Bitcoin SV Blockchain Fraud-Proof Voting System: Patented?
Summary of Patent US20240028702A1 and Related Earlier Patents
The patent US20240028702A1, titled "Blockchain Implemented Counting System and Method for Secure Voting and Distribution," represents a significant advancement in election technology developed by nChain. This innovation traces its origins to United Kingdom patent applications filed in February 2016, demonstrating nChain's long-term commitment to blockchain voting technology. The system combines blockchain technology with off-chain computing resources to enable complex, Turing-complete functionality while maintaining blockchain security. It facilitates fair and pseudo-anonymous voting, creating an immutable, tamper-proof audit trail on the blockchain. The invention utilizes a secret exchange protocol for secure token distribution to voters and employs the blockchain as a "non-erasable tape" in a Turing machine model. This approach addresses the limitations of Bitcoin's non-Turing complete scripting language while avoiding the security vulnerabilities associated with fully Turing-complete systems like Ethereum. Vote counts are stored directly in blockchain transactions or the alternate stack, providing a permanent, verifiable record of the voting process and results. The system preserves the benefits of limited scripting languages, such as predictable execution and protection against denial-of-service attacks, while enabling more complex applications. This patent series represents a potential solution for secure, transparent, and efficient future elections, balancing the need for complex functionality with robust blockchain security.
Bollinger v. Costa Brava Wine Co. - Case Summary
https://www.academia.edu/89840603/Bollinger_J_and_Others_V_Costa_Brava_Wine_COY_LD
1. Background Facts:
- 12 French companies producing wine in Champagne district sued
- Represented themselves and other Champagne producers supplying to England/Wales
- Defendant: Costa Brava Wine Co., selling "Spanish Champagne"
- Plaintiffs claimed "Champagne" had reputation for sparkling wine from Champagne, France
2. Arguments:
Plaintiffs:
- "Spanish Champagne" constitutes passing off
- No exclusive right to "Champagne" needed for claim
- "Champagne" part of their goodwill
- Merchandise Marks Acts created statutory duty, breached by defendant
Defendants:
- Passing off requires confusion with specific plaintiff's goods
- Exclusive right to name needed for passing off claim
- Merchandise Marks Acts don't create civil cause for competitors
3. Court's Ruling:
On passing off:
- "Quasi passing off" action possible without exclusive rights
- Law should remedy unfair use of geographical names with goodwill
- Ruling based on assumed facts for deciding legal points
On Merchandise Marks Acts:
- No separate civil cause of action for competitors
- Acts provide criminal penalties, mainly protect consumers
4. Outcome:
- Passing off claim allowed to proceed
- Merchandise Marks Acts claim dismissed
- No decision on whether "Spanish Champagne" actually deceptive
- Costs made costs in action
- Leave to appeal granted to both parties
Note: Judge emphasized ruling based on assumed facts, not determining
actual deception of "Spanish Champagne" term.
