![Biotech Biotech](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/biotech_64.png)
Iris Recognition To Take Off 229
An anonymous reader writes "Looks like iris recognition is about to explode. Turns out, a major patent held by iris recognition leader Iridian is expiring, and that's leading a stampede of start-ups and VCs into this space."
You've gotta admit... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a load of bull. If somebody needs an iris scanner, they will make one...with or without the damn patent. That's something that the IP drones won't ever admit....That something just might arise from necessity...not always exclusivity. It has been proven once again that IP law promotes speculation.
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:2)
1936 ophthalmologist Frank Burch suggests iris-based identification
We would have done it without patent or not.
Anyway, just to correct some misleading posts:
Pros for iris recognition:
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:2)
Depending on how expensive the equipment used you can be from 6 inches away from the scanner to 2 or 3 feet.
This is possible becayuse all the scanner needs to do is take pictures of the iris which is visible outside of your eye.
I have tested such equipment. It does work, but for important stuff you still need people around to make sure it's being used the way its supposed to be used. E.g. not some g
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:2, Interesting)
Companies will not invest in the necessary R&D without some guarantee of exclusivity for some period of time.
But you knew that -- you're just bitter.
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm... did you even read article, or even the Slashdot blurb? The entire thing is
The article even suggests that the reason that iris scanners aren't as common as fingerprint or other scanners could be because of the patents that the single company holds.
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:4, Informative)
That's one opinion. Business Week, that hotbed of anti-patent activism and communist propaganda, doesn't seem to agree.
That's from TFA in case it wasn't obvious. The emphasis is mine.Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:2)
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:2)
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:2)
The same is true of just about any herbal remedy. Despite all the hype about medical marijiuana, even if the drug itself were declared legal the FDA wouldn't approve it for treating glaucoma or anything else unless someone spent billi
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:2, Interesting)
These small companies -- why wouldn't they just patent the results of their efforts? Why exactly do patent laws favor size? I have a small number of patents that I paid for as an individual. They aren't going to make me millions, but submitting and getting a patent doesn't have any size barrier(s).
So seriously, what was your point?
Re:You've gotta admit... (Score:2)
Patents and innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:2)
while legislators feel copyrights - on say Mickey Mouse - should last forever otherwise nobody would create anymore? Personally I got bored of Mickey Mouse after seeing it for the 5000th time.
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:2)
Linky [wikipedia.org]
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:2)
IMO, companies should be reimbursed only for their costs by a properly instituted restitution system. Yes, we (the government) should all chip in to pay the cost out of our tax money. The important thing is that nobody should be refrained from using an idea
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
"Tear shedders" like you are simply nuts wanting a free ride on other's hard work. You probably are a heavy user of P2P networks to illegally copy copyrighted work and live in some pirate haven in Asia. Someday you'll actually have to learn how to create value -- lik
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
Take the Eolas plug-in patent. Does your browser support plug-ins? Then for years, you may have used it illegally, according to the USPTO. (Thankfully that one patent is now invalidated)
Regarding the Slashd
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Why is it ironic that the patent was issued on 9/11?
2) Yes, Microsoft and Bill are convicted monopolists. Rather than dispute that (which I could) I will just say that he paid the fine.
3) I support the US patent office and I give Bush a bad name? Huh?
4) Automation of a manual process seems like a reasonable patent to me and the US patent office... Their patent also include preferred embodiments and boundaries. You included a prett
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Because it is unfair. And because it deals with "handheld scanners -- the type security patrolmen might use at a stadium or airport."
2) A monopolist (not evil in itself) convicted of unfair trade practises
3) No, you support the USPTO granting unfair patents, and gave Bush a bad name by dragging his name into the conversation.
4)
4.1) Granting a patent on current and future embodiments of automating an existing manual process is ridiculous.
4.2) Their first patent does not restrict itself and has absurdly limitless boundaries - it says their "invention be limited not by the specific disclosure herein, but only by the appended claims" - claims like claim 10 below, which are so broad as to cover all current and future embodiments:
This is CLAIM 10:
"10. The method of claim 1 in which comparing the obtained image with stored image information comprises deriving a set of descriptors of at least the iris portion of the obtained image and comparing the derived descriptors with stored reference descriptors derived from a previous image for identifying the person."
This is CLAIM 1:
"1. A method of identification of a person, comprising:
storing image information of at least a portion of the iris and pupil of the person's eye;
illuminating an eye, of an unidentified person having an iris and a pupil;
obtaining at least one image of at least the same portion of the iris and pupil of the eye of the unidentified person; and
comparing at least the iris portion of the obtained image with the stored image information to identify the unidentified person."
4.3) I don't know which ellipsis you speak of
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:2)
No, it's a way to ensure that the first person to get a chance to profit from an invention is the inventor.
Figure out a way to get "chance" into that automatic-restitution scheme of yours, and you'll have a workable replacement. But if a crappy invention and a great invention both get rewarded the same, well, then you've just re-invented communism.
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:2)
The restitution scheme should be adjusted to reflect the value of the invention to society. Value should be based on economic benefits, work done in developing the invention, use, etc... So, if you invent a shit simulator, you get nothing; but if you invent true AI,
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:2)
Interesting. It might work better if it was a larger economic model--i.e., applied to normal wages and not simply creative expression.
But, really, the best thing if you want to aborgate the "make and hide" scheme of IP law is mandatory licensing -- a patent must be licensed by anyone who wishes it for a perce
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
So in your opinion the power that now rests with consumers and shareholders should instead rest with bureaucrats, assigned by the State to decide the fate of inventors based on "value to society"?
In Communist East Germany, if you wanted a car, the only choice was the ridiculously inefficient and simple Trabant, because decisionmakers felt that the people did not need better cars. Initiating things like our home comput
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:2)
IMO, you're probably a greedy SOB who hopes to make a killing by abusing an evil system that takes away the liberty of others. I hope some nasty-looking alien from Andromeda knocks on your door one day and demands payment for using the wheel which they had patented a billion years ago in their home world. Any display of public masturbation on your part won't be accepted as payment, sorry. ahahaha...
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't say that. A side effect of a free and creative society is that a lot of very weird ideas show up. Some of them go away, and others are adopeted becasue they really do make more sense.
And why should tax-payers pay for this? Do you know how much corporations make? You're talking about maybe DOUBLING the tax burden just so cheap
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:2)
Nothing ever really changes.
Now days, with agressive cross-licensing, the delay is mostly removed, but now all the profits goto lawyers instead of the inventors - which have no control over the things they invented thanks
Re:Patents and innovation (Score:2)
Sounds like a perfect example of how our idea of "securing for limited times ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is utterly failing to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," which is the only justification for patent and copyright given in the Constitution.
Iris Recognition (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Iris Recognition (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Iris Recognition (Score:3, Interesting)
Iris scanning proves beyond a reasonable doubt that your eye matches information in a row in a database. The information in that row may or may not match you.
Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, I'll need some of this new technology to make sure they really are my own eyes.
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Not exactly (Score:3, Funny)
I'm afraid you won't be able to see it until you see it with at least one of my eyes. Access Denied.
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Wait A Minute... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait A Minute... (Score:2)
Refusing to die properly can sometimes be a good thing. Just look at Apple.
Re:Wait A Minute... (Score:2)
One question (Score:5, Funny)
Re:why.. (Score:2)
For those concerned about privacy... (Score:5, Funny)
Tinfoil Contact Lenses(TM)
Re:For those concerned about privacy... (Score:2)
Remember, when video cameras were first invented only banks and the like could afford them, leading to them being widely distrusted by privacy advocates. But then they got cheap and now they are used for good as well as amoral purposes. A
Re:For those concerned about privacy... (Score:2)
"Iris Scans, like any technology, can be used for both good and evil. I know because I am starting a business using iris scans in a way that will actually increase privacy of users."
