Quote from: Evildrum on May 15, 2016, 11:54:11 PM

May seem like a double standard but the fact he is creating a aspect that could change bitcoin and at the same time limit who has access. So attempting to create a monoply, that is against bitcoin in my opinion and it strips away the mask of double standard.

Unless I'm missing something (possible, I only skimmed through their pdf), we're talking about ~20% boost? Better designed silicon from the same node process could offer more (and did in the past, and how!).
'Far as limiting access, a huge chunk of Bitcoin hashpower was manufactured by a guy known only as Friedcat. How would one mount a case against that?
Plus straight from the horse):

Quote

Since the rights granted by a U.S. patent extend only throughout the territory of the United States and have no effect in a foreign country, an inventor who wishes patent protection in other countries must apply for a patent in each of the other countries or in regional patent offices. Almost every country has its own patent law, and a person desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the requirements of that country.
Tempest in a teacup on so many levels.

Besides, patent hasn't even been granted. Might never be, if dooglus is on the money.