The Blockchain is a large public register containing events that have occurred since its creation (in the case of Bitcoin, these are financial transactions). Unlike a conventional database, the information is not entered one after the other, line by line, but is grouped into packets of transactions (blocks), which are added one after the other. The block chain is cryptographically secured by adding the digital fingerprint of the previous block to each new block.
It is therefore impossible to modify a financial transaction in a block (and therefore indirectly the block's fingerprint) without breaking the fingerprint series.
To successfully conceal a modification of the blockchain, it would be necessary to modify the entire chain in cascade to re-establish a series of consistent fingerprints.
This rather unusual database would be of no interest if it were stored centrally, as it would be possible for the person hosting it or a hacker to modify it without the manipulation being visible.
The strength of the Bitcoin protocol lies in the fact that it is duplicated in around 50,000 complete copies worldwide.
These copies, also known as "complete bitcoin nodes", are hosted by people with an interest in the long-term future of the bitcoin protocol.
The more integral copies of the Blockchain there are around the world, the more resilient and incensurable the Blockchain is deemed to be.
In the bitcoin protocol, the validity of transactions and the updating of the blockchain are ensured by people who make their computing power available to the network.
These people, known in the jargon as "minorsminers"They are financially incentivized to secure the network, and are remunerated by money creation and transaction fees for their participation.
The network features anti-spam security(inspired by email), which is called "proof of work".proof of work"(or PoW). To be entitled to propose a new block, miners must use specialized computers to solve a highly complex mathematical calculation.
Solving this calculation consumes electricity and requires investment in hardware.
This mechanism ensures that those proposing blocks have a genuine economic interest in the future of the blockchain.
This business model is central to the security of the bitcoin protocol, as it is financially more attractive to secure it than to compromise it.
1 - The digital fingerprint of a document is calculated using a hash function (SHA-256, for example). (This term may seem intimidating, but this type of fingerprint is used by all dating and electronic signature solutions, whether they are based on the Blockchain or not. So it's highly likely that you've already dealt with this without knowing it :).)
This type of function has one crucial feature: it is non-bijective. This means that there is no inverse function for recovering the document from the fingerprint, in the same way that it is not possible to reconstruct a 3D person from his fingerprint.
This guarantees the absolute confidentiality of documents that are time-stamped on the blockchain.
A good practice for blockchain proof players is to calculate this fingerprint on the fly, directly in the user's browser, without first uploading the document to a server. This guarantees complete confidentiality.
2 - This fingerprint is then attached to a micro-financial transaction that is broadcast on the network. This transaction, incorporating the document's fingerprint, is then permanently registered on the blockchain and replicated on the 50,000 or so nodes (complete copies of the blockchain).
3 - If necessary, simply recalculate the document's fingerprint and compare it with the one "anchored" in the blockchain.
It is therefore necessary to keep an intact copy of the original file, as without this document it is impossible to verify the blockchain proof.
This comparison attests to the existence of a document in its integrity on the date the block containing the digital imprint was added.
The method described above is the "classic" one. Some players use more complex cryptographic processes, enabling them to time-stamp large volumes of documents and to adopt an eco-responsible approach: the use of the Merkle tree.
This concatenation of fingerprints will be integrated into the Blockchain via a single transaction, enabling all the digital fingerprints at the base of the tree to be verified, provided a history of adjacent branches is kept.
The beauty of the Merkle tree is that youcan prove the existence of any document in the tree without knowing the contents of the other documents.
This approach anticipates the mass adoption of Blockchain proof by offering a solution that works on a large scale without volume limitations.
It also makes it possible to adopt an eco-responsible approach by pooling the energy costs of each proof. 🍃
In concrete terms, it is possible to verify that a document deposited on the Blockchain has not been modified by tracing back the Merkle tree from the document's fingerprint and intermediate hashes.
Only the intermediate hashes required to prove document authenticity are provided to the end user. The content of the documents whose fingerprints were generated to determine these hashes is of course not disclosed.
