MaidSafe patents

Hi! I’m new to the forum. I read about MaidSafe and in particular I was wondering if anyone has an overview of the MaidSafe patents?

thanks a lot

If you type maidsafe patents into google you will see most of them in the different countries. They are held by the maidsafe foundation who has a mandate to increase innovation and education for all the worlds people. Hope that helps.


are the statues of the MaidSafe Foundation online somewhere too?

Thanks for a very fast reply!

Not sure, they may be. They are called charitable objects, in Scott’s law and OSCR are the regulator. They may publish those objects. It was an 18 month marathon setting it all up (and very costly as well, unfortunately)


sorry for asking all these questions. MaidSafe Foundation looks really nice, but the website talks about a FabLab for Scotland, but not about any technological patents held by this foundation. Am I missing something ? I was looking here

No as they cannot profit from these patents, so there is not much point putting that on the site (they are very unlikely to use patents for profit if they created their own, which I am not sure it would). They will earn via buying maidsafe shares over time and from profit from maidsafe. It’s a pretty large complex setup that we should have a video about, but basically the goal is to repay maidsafe investors very handsomely and transfer ownership fully to the foundation.

It’s an unusual setup as the professional employee trust people had many issues as I was gifting shares to staff and a foundation and nobody was paying for them. This is apparently very unusual. The foundation holds the patents licensed back to maidasfe, so if maidsafe gets taken out it can still ensure the world gets SAFE. There is a huge amount more to it and many contracts and agreements in place.

There are a huge amount of protections in place to ensure the project is secure and safe, I have not detailed all of these though, mainly due to time and also due to not showing our hand completely to those who may try and damage it all (transparency is good, but not one way when others are looking for any weakness). In terms of SAFE though it’s clear there are safety measures that give it the best chance it can get :wink:



I had another question, and that was actaully my main question. How do these patents relate to other open source projects? The wording in the patents (are probably deliberatly) very broad, for example in US20100064354A1 - - Google Patents

claim.12. The distributed network product of claim 2 which is coupled with cyber cash product that allows one to access any computer via this product and have their own data and desktop represented to them as well as the ability to communicate securely and share digital resources without involving 3rd party access controls or dedicated servers, this product comprises of following steps:

wouldn’t this also apply to Bitcoin? This patent is still an application I think, but would you be able to “sue the bitcoin foundation” for example if it was appointed?

They are to be protected. We have some patents that would come close to bitcoin and have spoken to some of the groups in btc to ensure it’s all safe there. Patent protection is about protecting open source from our perspective, it’s how we evolve society and that includes SAFE and all related projects.

There was a ton of fear and weird stuff said a while back, but it’s all in very good hands and in a good place. I am the sole inventor on all the patents and it would be hard for anyone to get their hands on them and use them against innovation, if not impossible. At the moment they will protect against larger players with proprietary code and massive marketing budgets though. so good :wink:

[edit some more info here Cointelegraph: Clearing the Air Over MaidSafe’s Patent Request: An Interview with COO Nick Lambert ]


Yeah, people get worried about the patents and everything and I used to also, but then I heard that everything is open source and GPL so nothing being created here can ever go evil or towards a monopoly like all the companies we see today (especially here in America).

That fact alone put all my fears to rest.

I’m correct in feeling this way, right? (just making sure, since we’re on the topic of it)


That the patents are used in a GPLv3 project is certainly good. However it doesn’t rid patents of all their inherent problems. It means that anyone using the project can’t get sued because of the project’s patents. It also means that any external entity suing the project over patents loses their rights to use the project.

Also being that the patents are held by a charitable organization offers some benefit, because those types of orgs aren’t obligated to their owners to purse profits above all else. Quite the opposite actually. So it’s less likely you’ll see them patent trolling people for money.

However, patents could still be used in nefarious ways even given the above. To fully cure this would involve some sort of public licensing of the patents and assurance that they’d only be used defensively. Doing that probably entails risks for the patent holder, additional legal costs, and difficulty assuaging investors’ concerns.

(I am not a lawyer. This post isn’t advice.)


I’m sure it’ll be fine :slight_smile:

But it’s good to be mindful like that

Hi! While I’m relatively new to this forum; and this thread is “almost 3 years” old, according to the board robots; there are teams around the world that have been taking a close look at the usurpation of certain alphabet agencies around the world - including Patent and Trademark offices. For example, liens have been placed against unlawfully obtained “bogus criminal patents, trademarks, and copyrights”.
Have you at MaidSafe taken a very critical look into the potential unlawful use of your intellectual property? Unknown “adhesion contracts” with “state administrators”, etc.? If you’re unfamiliar with an adhesion contract, take a look at the definition of the historic role and duties of an “Attorney” in Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) - that may certainly open your eyes. Thanks!

It has never been licensed out, apart from that I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit for us. We are not a USA company so we do not keep up to date with a lot of USA specifics.


Hi David! Thanks for the response:

I take the assumption that all industrialized nations practice the same overall “legal” principles - the separation between public and private jurisdictions of law.

Once someone contracts for “public” services; e.g. hypothetically applying for a “patent”, they will end up trading their natural “right” for a “privalege”. Thereby losing said “right” - usually via an unlawful adhesion contract or via straight theft.

Just as surely as foreign powers own the incorporated United States, these same powers can unlawfully obtain control over MaidSafe’s technology. While I’m no expert in Irish or Scottish history or law, my gut feeling is to remain wary of the same foreign interests as we are [U.S.A., Inc. or U.S., Inc.].

You are welcome :+1: .

I am not sure about this, in the UK/EU there is civil and business law, there is also criminal law, but I have never seen anything akin to public/private. Maybe as we have large public sector business then this is obscured.

Again I don’t know what this means in our context, say we apply for a patent or some other public service, I am not seeing what right we give up and what privilege we would trade it for?

I suppose everything is possible, where money is involved, even changing laws, but this seems like a massive change to the law. In our case it would not matter as we have everything open source and available to all. In terms of somebody taking control, I am not sure what it would mean for us. All we care about is the tech gets out, like the rules to make fire etc. when it is out we then hope it stays open and available to everyone.


Thanks, David!

Here is some food for thought:

“I am not sure about this, in the UK/EU there is civil and business law, there is also criminal law…”

Private Law: Contract Law, Tort Law, Status Law, and Property Law (e.g. Private Estates/Trusts);
Public Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Law, and International Law.

“Again I don’t know what this means in our context…what right we give up and what privilege we would trade it for?”

The core definition of a “right” is an unalienable type of “property”. Taking your right/property from the “private” into the “public” removes control over said right/property.

“…we have everything open source and available to all.”

I may be incorrect, but it doesn’t seem pratically possible for MaidSafe to be “…available to all.”

  • The “internet” was supposed to be available to all. (controlled/censored)
  • “social media” was supposed to be available to all. (controlled/censored)
  • “blockchain” was supposed to be available to all. (certain parts to be patented, controlled, and forced upon people?? - by Banks, etc. - who knows)

The intellectual property, infrastructure, and buying power of certain powers may be leveraged to coopt the altruistic intentions of MaidSafe.

I suppose my thought processes may suggest the need for some sort of privately held core to MaidSafe in order to protect those “altruistic intentions”. Perhaps some form of “decentralized” lawful structure? (Please notice the use of the word “lawful” and NOT “legal” - they are not the same :wink: