Intellectual Property and the Blockchain Sector, a World of Potential Economic Growth and Conflict

Abstract

This chapter reviews intellectual property (IP) concepts and developments whose outcomes impact the intellectual ownership of key aspects of blockchain technology. The players include governments, legislators, and law makers attempting to make sense of an opaque, impenetrable, and baffling technological and social environment where myth and reality blend. The interested parties are, on the one hand, the IP owners of blockchain-related technological developments and, on the other hand, late comers hoping to deny these rights to use the technology for free. At stake, there are billions of US dollars and the real capacity for a new industrial revolution. In the background, there is a world of spectators with an extremely unequal understanding of the technology. The chapter covers three general areas: an overview of blockchain technology, the use of blockchain technology for the management of IP rights and other intellectual property, and the situation of Intellectual Property rights in the blockchain sector. Focusing on specific developments, the author delves in what is at stake and its economic implications.

1. Introduction

1.1 A looming crisis for a brand-new economy

Web3 [1] represents a new generation of the World Wide Web. It is an umbrella term covering the technological and commercial innovations derived from blockchain. Web3 represents a paradigm shift that will revolutionize commerce with as much impact as the internet had itself. But, with great change comes great risk. Hence, Web3’s potential for disruption in several domains including the area of intellectual property (IP) rights covered in this chapter.

IP rights are proven by patents or demonstrations of intimate subject knowledge only the creator would have. But contrary to what happens in traditional industrial settings, this is a viewpoint not respected in the current Web3 environment. Thus, rights and protections that are usually expected in other realms of the economy do not exist for Web3, turning this domain of “rights” into a territory for future conflict.

In this chapter, after a brief history and explanation of blockchain technology development, we give an overview of its current developmental stage and warn that the lack of awareness about IP protection in blockchain technologies bodes ill for this nascent industry.

1.2 A brief history of blockchain development

The first successful implementation of the blockchain was the bitcoin blockchain whose protocol was presented by its inventor, the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto, in his momentous 2008 white paper: “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” [2]. The purpose of this blockchain was to initiate a peer-to-peer electronic cash transaction system that would allow for transfers of electronic cash representing nanopayments. These payments would support asset exchanges, say for example purchases, “bitcoin” being the currency (or “cryptocurrency”) and Bitcoin the underlying blockchain structure.

Bitcoin was designed on the back of failed attempts at creating electronic cash [3, 4] as well earlier blockchain versions [5, 6, 7, 8, 9] and multiple other developments [10] in the areas of cryptography and digital signatures. Thus, the enduring success of bitcoin attests to its efficacy: Nakamoto got the design right by making choices that would protect the integrity of the blockchain and would allow it to scale.

Following this accomplishment, many “copycat” cryptocurrencies were launched by making large or small variations on the original bitcoin design. In addition to those, others pretended to have equivalent or comparable constructs, while there were just merely empty shells. However, since these slow and tentative beginnings, a strong and burgeoning multibillion market has grown around these protocols. Clearly, despite the well-known volatility of cryptocurrency prices, blockchain technology itself is here to stay. And this evidence leads to two observations:

1. the successful industrial or business use of blockchain technology is not understood nor valued correctly by the exchange markets, and

2. prices at these exchanges do not reflect the potential for value creation of the various blockchain technologies; rather, these prices result from speculative activities of various parties.

However, even if the specialized press approaches volatility at crypto exchanges with regular financial markets lingo, and even though the average investor cannot tell apart the relevance of the workings of critical components within the blockchains, key actors do understand there lies a world of intellectual property rights underlying the technical trading jargon and personal alignment with logos and cryptospace personalities. Thus, it is informative to review some key aspects of how the technology works, especially its lesser publicly known and most value-adding underappreciated features. Hence, in the next section, we provide a brief explanation using bitcoin as the primary exemplar.

1.3 Overview of blockchain technology

Rather than “electronic cash” a better (though still imperfect) analogy for bitcoin is “electronic gold.” Like gold, bitcoin’s value is not underpinned by a central authority such as a central bank. Also, like gold bitcoin has a fixed supply of 21,000,000 and needs work (mining) to extract it. The meaning of this is that to access and use the “specific” coins, work needs to be performed. In this later pursuit, Bitcoin is maintained by a network of independent, self-interested node operators that can join or leave the network at any time, without affecting its operation.

Node operators that contribute directly to the network’s security and integrity (known as “miners”) are incentivized to deploy their processing power via rewards paid in bitcoins. To earn these rewards, miners need to validate proposed transactions and then win a competition against other miners for the right to add a block containing transactions to the end of the blockchain. The miners compete in a sort of “mathematical lottery” in which their chance of winning (and hence their long-term income) is roughly proportional to their processing power. This is the proof of work (PoW).

The “mining” feature of bitcoin has been much maligned because of the amounts of electricity it consumes. This has led to some inaccurate and misguided conclusions, as well as to blockchains naively modifying or eliminating mining as a feature of their system. However, what is poorly understood in general is that mining is intrinsic to bitcoin’s viability. Consider when bitcoin was first created its value was negligible and it remained low for a long period. Those were the days when enthusiasts could run bitcoin mining operations on their laptop computers. It is no coincidence that mining bitcoin is now costly and its value high. These two factors are not exactly time-correlated, but they are interdependent: mining operations are expensive because bitcoin’s value is high and to a certain extent the reverse is also true: the high cost of mining imbues bitcoin with value.

Furthermore, it is precisely the high cost of mining that provides bitcoin’s security. These aspects (or rather their lack in other blockchains) explain why many other cryptocurrencies have been successfully attacked [11]. A second matter usually ignored is that blockchain will replace a large portion of a much more energy-consuming legacy technology. That is the reason block size and the ability to scale are keys to blockchain technology: the energy needed per transaction decreases exponentially with block size.

The industrial value of bitcoin depends on its ability to perform its function as described in the protocol. Given PoW is a cornerstone of the mechanism that ensures the blockchain’s integrity, the consequences of tampering with the mining feature of blockchains exposes the danger of allowing lax protection within the industry. A “free-for-all environment” facilitates slipshod practices and causes severe damage, such as financial losses and lack of trust in the sector. Though this is true in any unprotected industry, it would be exacerbated for blockchain because delivering on its promises (immutability of the records, etc.) is the key of its survival.

