Daily Xrp News - Videos

Interesting Bank of America Patent for Ripple DLT

Ledger Nano X - The secure hardware wallet

There’s an interesting BAML patent for a Ripple DLT implementation that doesn’t fit the xRapid model that’s been described to us by Ripple.

Are trust lines and FIAT issuances on XRPL being used to complete cross boarder payments?

Original Tweet:

BAML Patent:

Bithomp “RippleLegend” Account:

My Patreon:

Tags : cryptocryptocurrencyRipple XRP NewsxcurrentxpoolXPRxrapidXRP Newsxrpbtcxrpeurxrpusdxvia


  1. 'Seems odd that on Figure 7 (just above Benefits), "RIPPLEL" ILP is spelled incorrecty. A number of misspellings elsewhere as well… Hastily thrown together?

  2. Sam are you saying that this patent is using xrapid without using xrp? what if all F I's use xrapid without using xrp, where does it leave xrp holders?

  3. I think it could be the pathshuffle function for private transaction (dlt ilp dtl) even if they say that it is not possible :).

  4. Hi Sam. If you hadn't already, read the full specification and claims submitted with the application. It should explain more explicitly what the figures are representing in the claimed invention, as well as what is purportedly novel about their invention. You didn't indicate whether your analysis was based on the specs and claims, which is more relevant than just the figures. Please tell us what you think… As always, good video. Thanks.

  5. Quick added note just for clarification purposes: any person or entity can file a patent application and it will be published by the USPTO apprx 18 months later. The publication process is a standard step in the patent prosecution process (unless an applicant has requested non-publication at the time of filing) and has no bearing on whether the application will ultimately be granted a patent, with the IP rights that this confers.

    To acheive patented status, the idea must be new or novel. They must try to show that their idea, or iterations of a prior idea, hasn't been done before. What they are showing shouldn't match what other entities are already doing or anything that is already in the public domain; it must be different and solve some other need or purpose. So it seems entirely appropriate for there to be differences from what Ripple or other cited entities are doing with their own IP or product offerings. Just wanted to provide that clarification from the patent prosecution side of things in case people were concerned….

Comments are closed.