Good, then maybe you can answer a question for me: Will I lose access to work, my bank account and all my private papers when some kid who doesn't listen to his mother's advice puts my eye out with a snowball?
I know I'm being a little glib, but it's a serious question....
Re:For those concerned about privacy... (Score:2)
For the fingerprint scanner here at work, they have us do two fingers. One on each hand.
I'll assume that a good iris scanner will be done on both eyes. I'm not sure how laser eye surgery would effect this though.
Re:For those concerned about privacy... (Score:2)
Re:For those concerned about privacy... bend over (Score:2)
Eventually, a person's iris scan data will be as ubiquitous and purchase
Re:For those concerned about privacy... bend over (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all let me congratulate you for trying to put a bit more thought into what you are doing, than, say, any major electronic voting machine company did. But, I still think you will be doing your customers a disservice in the long run, whatever benefits they may derive in the short run.
Rant: It doesn't do me any good to tell you to abandon what you're doing, because I know that the only thing that will happen is that a less ethically constrained individual will just take your place, whether at your
Reminds me of a joke... (Score:5, Funny)
The "next big thing" eh? That reminds me of a joke =)
An anatomy professor is quizzing his students one session when he calls on Suzy with question, "Suzy, what part of the body has the ability to expand to six times its normal size and under what conditions?" Suzy indignantly replies, "Professor! How dare you ask me such a thing, and in front of the entire class no less! I assure you my parents will be hearing about this incident, and you will no doubt have to answer to someone for it!" The professors tells her she may sit down and then asks Emily the same question. Emily replies "The iris. In the dark." The professor continues, "That is correct Emily, you may be seated. Suzy, your answer tells me three things. 1) You have not studied your lessons, 2) You have a dirty mind, and 3) You will be very disappointed one day."
;-)
Dont look at Bill of Rights with Remaining eyeball (Score:2)
Re:Dont look at Bill of Rights with Remaining eyeb (Score:2)
Don't forget... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. If you are threatened with violence, you can tell the attacker your password, but would you want to give them your eye?
Re:Don't forget... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, in some situations, the very issue you mentioned is a boon to the system. For example, let's say that the CDC's Smallpox virus is protected by either a iris scanner or a password. If a scientist is faced with giving up a password or an
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2)
For example, let's say that the CDC's Smallpox virus is protected by either a iris scanner or a password. If a scientist is faced with giving up a password or an eye, he'll probably be more likely to give up the password. Thus, if everything else is equal, the eye-based security is better.
You are totally missing the point. If it was a highly secured substance like smallpox, then the thief would more likely just kill you and remove your eye. So now you have a loose smallpox virus *AND* a one-eyed technici
Re:Don't forget... (Score:3, Interesting)
i would prefer that it cost more than $5000 to steal smallpox virus
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2)
It's infringing on "intellectual property", not stealing! You are not really depriving them of their property - all you need to do is take a sample and grow more. The loss in volume would be neglegable.
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2)
Yes, but what they need to do, however, is determine that the finger is both alive and still attached to its original owner.
Hand transplants have already been done.
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2)
Actually your iris does change with your health (Score:3, Interesting)
And diabetes is only one disease which affects the patterns which can be detected in the iris. Many other diseases affect both the radial disposition and the radial pattern. The medical books are filled with disease effects on the eyes.
While iris scanning for recognition is useless, it IS extremely useful as a diagnostic tool in medecine.
For personal identification, you would want to scan th
Re:Actually your iris does change with your health (Score:2)
The percentage of people who have diseases that acutally affect the patterns used for iris scanning are quite small. I'm in the business and I have yet to
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2)
Remember: if the cost to steal something is greater than the cost of that which is being stolen, it is safe, and vice versa.