Bitcoin has been called “programmable money” due to its inbuilt programming language (bitcoin script or BScript). One can only imagine the havoc a naïve development community could wreak with such powerful but narrowly understood tools at their disposal. On the other hand, the owners of blockchain IP, who have expended effort on R&D and gained unique expertise, are the best placed to fruitfully and safely utilize its deep potential.

2. Intellectual property and the blockchain

Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind which include a wide range of activities such as:

1. Industrial property which encompasses patents for inventions, industrial designs, trademarks, and geographical indications, and

2. Copyright and related rights which include literary, artistic, and scientific works.

IP rights are proven by patents or demonstrations of intimate subject knowledge only the creator would have. Legally, a patent, a type of document and a form of intellectual property right [12], allows its owner to exclude others from commercially profiting from the protected invention in the region protected by the patent for a given period (usually 20 years). The rights covered by IP laws help owners benefit from their “intellectual property’ giving them income over the use of their patented products, as well as some control over how their property is used. Given the well-being of humanity depends on its capacity to better its condition, technological progress requires these creative actions, their development, and their use. Thus, using intellectual property right laws which shelter these efforts is vital for growth.

2.1 The use of blockchain in the IP enforcement sector

A blockchain such as Bitcoin functions as a database that keeps unaltered records of data in “distributed digital ledgers.” This means that the data lodged in the blocks cannot be changed or eliminated, and that the databases are duplicated n-times to be distributed among the n-nodes in the given network.

Given the transactions are verified and validated by as many computers as they volunteer to be in the network at any given time, this crowdsourcing oversight contributes to the integrity of the ledger and replaces the need for any central authority. In other words, in this type of “public” blockchain, and considering the PoW threshold, no cyberattack could strike all copies of the ledger simultaneously to replace the true ledger.

A consequence of having the information distributed is that there is not “single point of failure,” meaning that a hacker could not bring down the network by attacking a single point. The lack of a “central storage” is a key valuable differentiator from legacy systems and the reason why distributed ledger technology (DLT) offers many advantages for IP registration, protection, and as evidence at a registry or in a court-of-law.

A helpful representation of the blockchain can be to think of it as a series of consecutive boxes containing the information of a “system” and the “service” that such system provides [13]. The operations compiled within the blocks could be orders to transfer bitcoins, or “smart contracts”: application and execution orders. The blockchain grows joining blocks of successive data, representing later evidence. Thus, for instance, to reverse an action, a new action in the opposite direction would have to be initiated and, to reflect this latter change, all nodes have to be updated. Hence, the length of the chain is determined by the successive blocks added after the network running a consensus protocol certifies the validity of the transactions in the said blocks.

The process that ensures the functionality of the blockchain is material because this innovation is solely endorsed by its real-life use cases, such as the protection of intellectual property. Figure 1 shows the Bitcoin time-stamping process. This process attests to a time when an event happened, which defines its capacity to be effective in protecting intellectual property rights [14, 15].

Figure 1.

Time stamp and blockchain structure. Source: The author.

This figure shows the process transactions follow in the Bitcoin protocol. Here, we can see how the hash of each event (the transaction) is included in each block. The block of these hashes also includes a stamp, attesting to the timing when an event happened. Given the transaction can represent any event, say when a brand was first publicly used, this time stamp is instrumental in effectively protecting intellectual property rights.

Since DLT creates a secure, time-stamped, immutable chain of information, it is perfectly fit to applications in tracing of processes. This fact has not gone unnoticed, and different governmental agencies and IP registries such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) are looking into the blockchain as a potential tool for IP management. The idea would be to turn IP offices into “smart IP registrars” so that these offices become accountable as an authority that creates “immutable records” of the events in the life of registered IP rights. For instance, they would be responsible for registering the first time a trademark is applied for, when it was first used in trade, and so on.

Documenting IP rights in a distributed ledger instead of the legacy database would ease IP identification, storage, and evidence furnishing. And the capacity to trail the entire life cycle of a right would provide numerous additional benefits, such as the ability to provide better services, the ease of audits, the simplification of due diligence processes, improved confidentiality, and so on.

With respect to use cases, the potential to use blockchain technology for the management of IP rights is vast as the use of blockchain technology in IP management would greatly improve efficiencies and effectiveness in numerous areas. Here, we review the key categories:

2.1.1 Evidence of creatorship/proof-of-ownership

The growth of the digitalization industry and 4.0 technologies demands a system for providing proof of ownership of intellectual assets. And Blockchain could be just the right technology for registering and verifying the ownership of IP works. Figure 2 summarizes three aspects of proof of ownership IP.

Figure 2.

Three Aspects of Proof of Ownership IP. Source: The author.

With respect to patents, if the creator and owner of an invention wishes to secure her rights, she can go to a patent office and register her IP. Nonetheless, if it is a copyright, the creator would have to generate its own evidence as the weight of proof of ownership in this scenario falls on her. In this internet era, anyone can download already created content and use it; thus, exercising the copyright has become very challenging. This observation finds a clear example in the current legal dispute between Craig S. Wright, alias Satoshi Nakamoto the inventor of Bitcoin, and the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), a US-based group of software developers which took his original Bitcoin protocol and modified it while keeping the brand name. We cover some aspects of this dispute in the next section.

The Bitcoin protocol can be used to assess IP ownership. This figure covers three aspects of proof of ownership. Clockwise, the first on the right refers to the antecedents of the asset. Given the blockchain provides an indelible record, it can be used to list “original” products so they can be differentiated from counterfeit ones. The second refers to using the blockchain to certificate IP ownership. For example, by hashing an event such as the patent. The last refers to using blockchain technology to dispute a later claim. This can be done by showing the time stamp of an earlier claim.

Using the blockchain in the proof of owners is already happening as some companies have begun to develop a system that provides blockchain-based time-stamping and validation for the safeguarding of digital assets [16].

2.1.2 Enabling the IP marketplace

Blockchain can be adopted as an IP marketplace where creators list their inventions as ledgers with brief descriptions. This marketplace could then be used to find potential licensees for related know-how of the inventions. For an illustration; see Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Enabling the IP Marketplace. Source: The author.

This figure explains how blockchain technology can be used to enable the IP market place.

