[nh]

I would think BBC would do some fact checking. I posted this comment in another blogger's article. [1]

"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."

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6878442

[jasonwatkinspdx]

Patent applications filed before the end of 2000 were not published. You can in effect file a continuation as many times as you like, and rewrite the patent substantially as you do. This leads to a tactic called submarine-ing, where you keep filing continuations on a patent that is repeatedly rejected for being overly broad. Then once a concrete target appears on the horizon, you narrow the patent to cover it before prior art, etc is well established.

It's no longer possible to do this with patent applications filed after the end of 2000 due to reform. The period the patent is in force no longer shifts forward with the continuations. But previous applications were grandfathered in.

[ripberge]

The author's premise is not off because it's a continuation of an existing patent. My company does the same thing because its much easier to get a continuation through the patent office than a whole new patent (which will take several years). Shockingly the continuation doesn't even have to be that closely related to the original patent in my experience. So if we have an idea even remotely related we just do a continuation.