Leyne, Sean wrote:

>
>> Leyne, Sean wrote:
>>
>>> Jim,
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Firebird event alter mechanism is patented by Borland,
>>>>
>>> True, but the patent would have expired by now. They only last 17
>>>
>> years...
>>
>>>
>> Not so simple. Here's the rule:
>>
>
> We got to lobby to get the length of software patents changed to 4 years...
>
> 17 years for an idea that applies to a workspace were innovation has a lifecycle of 1 year or less is ... crazy!
>
>
>

Since it takes about six years for a patent to issue, setting the period
to four years is problematic.

That said, I don't understand your logic. Why should the fact that
innovation is often rapid effect the term of a patent?

I understand that there are many different perspectives on software
patents. One is that software is algorithms, algorithms are ideas, and
ideas aren't patentable. Another is that since the patent office
intially ruled software non-patentable and was later overruled by the
courts, the patent office didn't participate in the learning curve. My
personal perspective is why should I spend two years developing some
very difficult technology and then have to give it to Microsoft on a
silver platter.

Most of the arguments used against software patents are really arguments
against business method patents (which, in my humble opinion, are
profoundly bogus).


--
Jim Starkey
Founder, NimbusDB, Inc.
978 526-1376