2.1.3 Evidence of use of IP rights

Given the realities of a globalizing economy to procure protection, IP law and practice has to involve national and international laws. Patent data are publicly accessible through the patenting process. Nonetheless, these data are distributed through the pertinent national and international authorities which operate at varying degrees of efficiency following different policies. Thus, working with global patent data is cumbersome and intricate. This is one of the reasons that the blockchain is proposed as an ideal technology to ease the creation of an ownership record that would be used to track ownership status and the use of rights.

In this case, one single ownership record would help IP right owners assess the extent to which their rights are used. For instance, each time a trademark is used, this action could be registered in the blockchain to notify in real time the responsible IP office. This is efficient and reliable process, and the record generated by it would provide solid, time-stamped evidence of the usage of the trademark throughout its whole life.

2.1.4 Provenance, anti-counterfeiting, and enforcement of IP rights

Ledger technology could also help assess provenance authentication by using the blockchain records containing authorized licensee and ownership data, given these record “objectively verifiable details” about the products. Hence, everyone in the supply chain, including consumers and customs, could substantiate a genuine product and differentiate it from a fake one.

2.1.5 Supply chain management

Relatedly, tracking goods on an immutable blockchain can assist brand owners to enforce their contractual rights as well as help identify parallel imports or gray-market activity. This would be of particular relevance in the distribution of products that need to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the pharmaceutical industry.

2.1.6 Smart contracts and digital rights management

In the context of blockchain, a smart contract is a computer program that gets executed automatically whenever a set of predetermined conditions is met. Thus, in the process to secure IP rights, these contracts could facilitate the execution of different actions such as checking the assignment and validity of a patent, negotiating an agreement, executing and paying for a transaction, and informing all interested parties of such transaction. Hence, in IP rights management, smart contracts could be used to establish and enforce private IP agreements such as licenses, the automatic start of contracts including contents such as music and pictures, and to ease and speed the transfer of payments to IP owners. These aspects are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Smart contracts in the IP space. Source: The author.

This figure shows different uses of smart contracts in the IP space.

2.1.7 Blockchain for version-control in IP of the assets

As patents, copyrights, etc., evolve throughout their lifetime, digital assets produce multiple versions of themselves. Therefore, another use of blockchain technology is to link these versions in a sort of “end-to-end” life cycle maintenance of the asset. For instance, currently defensive publications are used to set a precedent and prevent the patenting of innovations by publicly disclosing the asset at an earlier date. The Blockchain could serve the same function by giving each file a unique fingerprint, removing duplications, versioning each upload, and indexing, so the information is easily tractable.

2.1.8 Blockchain for unifying global patent/IP system

In the IP sector, another major function for the Blockchain is to unify the patent system across different geographical areas. This could vastly improve the effectiveness of IP management, speed up the innovation process in companies, and champion the distribution of information via the ledger.

In this path, some legislations and patent offices started to accept the blockchain as “admissible evidence.” Below, there is a partial list of scenarios where courts and jurisdictions have considered blockchain as a “proof of evidence under electronic evidences” and where the legislative has ruled to include the technology as valid part of contractual processes.

• Vermont, USA (2016)

  In 2016, Vermont passed legislation declaring that blockchain receipts accompanied by a written declaration of a person attesting to the details of the transaction are admissible. Under 12 V.S.A. §1913, blockchain receipts are also presumed to be authentic pursuant to Vermont Rules of Evidence [17, 18]. This law has already made use of the technology by making blockchain records admissible in court.

• Delaware, USA (2017).

  Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) §224 was amended to allow organizations to maintain business records using “distributed electronic networks or databases.” [19, 20].

• Arizona, USA (2018)

  Arizona HB 2417 amended its Electronic Transaction Act to include blockchain records, signatures, and smart contracts, which “may not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability [21].”

quote

44-7061. Signatures and records secured through blockchain technology; smart contracts; ownership of information; definitions.

1. A signature that is secured through blockchain technology is considered to be in an electronic form and to be an electronic signature.

2. A record or contract that is secured through blockchain technology is considered to be in an electronic form and to be an electronic record.

3. Smart contracts may exist in commerce. A contract relating to a transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because that contract contains a smart contract term.

4. Notwithstanding any other law, a person that, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, uses blockchain technology to secure information that the person owns or has the right to use retains the same rights of ownership or use with respect to that information as before the person secured the information using blockchain technology. This subsection does not apply to the use of blockchain technology to secure information in connection with a transaction to the extent that the terms of the transaction expressly provide for the transfer of rights of ownership or use with respect to that information.

5. For the purposes of this section:

   1. “Blockchain technology” means distributed ledger technology that uses a distributed, decentralized, shared, and replicated ledger, which may be public or private, permissioned or permissionless, or driven by tokenized crypto economics. The data on the ledger is protected with cryptography, is immutable and auditable, and provides an uncensored truth.

   2. “Smart contract” means an event-driven program, with state, that runs on a distributed, decentralized, shared, and replicated ledger and that can take custody over and instruct transfer of assets on that ledger.

Unquote

These actions were followed by equivalent changes in Ohio:

• Ohio, USA (2018)

  Ohio, (2018) passed equivalent legislation [22] when the SB300 amended sections of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) were made effective to include blockchain records and smart contracts as electronic records. This change implied the recognition of smart contracts and records stored on blockchain electronic records. The bill also allowed for smart contracts to be as legally enforceable as just any other contract would be, removing doubts as to the enforceability of electronic signatures, records, and contracts that are secured through blockchain technology.

  In addition to establishing the legal equivalence of electronic signatures and records with those manually signed and with paper records, UETA’s removed barriers to electronic commerce and technological advances in the use of electronic records, contracts, and signatures. Under UETA Section 1306.01, an electronic signature is an electronic process logically associated with a record that is executed or adopted with an intent to sign. The amendment: “A signature that is secured through blockchain technology is considered to be in an electronic form and to be an electronic signature.” UETA also requires an electronic record be shareable and retrievable and spells out that blockchain technology can be such an electronic record: “A record or contract that is secured through blockchain technology is considered to be in an electronic form and to be an electronic record.”

  The above steps were taken as the Franklin County Auditor’s Office planned to be the first to use blockchain technology to transfer property deeds [23]. That is, to transfer all property records via the blockchain in a digitalized process where all the parties interact remotely, and buyer, seller, bank, appraiser, and title company complete the sale of a home.

