[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Australia-public-discuss] cutting the red tape

From: Daniel Black
Subject: Re: [Australia-public-discuss] cutting the red tape
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:01:03 +1100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0

Hash: SHA1

On 05/12/14 10:46, Ciarán O'Riordan wrote:
> Are these used against software developers?  They could be, but I haven't
> heard of it happening.

Me neither, if so why are they being registered?

> But maybe this is an opportunity to tell the government that if they want to
> cut down on red tape they need to remove certain categories of things from
> the normal patent system.  Such as software.

That's what the ACIP review recommends #5, "Amend subsections 18(3) and
18(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) to provide that, for the purposes of
innovation patents, no method, process or system shall be patentable."
effectively does.

> Some politicians believe raising standards is an answer, but this won't
> reduce administrative work.

Current government seems to subscribe to less restrictions (unless its
chaplains in schools or some idealogical bent but I digress).

> ...
> But excluding a domain from patentability leads to a clear reduction in
> administrative load.  If you remove software, then software patents don't
> have to be examined at all, and there'd be no point in re-submitting a
> rejected application.
> My suggestion for a submission would be: "exclude software from innovation
> patents, and doing the same for normal patents would be an even bigger
> saving".

Sounds very worth while.

ACIP's rational for innovation patents also applies for full patents,
just probably wasn't put that way because full patents weren't under review.

Some measure of success from NZ's implementation of this would be good.
Version: GnuPG v1


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]