly my point : because it's already implemented doesn't mean you can register a patent on it. You cannot register “obvious” things, even if nobody uses it already.

I never said that they should be granted these patents. I'm not an expert. It _seemed_ to me that it was new and interesting; now I see how I was wrong about that, yes.

But my main point was that these patents are not obvious bullshit of patenting the blockchain principle itself.