• Wyoming, USA (2018)

  In 2018, Wyoming state legislature cleared House Bill 70 (HB 70 [24]) to provide guidelines on how to account for utility tokens used in the exchanged for goods and services and which had not been promoted earlier as investments. HB 70 recognized utility tokens (also called “open blockchain token”) as a distinct asset class different from a security and money if these conditions are met:

  1. The protocol developers have not promoted the token as an investment opportunity.

  2. The token can be used to exchange goods or services.

  3. The protocol developer has not entered into a repurchase agreement or has agreed to locate buyers for the token.

  4. People who facilitate their exchange are not the usual broker-dealers of securities.

But HB 70 was just one among four other blockchain-related bills: HB 19, HB 101, HB 126, and SF 111:

1. HB 19 [25] exempted various types of crypto assets from the Wyoming Money Transmitter Act. This is meaningful as a 2015 interpretation of this Act by the Wyoming Division of Banking had made it impractical for cryptocurrency exchange markets to operate in the state.

2. HB 101 [26], the “blockchain filings bill,” updated the Wyoming’s Business Corporations Act to authorize corporations to create and use blockchains to store and maintain records, to use an databases or electronic network address to identify a corporation’s shareholder, and to accept shareholder votes signed by network signatures if tied to a given data address. In essence, this bill specified the requirements for corporations using electronic networks or blockchain databases.

3. HB 126 [27] authorized limited liability companies (LLCs) to establishing a series of provisions that resulted in a structure favorable to decentralized protocols. This is because it enabled LLCs to establish a compartmentalized series of members/managers, specifying powers, and transferable interests or assets, and distributions to members while providing for limitations on liabilities, and so on.

4. SF 111 [28] exempted cryptocurrencies from property taxes creating a crypto-friendly environment [29].

• Vermont, USA (2018)

  In 2018, Vermont also passed a law establishing “blockchain-based limited liability companies” and “a personal information protection company.” The former type of entity was geared to entrepreneurs and companies that wished to prioritize governance structures tailored to the technology [30]. The latter was tasked with guarding consumers’ data, in contrast to selling or sharing it as is the case in many social media companies and websites.

• California, USA (2018)

  In 2018, California passed AB2658 [31], an Act to add and repeal Sections 11546.8 and 11546.9 of the Government Code, relating to blockchain technology. The key intent was to modify the aspect of the “Uniform Electronic Transactions Act” which denied “legal effect or enforceability” to an agreement, contract, or record in electronic format or because an “electronic record was used in its formation.” Among other things, the Act provides that if a law requires a record to be in writing, or if a law requires a signature, an electronic record or signature satisfies the law.

• Hangzhou, China (2018)

  In 2018, the Internet Court in China accepted “blockchain-authenticated evidence” in a case in which the litigant hired a third-party blockchain deposition service to retrieve evidence for the copyright infringement case being heard [32]. The plaintiff hired a firm named Baoquan.com to capture the evidence and then photographed the defendant’s webpages to demonstrate copyright infringement. The court was able to confirm the file downloaded from Baoquan.com was intact. This judgment relied on a process that used data received from the platform: the pictures, source code of the webpage, invocation log, all were obtained and packed in a “package file,” and its hash value was obtained and uploaded to the blockchain. This showed the original package file was not compromised as the hash of the downloaded package file could be contrasted with the one stored on the blockchain.

  This rule was confirmed and expanded to all Internet courts by September, after the publication of the Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts. This text confirms that.

  Quote

  [] provided the right procedures have been followed: if collected through electronic signature, trusted time-stamping, hash value verification, blockchain, and other evidence collection, and verified with retention and tamper-proof technical means or via the electronic forensics and deposit platform, which are able to prove its authenticity [] the Court will corroborate this authenticity.

  Unquote

  An interesting aspect of this ruling is that it compels to realize a global analysis of the blockchain evidence, with emphasis on the source.

• Supreme Court, India (2018)

In India, the Supreme Court clarified its position with respect to “enforcement and jurisdiction” in relation to transactions over a blockchain network. Here, Section 65B (Admissibility of electronic records) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [33] was reviewed, and a number of considerations were highlighted of vital importance [34]. Its conclusions cleared the air with respect to admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record under the Evidence Act, both in the context of criminal and civil cases.

2.2 Regulatory challenges of blockchain applications in the IP ecosystem

The key characteristics of standard the blockchain may secure a significant role for this technology when considering its use in the field of IP protection. Accountability, security, transparency, decentralization, and the immutable nature of Blockchain are all essential and complementary to other features such as tokenization, smart contracts, automation and Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI). However, the Blockchain is still at the stage of technological development, and this may announce more evolved applications in the future. For now, there are also multiple challenges with respect to blockchain applications in the IP ecosystem, in particular regulatory uncertainty.

For instance, there are no single straight answers about the regulation of some features and applications of blockchain technology that are new to the legal system. In addition, there is no unification of criteria across the multi-jurisdictional character of blockchain networks. Furthermore, legal uncertainty is multidimensional because many aspects are governed by a plethora of fields (data protection, of contract law, procedural law, law enforcement, etc.) rather than just IP-related legislation. Examples of legal uncertainty include issues related to pseudonymity/anonymity, the absence of a central authority, data protection, valuation, or smart contracts and tokens.

In addition, legal uncertainty has important implications for the development and adoption of the technology. An obvious one is that public authorities might be reluctant to promote blockchain solutions. Also, entrepreneurs might hold back from starting blockchain projects. Last, promoters can encounter multiple obstacles when designing their solutions, particularly when these become connected to the multidimensional geographically diversified legal aspects.

3. Intellectual property and Nakamoto’s 2008 protocol, a use case for the blockchain sector

As argued in the previous section, there is a general consensus that IP protection can be improved with the help of blockchain technology. However, even though IP laws protect the interests of the creators and some legal harmonization efforts are taking place, a series of hurdles such as historical lack of adequate information transmission have prevented the development of a more organized legal-enforcement environment.

In time, newly updated IP laws which take into account the specific circumstances of an electronic environment will be perfectly fit to balance out the rights and interests of inventors and users, and of businesses and their competitors. However, until these get sorted out, the historical, technical, and legal complexity of the blockchain sector, will affect its growth and the spectrum of its own applicability. And, these are not the only sources of conflict. In a global digital world that is interconnected in real time, the protection of intellectual property, its management, and monetization is extremely challenging. One key reason is that this type of ownership can be easily copied, stolen, misused, and misappropriated. To resolve these matters is critical because global, worldwide technological progress depends on the protection of intellectual property, and hence the recognition of the competing interests among creators and between the latter and the users.