For example, in the diagram above, if we want to prove the authenticity of document H1, we need to be able to recalculate the root fingerprint, i.e. "H12345678", from the intermediate hashes of the document and the hash of the document itself. So, by concatenating H1 with its three intermediate hashes(H2, H34 and H5678), we should be able to find the root fingerprint. This demonstrates that document H1 has not been modified. If this were the case, its hash could not be traced back to the root.
For a better understanding, let's popularize this idea. This calculation method can be illustrated by calculating the weight of boxes in a container:
It's exactly the same principle for verifying the authenticity of a document using the Merkle tree.
There are a number of applications that do this automatically, such as our proof checker at
https://verify.blockchainyourip.com/ (you can try it yourself with Demo Files)
The question of whether to use a public or private blockchain for evidentiary purposes generally stems from a lack of understanding of what is actually stored on the blockchain.
When time-stamping on the blockchain, only the digital fingerprint of the document (or even the root of the Merkle tree, depending on the method used) is integrated into a transaction.
It is impossible to trace back to the original document from this print.
The unencrypted publication of this fingerprint in the Blockchain therefore does not entail any disclosure.
Moreover, using a public Blockchain, and more specifically the Bitcoin protocol, has a number of advantages:
We're convinced that the Bitcoin protocol is here to stay, and that it will establish itself as the"protocol of value" for securing digital objects.
In terms of intellectual property, the evidence generated today can be used for up to 70 years after the death of the author or creator in the case of legal entities (or even 100 years in some countries). As part of a business continuity plan, it is therefore essential to anticipate the possible disappearance of Bitcoin and the future of the proofs that will have been created.
Let's distinguish two situations:
It is not possible to "migrate" anchors from one blockchain to another. However, in the event of a future failure of the Bitcoin:
The history of the Bitcoin blockchain can be secured by anchoring the digital footprint of the Bitcoin blockchain in another blockchain. In this way, the evidence remains usable even if only one copy ofBitcoin remains. This process works and is already used by blockchains with low adoption (i.e. few users) or private blockchains that rely on Bitcoin to secure their history.
If all blockchains were weakened, this procedure could be implemented with a classic trusted third party.
BlockchainyourIP has chosen the Bitcoin protocol for several reasons:
If, in the future, another protocol comes along that more closely matches these two points, BlockchainyourIP will adopt this new protocol.
Note: These various assumptions are set out in BlockchainyourIP's Business Continuity Plan. Other players have probably taken similar measures in the event of Bitcoin's failure.
In accordance with the Berne Convention of 1886, no formalities are required for the protection of creations. This Convention has been ratified by almost every country in the world.
Proof of creations can then be made by any means, including with Blockchain.
A Chinese advertising company had discovered an infringement of its intellectual property rights on another company's website. To prevent any concealment, the company took screenshots and registered the site's source code via a third-party certification service using the Bitcoin blockchain.
In this case, the Hangzhou Court specializing in Internet-related disputes considered, in June 2018, that a blockchain anchor could constitute admissible evidence2.
Italian law no. 12/19 of January 11, 2019 enshrined the legal effects of blockchain electronic time stamping by laying down a presumption of validity for blockchain evidence.
Proposition de loi n°237 relative à la blockchain, adopted on December 21, 2017, legally qualifies registrations of legal acts in the blockchain as being presumed to constitute "a faithful, opposable and durable copy of the original, bearing a date certain."3.
In the USA, the federal government has not exercised its constitutional power to implement legislation regulating the admissibility of blockchain evidence in court. Thus, the states enjoy residual power to implement their own legislation.
The State of Vermont took the lead on blockchain legislation by passing a law (House Act 868) on June 2, 2016, recognizing blockchain data as valid in the court system.... This law effectively harmonizes blockchain data with Vermont state law on the types of evidence admissible in court, giving any data full legal standing.
The "Blockchain Technology Act" (Public Law 101-0514) provides that any agreement using blockchain is now admissible as evidence in Illinois courts, on the same basis as agreements made on paper.
