[ILUG] Enda Kenny and Patents

[Enda]

David O' Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 00:31, Enda wrote:
>> Paul Jakma  wrote:
>>
>> > 25 years certainly is too long for software, The grant period should
>> > be *much* shorter and/or possibly commensurate to the costs of the
>> > industry concerned, eg no more than 5 years for software, no more
>> > than 10 years for patents in general or whatever.
>>
>> Not sure 5 years is long enough for software patents. Take 9/11 for
>> example.... its resulting in biometric passports, which will in reality
get
>> fully introduced no sooner than 2007, 6 years after the terror event that
>> could inspire a software inovation in that field.
>
> I find your example a bit cynical, but apart from that, should the
> patent system really have to care about this sort of latency between the
> time of the patent application and the time the "market" decides the
> device is useful?

Nope, you misread the scenario.... in the above scenario the market would
have decided that the device was useful on 10/11, but a project
implementation of that scale would take longer than the proposed patent life
rendering the patent useless.

My point is really that its wrong to assume that all software has a short
lifespan.

 Rory McCann  wrote:
> I'm not sure that's a good analogy. There they are not just writing a
> computer programme and releasing a pure software product. They are selling
> hardware and software, so it will take a while to manufacture the eye
> scanners, and get them into the field, plus you have to train airport
> staff and all.

Actually all the stuff you describe exists, and its one large integration
job and rollout that will take that length of time.

> How much of it is pure software innovation? Not much.

Thats an implementor's view. An innovator would say that if the privacy
concerns around biometric authentication and identification were _properly_
addressed, then the core of the project would be software innovation.

I'm trying hard not going to drag this out much further, but the core of the
problem really is that patents are being granted for non innovative works,
and thats what needs to be addressed, not the existance of the service
itself.

 -Enda.