Specifically, with respect to the distributed ledger, the promise of blockchain technology became a reality following the success of Bitcoin [35]. Thereafter, many creators built upon this protocol to present patent applications for blockchain-related inventions. Some of these later blockchains, claimed methods of improving upon or using the original blockchain, and these activities split the interests of the creators and users between those who do not recognize the property of intellectual rights which protect a number of aspects of Nakamoto’s invention, and those who do.

In this context, the resolution of some legal disputes, including one between the inventor of Bitcoin: Dr. Craig S. Wright, alias Satoshi Nakamoto, and a US-based group of software developers organized under the name of the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), will clarify of the landscape.

3.1 A brief history of the blockchain environment after Bitcoin’s 2009 release

In 2008, the bitcoin protocol was made public by Satoshi Nakamoto. Early 2009, the software was released. Thereafter, these documents underwent a series of modifications enabled by the open-source nature of the software. While Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision (ticker symbol BSV) maintains the original protocol, the following are some of the modifications developed over time:

3.2 Bitcoin (ticker symbol BTC)

BTC imposed a 1 MB block-size restriction, capping BTC’s throughput. An ensuing change was also adopted: Segregated Witness (SegWit); a solution by which transaction data and signatures split making room for more transactions in the small 1 MB block. The limited block capacity resulted in network congestion and impractically high transaction fees, but the throughput limitation was used as an excuse to create “sidechains” for transaction processing (i.e., Lightning [36]), while BTC was kept mainly as the settlement layer. These enumerated here, are a few among other modifications.

3.3 Bitcoin Cash (ticker symbol BCH)

As a response to BTC’s block-size limitation, in August 2017, BCH [37] was born to enable some “on-chain” scalability by multiplying the block size by 32.

3.4 Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (ticker symbol BSV)

Later in November 2018, some BCH proponents deleted block size restrictions and created BSV.

This group also reinstated BScript keywords that had been inoperative due to the actions of some BTC core developers and eliminated the ones that replaced these. De facto, these and other adjustments aligned the BSV blockchain with the original 2008 Nakamoto protocol.

The said modifications can be considered “forks”: new projects derived from an earlier Bitcoin codebase and blockchain record of transactions. That is, forks occur when a group of individuals chose to establish a new set of rules for, say, Bitcoin. When a group imposes new rules only accepting blocks that follow these, the Bitcoin blockchain (any blockchain) will be split into separate and incompatible projects. Miners and nodes working under the prior governance will only add blocks valid in the earlier framework, ignoring those following the change, while those in accordance with the new rules will accept blocks that follow these. After a fork, what was the one Bitcoin blockchain is now split into two separate and incompatible projects.

In the above-mentioned cases, several facts should be obvious:

1. They all use the Bitcoin name brand to identify themselves

2. The one which acts according to the original protocol is ticker symbol BSV [38]

3. B y forking into subsequent brands the developers responsible for the changes, keep using properties of the earlier ones.

The implication and realization are that the only blockchain working within the 2008 Whitepaper Bitcoin protocol is BSV. The reason is that Nakamoto’s white paper: “Bitcoin: A peer to peer electronic cash system [39]” sets a number of conditions the block needs to fulfill:

1. it abides with coin ownership, scarcity, transaction format, script-language execution rules, and double-spend rules, and.

2. it must use the proof-of-work (PoW) consensus algorithm to add blocks to the chain.

The described situation presents a conundrum:

1. Can new projects following different rules (e.g., change in script, block size, consensus algorithm, etc) use the Bitcoin name?

2. Can forks use Bitcoin know-how and patented IP without making due payment or any recognition to the original inventor and/or owner of the patent? Arguably, the “airdrops” by Bitcoin networks generating branches in the blockchain disregard intellectual property rights.

3. How can users distinguish among projects keeping cognate names and properly assess the utility and value of the technology they are buying into?

4. How can IP owners be rewarded for his or her efforts?

These are not trivial questions. Forkdrop.io, a website that focuses “on projects that issue coins via some inheritance of the state of the Bitcoin (BTC) ledger” lists 105 Bitcoin fork projects, and 74 active and 31 no longer in existence [40]. Also, Forkdrop.io accounts for 22 altcoin fork projects that resemble Bitcoin forks, and some which developed from known altcoins. Github.com also provides information on these forks. For a partial list of examples see Table 1.