Regulation 910/2014/EU of July 23, 2014 on "electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market" came into force on July 1, 2016. Although Article 25 does not directly refer to the use of blockchain technology, it legally makes all electronic signatures admissible as evidence in court, including blockchain signatures, potentially giving them the same legal value as handwritten signatures. In addition, Article 41 makes it impossible to deny the legal effect and admissibility of a timestamp because it is in electronic form.
In September 2018, an amendment to the PACTE law tabled by Jean-Michel MIS had considered Blockchain proof, but it was not retained as the legislator wished to focus on the regulation of ICOs.
In July 2019, the French government, in a ministerial response on blockchain evidence, after recalling the principle of freedom of evidence, indicated that there was nothing to prevent the use of Blockchain evidence.
It's safe to assume that this will soon be confirmed by case law.
This European country is considered a leading nation in blockchain adoption: X-Road (a distributed database giving its citizens access to a wide range of online services), Estonian property register, company register, inheritance register, electronic residency program, notary public service (giving Estonian residents the ability to notarize all kinds of certificates on the blockchain, such as marriages, birth certificates or commercial contracts).
Osman Gunduz, president of the "Azerbaijani Internet Forum" (AIF), has announced that the country will start using Blockchain on the information systems and registers of the Ministry of Justice. Part of AIF's plans is to introduce a "mobile notary office" that would involve the notarization of electronic documents. Through this process, registry entries will be stored on a Blockchain that parties can access but not make changes to, preventing falsification.
Documents protected by the blockchain are considered electronic documents and the cryptographic signature produced and stored by the blockchain in electronic form as an electronic signature (Tennessee, Act No. 1662 of March 22, 2018 amending the "Tennessee Uniform Electronic Transaction Act").
Records in the blockchain are considered electronic documents (Nevada Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, amended by Nevada Blockchain Statutes June 5, 2018).
A law on "Recognition of the validity of distributed ledger technology" came into force on July 28, 2019. It establishes that electronic records cannot be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability on the grounds that they are generated, communicated, received or stored using distributed ledger technology, such as the Blockchain.
On April 16, 2019, Arkansas passed legislation concerning Blockchain technology (Arkansas Laws Act 1061). This legislation complements the state's "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act". It provides that a signature, record or contract that is secured by blockchain technology will be considered to be "in electronic form" and that a smart contract will be associated with the commercial contract.
In August 2018, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act was amended. It now provides that a document or contract secured by blockchain technology is considered to meet the requirements of "electronic form.". In addition, electronic signatures secured by blockchain technology are also recognized as "electronic signatures". However, the provisions of Senate Bill 300 recognizing the validity of smart contracts have not yet been enshrined in law.
Arizona House Bill 2417 was passed on March 29, 2017 (Arizona Statute 44-7061). It recognizes the admissibility of blockchain signatures as well as blockchain contracts and records. Furthermore, smart contracts"may not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability". Finally, the law includes a provision concerning the exact ownership of data included in the Blockchain. It is established that anyone securing information on the blockchain retains the same rights of ownership and use, unless the data is part of a property transfer transaction.
Assembly Bill 1683 and Senate Bill 4142 contain provisions concerning the recognition of electronic signatures and blockchain-secured contracts, as well as the validity of smart contracts.
On January 25, 2017, Hawaii House Bill 1481 was introduced, recognizing"the vast potential of this technology [blockchain] to radically change and improve public sector operations." The bill aims to establish a task force to"examine, educate and promote best practices for enabling blockchain technology". It's one to watch.
In 2019, the Massachusetts Senate proposed a bill to create a special commission for the purpose of investigating and studying the emerging technologies of blockchain and crypto-currencies. The purpose of this special commission would include examining the validity and admissibility of blockchain records in legal proceedings.
N.B. Bailiffs are specific to France, but in some countries the procedure described below can be transposed with notaries.
