Rolex to Use NFTs, Crypto Keys?..

[askdanny]

I've never dabbled in crypto and can barely spell "NFT."

But a USPTO-licensed trademark attorney broke the news yesterday by tweeting Rolex had filed a trademark application claiming plans for NFTs, crypto keys, virtual goods...

His full tweet here...

https://www.rolexmagazine.com/2022/1...keys-nfts.html

[rambo99]

it not surprising at all, Breitling has already applied block chain technology to authenticate their watches years ago.

[APWhale]

Originally Posted by askdanny

I've never dabbled in crypto and can barely spell "NFT."

But a USPTO-licensed trademark attorney broke the news yesterday by tweeting Rolex had filed a trademark application claiming plans for NFTs, crypto keys, virtual goods...

His full tweet here...

https://www.rolexmagazine.com/2022/1...keys-nfts.html

Then you missed out on a fun day yesterday

[DDPS]

This solves precisely nothing. Blockchain cannot protect physical goods from being altered, emulated, or otherwise tampered with. It can only protect fully digital goods. You can get a better sense for this here: https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/...rc-andreessen/

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by DDPS

This solves precisely nothing. Blockchain cannot protect physical goods from being altered, emulated, or otherwise tampered with. It can only protect fully digital goods. You can get a better sense for this here: https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/...rc-andreessen/

at least it can prove every changes of ownership of a watch, so it's not stolen.

[Marcjvr]

Originally Posted by rambo99

at least it can prove every changes of ownership of a watch, so it's not stolen.

Can’t even do that well if the blockchain is not diligently updated to reflect each transaction

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by DDPS

This solves precisely nothing. Blockchain cannot protect physical goods from being altered, emulated, or otherwise tampered with. It can only protect fully digital goods. You can get a better sense for this here: https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/...rc-andreessen/

Originally Posted by Marcjvr

Can’t even do that well if the blockchain is not diligently updated to reflect each transaction

if you buy from a grey dealer and the blockchain only contains one owner(rolex), then you know it's stolen.

[DDPS]

Originally Posted by Marcjvr

Can’t even do that well if the blockchain is not diligently updated to reflect each transaction

Correct. Nothing in a physical product's movement requires an update to a blockchain. Blockchain can only provide a reliable chain of custody for digital objects.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by askdanny

Rolex had filed a trademark application claiming plans for NFTs, crypto keys, virtual goods...

Filing protects their rights. It does not mean they are going to do anything

[Marcjvr]

Originally Posted by rambo99

if you buy from a grey dealer and the blockchain only contains one owner(rolex), then you know it's stolen.

Lol not necessarily

If I buy from an AD and end up selling privately to A, and then A sells to a grey and myself and A didn’t bother to update the blockchain then the blockchain will only reflect one owner

[cjhurni]

Didn't a theory like this swirl around earlier in the year / last year too?

[HiBoost]

Nailed the timing. "Rolex jumps on crypto bandwagon just as bitcoin crashes to 2 year lows"

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by Marcjvr

Lol not necessarily

If I buy from an AD and end up selling privately to A, and then A sells to a grey and myself and A didn’t bother to update the blockchain then the blockchain will only reflect one owner

lol, then simply don't buy this watch, it's just like a watch without the warranty card because majority of the watches out there will have its blockchain updated properly. imagine, if blockchain is implemented by Rolex, 99.9% of owners will update the blockchain first thing or they know their watches will depreciate in value like you lost the warranty card nowadays. you don't update the blockchain is just like you throw away the warranty card.

[Aquinas]

And they don’t do a centralized register via the Rolex website now because…?

[DDPS]

Originally Posted by rambo99

lol, then simply don't buy this watch, it's just like a watch without the warranty card because majority of the watches out there will have its blockchain updated properly. imagine, if blockchain is implemented by Rolex, 99.9% of owners will update the blockchain first thing or they know their watches will depreciate in value like you lost the warranty card nowadays. you don't update the blockchain is just like you throw away the warranty card.

