When is Shelley coming?

Ok so based on everything you wrote it is 100% clear to me that you do not understand the full patent process or requirements of obtaining a patent. Parents can be granted for derivative work even those of open source.

This topic has already been discussed. See the discussion in the IOHK Summit thread. Search for patent and if you see IOHK Summit, read through the thread where I go at length about patents. Several people have misconceptions about patents as do you based on your statements.

The videos from that thread for ease of reference.

See 11:30 in this video

Hope this helps

Would it be safe to assume that pure proof of stake is derivative work from PoS ? I did not imply that work has to be ab-initio in novelty in order to be patented, which seems to be your understanding from my post.
Since I had few patents myself, try not to assume too much with 100% clarity, give at least 1% to benefit of the doubt.

They are not the same in any way. So to answer the question, IMO it is not derivative with exception to maybevthe name.

1 Like

My point is - if Cardano had any significant algorithm or protocol to patent (derivative or not), it is safe to assume that they would patent it by now. They aim for profit and they are not stupid.

On the other hand there are a few academic publications (big peer review thing), unfortunately it is hard to say (for me at least) about overall scientific impact in distributed ledger community.

Dude…Oroborus is groundbreaking, bleeding edge, never done once before tech. My argument went directly to this and other points that CH pointed out for CCL and CSL. The design of Ada is nothing less than revolutionary. And no they are not in it for profit, hence the MIT unrestricted license.

Think about it in these terms. Prior art can be be modified and patented.

The fact that tires have been around for centuries does not mean technologies or methods and improvements to tires can not be patented.

A tire with a rain channel was patented by Goodyear Tires. Rain tires existed before this patent.


A full list of Goodyear patents relating to compounds and methodology of making tires.


A person who does not sign to the MIT license for Ada
but hears about how it works, can build the same and not be subject to the license and can patent their work. Fact.

I am illiterate in this field but will be interesting to see how much cardano PoS is different from original King’s algorithm, in the other words how similar are Pos algorithms among “PoS coins” ? My bet is they all code the same stuff.
Groundbreaking - is strong word without stating which novelty Cardano introduced in its PoS algorithm with respect to already published PoS.?

It is groundbreaking, fundamentally different than Dan’s DPOS, and contains important considerations for Cardano and its implementation. Having classic, hydra, etc., only reinforce the immense amount of work being done on its evolution.

It is for this reason that I refer to it as the crown Jewel of Cardano which merits patenting. Other aspects, I don’t really care about parts so much, but this is the “engine/power plant/etc” and should be protected.

My two cents at least.

I’ve already posted about patenting. Someone in the front office obviously doesn’t want the foundation to have any patents or protection.

Cardano is an open source project/protocol. Patenting anything would go against this entire project’s mission statement. :sweat_smile:


Exactly! I have heard CH say it many times and it is not going to change. There are a lot of things that I love about this project and this is definitely one of them.

it’s clear you do not understand that being open source has nothing to do with not having patents. Mission statement is something else entirely.
So let’s clear this up. Here is the Cardano Foundation mission statement:

The Foundation’s core mission is to standardise, protect and promote the Cardano Protocol technology.

Nothing about patents is mentioned. Having a patent standardizes, protects, and I could argue “promotes” use by protecting others from patenting on an existing patent (true prior art) thereby allowing for further development.

As for being open source and having patents.

Red Hat has patents on open source Linux

Linux has thousands of patents on this open source software.


Algorand has filed for patents and are Open Source


I’m not going to go in depth on the amount of Bitcoin patents and bitcoin being open source. Here’s a start for you.


Patents are used for protection.



Even if you don’t leverage your own patents for protection you will likely enter into an agreement with a patent group for patent protection. Without patents to add to the portfolio, you’ll end up paying for the protection.


Lastly, both items you mentioned have absolutely 100% NOTHING to do with patents. The mission statement of the Cardano Foundation does not mention the exclusion of patents nor does the site.

Additionally, no where in the open source community does it say that being Open Source precludes you from filing or obtaining a patent. In fact, many open source companies have patents, many file patent applications, and many subscribe to patent protection services.

It’s all fun and games until someone patents a development they invent off of Cardano which restricts developments in the future without obtaining licensing from that patent holder or risk being sued by the patent holder.

Seems like your a member of the foundation. So what is the Foundation’s strategy to protect against patent lawsuits? How will the protocol be protected in the future against patent lawsuits? Is there s strategy?

Projects that do not change and adapt are doomed. I think CH also said something to that effect as well. Slightly contradictory isn’t it? We’re not going to change. This project will succeed. Time devours all. Projects that don’t change will fail. Yada yada yada. Change, flexibility, and adaptation are good qualities. Sticking to a hardline doesn’t work very well as history has taught us.

1 Like

Let me guess, you think that just because the project is decentralized that is does not need to abide by a legal finding or judgement? The foundation is not protected because the Protocol is decentralized and liability is coveted to a non-existent party with the Foundation promoting the protocol. I would argue that the foundation could be held liable in some instances were a patent to be infringed and the infringing party could be found through a Git account/commit, submission, and the Foundation again by acceptance of infringing code into the protocol. A court could impose an injunction to Github or any repository, custodians of the protocol, or globally against any party seeking to make changes to the protocol as well as sanction any party violating said injunction.

No strategy is not a strategy in a game where Charles specifically states that this is a protocol that people’s money may depend on.

Thanks for your replies and feedback, it is always appreciated. I would like to ask that, if you’re interested in discussing this topic more, to create a new thread or go to this existing thread and go from there. Thanks for understanding. :slight_smile:

I want to pop up this question. What is the date for shelley? Charles said this month, but already mid of the month and no date for Shelley

Shelley is not this month. I’m not sure where Charles said that. - He no longer gives dates; this is now down the the project managers.

Keep an eye out for the updates from the project managers at the end of each month.

There is no date yet for Shelley mainnet. Although the project managers have said they would like to see shelley on mainnet for the end of Q2.

I don’t think Charles should’ve committed to the end of the year as my hunch and I suspect many others feel that it’ll take longer. 9xmovies tubemate

sure it will if they release shelley in the June, others milestones wil be delayed too at least half of the year

That is not the case at all.

Here, watch this video https://youtu.be/g7uySEgt06c