As part of our thinking on the acceptance of blockchain evidence by the judge, we proposed that the bailiff should intervene in the event of a dispute.
This proposal has often been misinterpreted and seen as a re-intermediation of Blockchain proof.
Technically, verifying a Blockchain proof is very simple: all you have to do is check that the digital fingerprint of the document has been entered into the Blockchain.
This operation can be performed manually or using open source tools. In fact, you can test the verification of a Blockchain proof yourself using our verifier in the Google chrome browser (a file and certificate are available in the navigation bar) https://verify.blockchainyourip.com/
Unfortunately, the judge cannot perform this manipulation for procedural reasons.
To simplify the use of Blockchain proof, we recommend that you first create an Internet statement of the Blockchain proof verifier.
The bailiff, in his role as an auxiliary of justice, passes on this technical evidence to the judge.
Litigation professionals have long operated in the same way when it comes to producing a Wayback Machine capture.
If you would like to know more about the Blockchain proof, we have conducted an interview with Jérôme Legrain which you can view by clicking on the image below 👇
Electronic proof didn't appear with the Blockchain. Private companies have been offering time-stamping solutions for several years, and INPI even launched its own electronic Soleau envelope service in 2017. Some observers therefore fail to understand the hype surrounding Blockchain proof and see it as nothing more than a fad.
Tounderstand the real impact of Blockchain, we need to look beyond the simple solution of timestamping evidence.
The transition from a proprietary solution to a single open source technology will :
1) Traditional time-stamping solutions (private companies, public institutes or trusted third parties) are rooted in a national logic.
For example, the Soleau envelope or the bailiff's report are unknown in China. Under these conditions, international use of evidence, even if perfectly possible, is a source of friction.
2) At company level, the heterogeneity of solutions clearly causes difficulties. Disorganization masks unregistered intellectual property rights, making it impossible to integrate them effectively into the construction of an IP strategy. This situation is flagrant in corporate groups, where the quality of IP practices is very uneven when subsidiaries are autonomous in these matters.
3) Blockchain, on the other hand, is based on mathematical rules and open source technology, which are universal, i.e. identical in every corner of the globe.
In light of the internationalization of legal issues, Blockchain has a great chance of establishing itself as an international standard of proof.
Most of the limitations of traditional dating solutions are not related to the time-stamping technology used - which works very well - but to a neglected user experience.
A glance at the statistics for the protection of unregistered intellectual property rights reveals a notable break. In its latest activity report, INPI counts 25,928 Soleau envelopes and 21,228 e-Soleau envelopes registered in 2020, while 139,477 trademarks were registered or renewed in the same year.
These figures clearly illustrate that companies are shunning unregistered intellectual property rights. At BlockchainyourIP, some of our most active users produce over 9,000 proofs a year, accounting for almost 19% of the annual number of Soleau and e-Soleau envelopes combined.
Even if there are no figures on the subject (which would be impossible to count, by the way), it's safe to assume that Blockchain proof is already the world's most widely used solution for protecting unregistered intellectual property rights: not because a majority of companies use Blockchain proof; but because those that do use it identify and protect their creations without comparison.
But then how come no one looked into this before the advent of Blockchain?
Because time-stamping solutions relied on proprietary technologies and/or trusted third-party status.
With Blockchain, proof of prior art is shifting to open source. This change lowers the barriers to entry and leads to a technological standardization of proof that places the various players on an equal footing.
The added value of time-stamping solutions will shift from technology to a proprietary user experience, and players will have to rely on proof-related services to make the difference.
Of course, Blockchain offers evidence of unprecedented dimensions, but in our view the real change lies in a new approach to the administration of evidence, initiating innovative use cases.
Today, the philosophy of proof reveals an a posteriori trend: the majority of companies only build up their proof at the end of the creation and innovation process.
Why is this? Most often, for reasons of cost and complexity. This is imperfect proof, in that it leaves us in a risk zone throughout the design phase, which in practice can be particularly long.