BITCOIN				(BBC) Big Bitcoin
(BICC) BitClassic Coin	(BTC) Bitcoin	(BTC2) Bitcoin 2	(XAP) Bitcoin Air	(BTALL) Bitcoin All
(BCA) Bitcoin Atom	(BCB) Bitcoin Boy	(CDY) Bitcoin Candy^3	(BCH) Bitcoin Cash	(BCP) Bitcoin Cash Plus
(BCZ) BitcoinCash Zero	(BCHC) Bitcoin Classic	(BCS) Bitcoin Class	(BCBC) Bitcoin@CBC	(BCL) BitcoinClean
(BCLD)^2 Bitcoin Cloud	(BTSQ) Bitcoin Community	(BTCO) Bitcoin Coral	(BTCC) Bitcoin Core	(BTD) Bitcoin Dao
(BCD) Bitcoin Diamond	(BTD) Bitcoin Dollar	(BTF) Bitcoin Faith	(BIFI) Bitcoin File	(GOD) Bitcoin God
(BTG) Bitcoin Gold	(BTHOL) Bitcoin Holocaust	(BTH) Bitcoin Hot	(BTCH) Bitcoin Hush	(BCI) Bitcoin interest
(BCK) ^1 Bitcoin King	(BTL) Bitcoin Lambo	(BTCM) Bitcoin Metal	(BN) Bitcoin Nano	BTN – Bitcoin New
(BTCO) Bitcoin Oil	(BCO) Bitcoin Ore	(ORI) Bitcoin Origin	(BCP) Bitcoin Parallel	(BTP) Bitcoin Pay
(BPA) Bitcoin Pizza	(BPQ) Bitcoin Post-Quantum	(BTCP) Bitcoin Private	(BPR) Bitcoin Prime	(BTP) Bitcoin Pro
(BRECO) Bitcoin Reference Line	(BCRM) Bitcoin RM	(BCS) Bitcoin Smart	(BTCS) Bitcoin Stake	(BSH) Bitcoin Stash
(BSV) Bitcoin SV	(BTT) Bitcoin Top	(BTV) Bitcoin Vote	(BCW) Bitcoin Wonder	(BTW) Bitcoin World
(BCX) Bitcoin X	(BTX) Bitcore	(BTH) Bithereum	(BTV) BitVote	(CER) Cereneum
CLAM – Clamcoin	(CBTC) ClassicBitcoin	(DLC) Dalilcoin	(FBTC) FastBitcoin	(FBTC) Fox BTC
(HEX) HEX	(LBTC) Lightning Bitcoin	(MBC) MicroBitcoin	(MWC) MimbleWimbleCoin	(NBTC) NewBitcoin
(NBTC) New Bitcoin	(OBTC) Oil Bitcoin	(QED) Qeditas	(QBTC) Quantum Bitcoin	(B2X) Segwit 2X
(SBC) Smart Bitcoin	(SBTC) Super Bitcoin	(TNET) Title Network	(UBTC) United Bitcoin	(WBTC) World Bitcoin
ALTCOIN			(CLO) Callisto	(DOGX) Dogethereum
(ETC) Ethereum Classic	(ETCV) Ethereum Classic Vision	(CRT) Ethereum Crystal	(ETF) Ethereum Fog	(ETE) Ethereum Emerald
(EMO) Ethereum Modification	(ETG) EtherGold	(ETI) EtherInc	(ETZ) EtherZero	(LCC) Litecoin Cash
(LTCP) Litecoin Private	(LZX) LiteZero	(ONT) Ontology	(CXMR) Monero Cash	(XMC) Monero Classic
(XMZ) Monero 0	(XMO) Monero Original	(XMV) MoneroV	(SAFE) SAFE	(SLTC) Super Litecoin
HISTORIC				(ABTC) ABitchain
(ANON) ANONymous	(BTCV) Bitcoin Blvck	(BEC) Bitcoin Eco	(BTF) Bitcoin Flash	(BLG) Bitcoin Lightning
(BTCL) Bitcoin Lite	(BCL) Bitcoin Lunar	(BCM) Bitcoin Master	(BTM) Bitcoin Minor	(BNR) Bitcoin Neuro
(BTN) Bitcoin New	Bitcoin Ocho (OCHO)	(BTP) Bitcoin Pieta	(BTP) Bitcoin Platinum	(POINT) Bitcoin Point
(BTCP) Bitcoin Private	(BTR) Bitcoin Rhodium	(BTSI) Bitcoin Silver	(BCS) Bitcoin Star	(SUDU) Bitcoin Sudu
(BTCTI) BitcoinTi	(BTCT) Bitcoin Transfer	(BUM) Bitcoin Uranium	(BZX) BitcoinZero	(BTCX2) Bitcoinx2
(BITE) BitEthereum	(GBYTE) Byteball	(LBTC) Lightning Bitcoin	(SEM) Semux	(XNN) Xenon

Table 1.

Partial list of forks.

Notes

Not a true fork, not claimable at the moment.

The original ticker symbol is BCL, but this is also used by BitcoinClean.

Forked from Bitcoin Cash, not Bitcoin.

Sources: https://forkdrop.io/ https://github.com/ymgve/bitcoin_fork_claimer.

3.5 nChain patents and innovation in the blockchain sector

In an August 2022 publication [41], Dr. Vaughan, the Lead Director of Research for nChain, explained how their patent strategy had earned them a recognition as one of the world’s top 100 most innovative companies and as a key global blockchain patent maker. nChain’s goal is to ease the global adoption of blockchain technology. Hence, to communicate and distribute their wealth of knowledge, this firm joined the IPwe Blockchain Smart Pool, a pool where different companies combine their patents into a single portfolio. For instance, nChain delivered 169 patent families, including 1280 individual patent applications in the cybersecurity, automated contracts, wallets, IoT devices, tokenization, and peer-to-peer communication areas.

At nChain, multiple scientists have contributed over time, but the key to this firm’s development capacity and outcomes is Dr. Craig Wright’s historical dedication to these patenting efforts. As a result, nChain Chief Scientist is an author and co-author in hundreds of patent applications. He is also a part in a series of related disputes including the mentioned COPA’s lawsuit. Dr. Wright has co-authored with Dr. Savanah and other scientists countless patents of major relevance. To appreciate the importance of these, we list and briefly describe a few in Table 2.