In order for a Blockchain of this sort to work the way described (and not saying that it would be sufficient, because it wouldn't), there would need to be strict controls about who could make a ledger entry for the exchange in the Blockchain.

It's really simple. Blockchain is not a meaningful solution for tracing physical objects. I work in an industry of physical products where IBM talked about doing this at an industry event 5 years ago, and the technologists laughed them off the stage. The IBMers faces turned red (not dissimilar to the interview link I shared above), and they realized that they were wrong. Thankfully, they redirected their resources elsewhere.

It just makes for some temporarily impressive marketing speak. And if there's one thing we all agree on here, it's that Rolex is king of marketing. :)

[shwingus]

Originally Posted by Aquinas

And they don’t do a centralized register via the Rolex website now because…?

This. No need for stupid NFT's or the blockchain...Just do what AP did and offer extra warranty for people to register their watches online.

[dannyp]

Also so many other contexts for this stuff. Like…

Better tracking off batches of spare parts as more plaque service centers open up

Opportunities for digital artists supported by Rolex foundation arm

Ability for ADs to transact with digital currencies (wholesale purchases)

[SLWoodster]

May not come for years, decades. Most watch companies are planning this already.

[ndrs63]

Just because one files for a patent, it does not necessarily mean they want to use it. It can be a defensive strategy to ensure they are not facing legal hurdles if/when they intend to indeed leverage the invention


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gab27]

I think some digital method of documenting the original specs of the watch, the service history, and showing a presence/lack of an active warranty would be great to have. Further, it might not be a terrible thing if it could be used to flag stolen watches, although obviously there would be a lot of complications with the implementation of that.

[dethswatch]

Originally Posted by Gab27

if it could be used to flag stolen watches, although obviously there would be a lot of complications with the implementation of that.

All of this could be done- today- without any hooey from the cryptoHype Beasts.

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by dethswatch

All of this could be done- today- without any hooey from the cryptoHype Beasts.

how can you know if the watch you bought from a grey dealer is stolen or not? i'm curious.

[DDPS]

Originally Posted by rambo99

how can you know if the watch you bought from a grey dealer is stolen or not? i'm curious.

There is no known perfect solution for this. Blockchain won’t help, either. Publicly available databases of serial numbers of reported stolen objects are the best (but not perfect) defense.

[minute_man]

Originally Posted by DDPS

In order for a Blockchain of this sort to work the way described (and not saying that it would be sufficient, because it wouldn't), there would need to be strict controls about who could make a ledger entry for the exchange in the Blockchain.

It's really simple. Blockchain is not a meaningful solution for tracing physical objects. I work in an industry of physical products where IBM talked about doing this at an industry event 5 years ago, and the technologists laughed them off the stage. The IBMers faces turned red (not dissimilar to the interview link I shared above), and they realized that they were wrong. Thankfully, they redirected their resources elsewhere.

It just makes for some temporarily impressive marketing speak. And if there's one thing we all agree on here, it's that Rolex is king of marketing. :)

This is a very good point. I wouldn't expect the end user having anything to do with it but rather consider this as an additional (and not definitive) tamper-proofing layer accessible by RSCs for example.

Also, as previously stated by other members, filing a TM application doesn't mean it's going to be implemented and it could very well be applicable to other fields of activity and not the watches per se.

Although there has been a heads-up by a member who's called the VTNR and DSC this year (blockchain being the third "prophecy") I will have to agree with the timing comment

[Trailboss516]

FFS what is next? Putting my old Nikes on the blockchain? My sore throat? Kyle's virginity?

[Gab27]

Originally Posted by dethswatch

All of this could be done- today- without any hooey from the cryptoHype Beasts.

And that would be great as well. I am more interested in the outcome rather than the mechanics.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by beshannon

Filing protects their rights. It does not mean they are going to do anything

This ^^^