This situation is particularly problematic whentime-to-market is important (for example, in thewatchmaking or jewelry sectors).
A posteriori protection leads to a period of legal uncertainty throughout the design phase. During this time, which can last from several months to several years, the company is exposed to multiple risks: disloyal contractual partners, indelicate employees, fortuitous coexistence, and so on.
Modern proof solutions, such as BlockchainyourIP, initiate a radically different approach and offer protection for all versions of the creation.
The much finer protective grain makes it possible to trace the entire creative process. These solutions have the advantage of :
Similarly, in the fashion industry, it is customary to protect creations only once they have been designed.
As a result, lawyers often find themselves having to take urgent action to have an entire collection declared on the evening of a fashion show.
Blockchain means of proof remedy this by protecting creations as they are completed, rather than bundled together at the last moment.
The R&D process leading to a patent is long and costly. Throughout the pre-patent phase, there are imminent risks:
By time-stamping checkpoints throughout the R&D phase, you can benefit from the exception of prior personal possession(article L. 613-7 of the French Intellectual Property Code) if a competitor develops a patent using the same invention.
The crucial issue here is to succeed in proving that we had full prior knowledge of the patented technique, enabling us to exploit this invention without infringing the registered patent.
Blockchain also enables the company to enhance the value of its invention through business secrecy in the event that it does not wish to file a patent (if such a filing would not be profitable, if the invention is not patentable or if the company wishes to keep it secret).
If it is materially impossible to patent everything, for cost reasons, companies must necessarily make trade-offs. Consequently, trade secrets, for which Blockchain evidence can clearly play a part in protecting them as soon as reasonable measures can be identified, constitute a third voice of protection, alongside patents and defensive publication.
Business secrecy is more than adequate for things that cannot be reverse engineered. reverse engineering.
In practice, Blockchain will also complement the laboratory notebook. This is an opportunity to delegate to inventors the responsibility for protecting their innovations, under the supervision of the legal department: a new step towards efficient integrated IP management. integrated IP management.
It is sometimes in the company's interest to trace the work of designers after the fact. This is particularly the case for :
Modern blockchain proof tools such as BlockchainyourIP allow us to adopt a systematic traceability logic for contributions, making it possible to achieve such granularity.
As mentioned above, it is also possible to entrust operational staff with the protection of their creations (always under the supervision of the legal department, of course). This avoids misunderstandings about ownership of rights, and prevents future disputes between the company and its creators.
This approach can also help develop a PI culture within the company..
Particularly in opposition proceedings for French and Community trademarks, or to obtain registration or maintenance of a trademark in the USA, it is often necessary to proveactual use of the claimed sign.
In practice, the company often struggles to assemble a set of business documents(invoices, catalogs, web publications, products on which the trademark is affixed, etc.) attesting to this use.
With a modern traceability tool for creations and innovations such as Blockchain, it's possible to visualize all the parts on which a logo is affixed. Better still and ever more efficient, legal teams can visualize trademark usage over time with the help of graphs, and automatically detect risky situations.
When working with a supplier or service provider, it is not uncommon to find that some of the know-how has been misappropriated and/or used for the benefit of a competitor.
Advertising agencies, too, often face similar problems in their relations with advertisers when their projects are not selected.
This risk is far from anecdotal, as illustrated by the recent case between startup Olaplex and cosmetics giant L'Oréal. The dispute concerned the misappropriation of a chemical formula during aborted discussions with a view to a takeover of the startup by the French company. L'Oréal was ordered to pay $66 million in damages (including $22 million for misappropriation of trade secrets) at first instance. The company claimed that it had also developed the technology in-house, but was unable to prove this. This judgment was ultimately overturned on appeal, but it does illustrate the value of using a dating solution to prove one's rights.
Using a Blockchain proof to define the scope of the documents to be communicated upstream, we can precisely trace everyone's know-how and contributions.
Adding a Blockchain clause in which the footprint of confidential documents communicated is specifically specified also sends a strong, dissuasive signal to co-contractors.