Applied/Publication February 14, 2017 February 14, 2019	Inventors: Craig Steven Wright Stephane Savanah	Id. # 20190050541	Name: A Method And System For Securing Computer Software Using A Distributed Hash Table And A Blockchain
Description	A computer-implemented method and system for determining a metadata M for securing a controlled digital resource such as computer software using a distributed hash table and a peer-to-peer distributed ledger. This is a blockchain such as the Bitcoin blockchain. The method includes determining a data associated with the computer software and determining a first hash value based on the computer software. A second hash value based on the data and the computer software may be determined. The method further includes sending 140, over a communications network, the data, the first hash value, and the second hash value to an entry for storage in a distributed hash table. The second hash value may be a key of a key-value pair. The data and the first hash value may be a value in the key-value pair. A metadata (M) that is based on the second hash value may be determined for storage on the peer-to-peer distributed ledger.
Applied/Publication February 14, 2017 February 14, 2019	Inventors: Craig Steven Wright Gavin Allen	Id. # 20190052454	Name: System And Method For Controlling Asset-Related Actions Via A Block Chain
Description	Abstract: According to one perspective, the invention provides a technical arrangement to calculate, register, and/or apportion costs and/or generate income in proportion to the current ownership of an asset. One or more embodiments also comprise a novel technique for generating cryptographic subkeys. Thus, one benefit provided by the invention is that it allows the secure distribution of costs and income for an asset registered and maintained on the Blockchain. In turn, this increases the capability of such assets to meet the real-world needs of various entities such as the asset itself and investing parties.
Applied/Publication October 24, 2017 February 7, 2023	Inventors: Gavin Allen, Craig Steven Wright	Id. # 11574303	Name: Blockchain-based method and system for specifying the recipient of an electronic communication
Description	The invention provides a method and corresponding system for controlling a blockchain transaction output and/or specifying the recipient of the output. It also provides a method of controlling and/or generating an electronic communication. The invention is a blockchain-implemented solution, which may or may not be the Bitcoin blockchain. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the method may comprise the step of sending an electronic notification to a notification address which is provided as metadata within an unlocking script of an input of a transaction (Txi) on a blockchain. The unlocking script is provided in order to spend an output from a further transaction (Tx2) on the blockchain. The input of the transaction (Txi) and/or the output of the further transaction (Tx2) may be associated with a tokenized asset represented on, or referenced via, the blockchain
Applied/Publication October 27, 2017 September 12, 2019	Inventors: Craig Steven Wright, Pedro Jimenez-Delgado	Id. # 20190279197	Name: Systems And Methods For Implementing Deterministic Finite Automata (Dfas) Via A Blockchain
Description	The invention relates to a technique for implementing, controlling, and automating a task or process on a blockchain such as, but not limited to, the Bitcoin blockchain. The invention is particularly suited for, but not limited to, automated execution of contracts such as smart contracts for financial agreements. However, other types of tasks and nonfinancial contracts can be implemented. The invention can be viewed as the implementation or incarnation of a state machine or DFA on a blockchain by using the unspent outputs of blockchain transactions to represent the states of the machine, and spending of those outputs as the transition of the machine from one state to another. The invention provides a technical realization and implementation of a mathematical model of computation conceived as an abstract machine that can be in one of a finite set of states and can change from one state to another (transition) when a triggering event of a finite set (called input) occurs.
Applied/Publication July 5, 2018 June 18, 2020	Inventors: Craig Steven Wright, Stephane Savanah	Id. # 20200195442	Name: Method for compiling from a high-level scripting language to a blockchain native scripting language
Description	The invention provides methods and systems which enable additional functionality to be inserted into blockchain scripts with ease and in an effective and manner. According to one embodiment, the invention provides a blockchain-implemented method comprising the steps of arranging a plurality or selection of scripting language primitives to provide, upon execution, the functionality of a high-level scripting language primitive, wherein the scripting language is associated with a blockchain protocol, inserting the plurality of scripting language primitives at least once into a script, and inserting the script into blockchain transaction (Tx). The high-level scripting language primitive may perform, for example, an arithmetic operation such as multiplication or division. The scripting language primitives may be called op-codes, words or commands, and are native to the scripting language. The scripting language may be Script, and the blockchain protocol may be a version of the Bitcoin protocol.
Applied/Publication June 19, 2018 August 16, 2022	Inventors: Giuseppe Destefanis, Patrick Motylinski, Stephane Vincent, Craig Steven Wright	Id. # 11418590	Name: Fast propagation of recent transactions over a blockchain network
Description	A specialized network (“merchant”) node to facilitate fast distribution of blockchain transactions over a network of interconnected nodes, as subset of which are merchant nodes interconnected by an overlay network. The merchant node includes a memory storing an assigned portion of a distributed mempool structured as a distributed hash table, the distributed mempool containing pending transactions awaiting confirmation. The merchant node operates by: receiving a transaction, including a transaction identifier; hashing the new transaction identifier to obtain a key; determining, using the key, whether the transaction is stored in the distributed mempool or not and, if not, then storing the transaction in the distributed mempool as a pending transaction; and sending the transaction to a set of nodes other than merchant nodes using peer-to-peer connections. The invention may be used in conjunction with the Bitcoin blockchain or an alternative.
Applied/Publication July 26, 2018 July 2, 2020	Inventors: Craig Steven Wright, Stephane Savanah	Id. # 20200213113	Name: Threshold digital signature method and system
Description	A method of sharing a secret value is disclosed. The method comprises distributing respective first shares of a first secret value, known to a first participant (Pi), to a plurality of second participants (Pj?i), wherein said first shares are encrypted by means of at least one private-public key pair comprising a private key and a public key being an elliptic curve generator point multiplied by the private key and wherein a first threshold number of first shares is required in order to enable a second participant to determine the first secret value.
Applied/Publication November 14, 2019 September 15, 2022	Inventors: Craig Steven Wright, Jack Owen Davies, Chloe Ceren Tartan, Owen Vaughan	Id. #20220294652	Name: Systems and methods for efficient and secure processing, accessing and transmission of data via a blockchain network
Description	The invention provides improved methods and corresponding systems for the sharing, storage, creation, and accessing of data stored on a blockchain, e.g., the Bitcoin blockchain. It may form part of a protocol for searching the blockchain for content/data. A method in accordance with the invention may be used for associating or linking data stored within (separate/different) blockchain transactions to enable the identification, retrieval, and/or sharing of data stored therein. Additionally, or alternatively, it facilitates identification of transactions (TX) in a blockchain which store content/data that needs to be shared, transmitted, stored, and/or accessed by a user. Such a method comprises the step of mapping a mnemonic to: (1) a public key (PK) associated with the transaction (TX); and (2) the transaction ID (TXID) of the transaction (TX).
Applied/Publication May 15, 2020 September 3, 2020	Inventors: Craig Steven Wright, Stephane Savanah	Id. # 20200280433	Name: Secure multiparty loss resistant storage and transfer of cryptographic keys for blockchain based systems in conjunction with a wallet management system
Description	A solution for controlling access to a resource such as a digital wallet implemented using a blockchain. Use of the invention during setup of the wallet can enable subsequent operations to be handled in a secure manner over an insecure channel. An example method comprises splitting a verification element into multiple shares, determining a common secret at multiple nodes in a network, and using the common secret to transmit a share of the verification element between nodes. The shares can be split such that no share is sufficient to determine the verification element and can be stored at separate locations. Upon share unavailability, the share can be retrieved a location accessibility. For safe transmission of the share(s), the common secret is generated at two different nodes independently and used to generate an encryption key for encrypting at least one share of the verification element to be transmitted securely.
Applied/Publication April 28, 2020 July 7, 2022	Inventors: Craig Steven Wright, Jack Owen Davies, Alexander Tennyson Mackay, Chloe Ceren Tartan, Wei Zhang	Id. # 20220217004	Name: Systems and methods for non-parallelized mining on a proof-of-work blockchain network
Description	The present disclosure provides methods and systems for ensuring the security of a blockchain and associated network and for enabling the establishment of consensus regarding the state of the blockchain. A method of the disclosure may be implemented by one or more nodes on a blockchain network, using a nonparallelizable algorithm to calculate an output based on a computational difficulty parameter, a hash of at least one blockchain transaction, and/or a hash of at least one blockchain block header. The nonparallelizable, inherently sequential algorithm comprises at least one of the following operations or a combination thereof: a recursive operation, a modular exponentiation and/or a repeated squaring operation.
Applied/Publication March 31, 2021 July 15, 2021	Inventors: Craig Steven Wright, Stephane Savanah	Id. # 20210216623	Name: Blockchain implemented counting system and method for use in secure voting and distribution
Description	This invention relates generally to blockchain implementations and is suited for, but not limited to, use with the Bitcoin blockchain. It can be used for the implementation of automated processes such as device/system control, process control, distributed computing and storage, and others. The invention provides an event detecting, monitoring, and/or counting mechanism. The event may be, for example, a vote, decision, or selection which is made by a given entity. The invention provides a counting solution in which a computing resource, running simultaneously and in parallel to the blockchain, manages a loop-based operation. The computing resource continuously monitors the state of the blockchain as well as any other off-blockchain input data or source. The execution of the loop is influenced by the state of the blockchain. Each iteration of the loop that is executed by the computing resource is recorded in a transaction that is written to the blockchain. It is stored as a hash within the transaction’s metadata.
Applied/Publication June 2, 2022 September 15, 2022	Inventors: Craig Steven Wright, Stephane Savanah	Id. # 20220292471	Name: Universal Tokenization System For Blockchain-Based Cryptocurrencies
Description	A method of creating, redeeming, and transferring tokens on a peer-to-peer distributed ledger including generating a blockchain transaction having an output related to a quantity of cryptocurrency and a hash of a redeem script usable for spending the output. The redeem script comprises metadata, which in turn comprises a token representing a tokenized entity. The redeem script additionally comprises at least one public cryptographic key. The metadata is provided in the redeem script at a location designated in the underlying blockchain protocol as a location for a cryptographic key.