Just because you can use a technology in dangerous way doesn't mean the technology itself can't also be used for good. Cf scissors and nail clippers in airports.
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2)
Complete Fallacy (Score:3, Informative)
Retina scans depend on blood vessels in the eye - which change radically if said eye is detached (or the owner is dead).
Fingerprint scans are usually designed to check for electrical conductivity, which is different for an attached finger and a detached one.
Re:Complete Fallacy (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget... (Score:4, Interesting)
You have the security of revocability, but the convenience of never accidentally losing your "card" (except in extreme cases of accident.)
"Gouging out eyeballs" not effective (Score:2)
Once the eye has been separated from its owner, the blood and other fluids inside immediately begin to alter their state due to lack of oxygen, damaging the appearance of the iris enough to make it unrecognizable to the scanner within just a few minutes.
If you'
Re:"Gouging out eyeballs" not effective (Score:2)
eye surgery? (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2)
That would be the new BrownEye Scanner (TM) technology.
exploding iris (Score:4, Funny)
Re:exploding iris (Score:2)
Squeamish? But the writeup was extremely careful and considerate! They didn't even mention the feeler that checks if the eyeball is dead or alive by measuring blood pressure in the space between eyeball and cranium.
-- Terrorism may have turned the United States into a nation of fear and aggression, but it won't succeed in Europe.
IRS recognition? (Score:2)
Iris vs Retina (Score:4, Interesting)
Because I've never heard of using the Iris and don't know anything about its uniqueness. Where the retina is easily scanned and heavily researched.
Anybody know more? or is this a typo?
Re:Iris vs Retina (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Iris vs Retina (Score:3, Funny)
Flom is my opthamologist (Score:2)
Note, that also puts the kibosh on the pseudoscience of iridology.
Excellent (Score:2)
Patents at work (Score:3, Insightful)
Defeated by contact lenses? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Defeated by contact lenses? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Defeated by contact lenses? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Defeated by contact lenses? (Score:2)
Before bashing patents... (Score:2)
Already there are a number of comments sarcastically noting how patents stifle innovation. The problem here was not the patent system but Iridian's short sightedness in developing and marketing the product. If government was one of their main buyers, and if governments were reluctant to rely on one supplier, then Iridian should have licensed their patent to a number of other companies.
IBM licensed their PC design to a large number of companies, did they not? Because of patents they recouped the money th
Re:Before bashing patents... (Score:2)
That's news to me. Please give me a citation. As I recall, the PC design was available royalty-free, while IBM's attempt at controlling the architecture (the MicroChannel Architecture): 1) flopped in the marketplace, 2) did not have substantially better performance, 3) cost a hell of a lot of money, and 4)
Public Enemy said it best... (Score:2)
RSA (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:2, Funny)
cool, but unreliable (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the more broadly applicable studies, performed for the UK Passport Office (reports downloadable from http://www.passport.gov.uk/publications.asp [passport.gov.uk]) with just over 10,000 participants, found that 1 in 10 British Citizens were unable to even successfully enroll thei
Funny (Score:2)
Argument against patents (Score:3, Interesting)
If as I've said before patents lasted 3 years, maybe 5 at the very most, they would probably be a good thing, in 3 years Iridian would have been able to establish itself as a market leader, and every newcomer to the field would most likely license their stuff anyway (under copyright, or some other license generated by the company). Instead it takes 20 years to get an iris scanner on my laptop, or built into a security system at my house? Those things should have been done in 92.
Re:Iris no thanks (Score:3, Interesting)
With better scanners that can tell the difference between live and dead fingers, this might have been prevented. Of course, that would depend on the bad guys knowing that it wouldn't work...
Give it time... (Score:2)
"[Scan] [Beep] Hey, Larry Melman! Refinance now!!"
"[Scan] [Beep] Viagra is now over-the-counter, Mr. Melman!"
"[Scan] [Beep] Larry, buddy! Long time no see! Did you ever get that diploma? Well, now you can!"