Table 2.

Patents of key relevance for the development of Web3.

Source:

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/craig-steven-wright.

https://patents.google.com/.

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf.

https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/.

Unfortunately, lack of accountability with respect to mass media communications results in a blurry understanding of the situation. For instance, Nakamoto’s request that the white paper is only shared by websites he approves, has been often met with the comment that “sharing the document under the permissive MIT Software License, which allows anyone to freely use, modify, copy, distribute, and publish it” [42]. When, in fact, the document was not shared under the MIT Software License [43]. This evidence is intimately related to intellectual property protection.

3.6 Glimpsing at the future

In January 21, 2021, Dr. Craig S. Wright’s legal team at Ontier LLP, London, sent copyright infringement notices to five parties hosting the Bitcoin 2008 white paper on their websites. These letters are alike a cease-and-desist request in that they inform a party that court proceedings may be brought against them if they do not stop their infringing actions. Here, Dr. Wright demanded the white paper be removed from their websites. The discrepancy relates the parties’ control and operation of bitcoin.org, bitcoin.com, and bitcoincore.org all of which offer “Bitcoin” products (e.g., BTC). That is because, using the 2008 white paper lends credibility to services which follow different protocols. Two of the listed organizations took action to remove the paper. In the third case, Dr. Wright’s resolve to enforce his rights was met favorably as the English High Court found in his favor 2 months after filing when bitcoin.org operator “Cøbra” refused to desist [43].

Pending and delayed is the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA, a consortium of giant tech and digital asset companies) lawsuit against Dr. Wright [44], as this Alliance requested a new procedural judge, pushing the expected trial date to the first quarter of 2024. Furthermore, significant developments have taken place since April 2021 when they first filed and these will be relevant for future findings. Some of these include Dr. Wrights’ recognition by the U.K. High Court as the white paper author, and his victory versus Ira Kleiman. These also include several defamation cases such as the one against blogger Peter McCormack, or his filing against members of COPA Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) and Kraken for using the Bitcoin name to sell unrelated projects.

COPA’s declared “raison d’être” is: “to encourage the adoption of digital currency and remove patents as a barrier to growth and innovation by obliging its members to refrain from enforcing their patents” [45]. But these declarations of intent are met with some group of counter realities, such as the interesting addition of Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta to the Alliance, or the entanglement of rights derived from the forks and airdrops as listed in Table 1.

In addition, there is the strange case of COPA founding member Jack Dorsey, Block (NASDAQ: SQ), who has had to recognize and cite in one of his new smart contracts patents the “Registry and Automated Management Method for Blockchain-Enforced Smart Contracts” [46] foundational blockchain patent held by nChain that lists Dr. Wright (together with Dr. Savanah) as its inventor [47]. This is a stimulating development given that COPA’s lawsuit is predicated on the belief that Dr. Wright has no claims with the blockchain [48]. As Mr. Dorsey stated to the English High Court “Wright’s entire narrative must be tested: in one way this dispute only relates to whether he is or is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper, but COPA’s case is that his entire conduct shows that he is not.”

COPA, the consortium that presents itself against the enforcement of patent intellectual property rights, is the holder of thousands of such rights and growing. These conflicting realities could be interpreted as an attempt to avoid the payment of such rights by some of these members, and a way to crush the competition. Among others, Dr. Wright, Dr. Savanah, and nChain are obvious targets given that they have been building a reservoir of very significant patents for over a decade.

The environment described is one of the arenas where the multibillion-dollar conflicts of interests between major participants of the blockchain sector are being settled. And these events are just the prelude of a combative blockchain-patent-environment. Eventually, the rights of those who have them will have to be recognized and the wrongs of bad actors will have to be discouraged and penalized, just as it happens in any other sector.

4. Conclusion

Due to its technical characteristics, blockchain technology will be at the forefront of the evolution of IP rights protection. In addition, the elucidation of IP rights within that sector itself will help shape the development of this technology. At stake are billions of US dollars, the ability of the industry to grow, and the capacity of economies to benefit from the efficiencies this technology generates. Among the challenges, an unequal understanding of the technology, and the slow evolvement of IP rights management, this chapter has reviewed key developments.