Software Now Un-Patentable In New Zealand

A few weeks ago New Zealand Software decided to grant software patents. But now "Despite what appears to be a big-budget lobbying effort by the pro-patent fraternity, Hon Simon Power announced today that he wouldn't be modifying the proposed Patents Bill hence software will be un-patentable once the Bill passes into law. This is significant. As we've previously pointed out software patents aren't black and white, and there are certainly pros and cons. However on balance, we believe they represent a far greater risk to smaller NZ-based software providers than opportunity, and there are many cases where they have significantly stifled innovation. We believe it's near impossible for software to be developed without breaching some of the hundreds of thousands of software patents awarded around the world, hence many software companies in New Zealand, creating outstanding and innovative software, live a constant risk that their entire business will be wound up overnight due to litigious action by a patent holder. This has led to many a 'patent troll' company, primarily in the US. These are non-software companies who exist only to buy up old patents with the sole intention of suing innovative software companies for apparent breach of these patents. The effects of this have been chilling."

Comments

Huzzah!

[spammeister]

Hopefully this marks the beginning of more like-mindedness thinking in other countries.

There should be some ramifications to the ACTA kerfuffle, which is always welcome IMO.

Re:Huzzah!

[Bigjeff5]

Meanwhile in the US, the way has been paved for business method patents. Yay progress!

While I definitely think there are legitimate software patents, the decision to have none at all is probably better than the current insanity in the US.

Patents should be for truly innovative things, and no, adding "on a computer" to something that has already been invented is not innovative. Apparently our patent clerks cannot tell the difference when it comes to software.

Re:Huzzah!

[Verdatum]

Actually, he's violating Steve Jobs' entirely separate patent on "Thinking for yourself on a computer".

Re:Huzzah!

[Xtifr]

"Meanwhile"? Unless you've got a very broad definition of that word, I think I have to disagree. Business method patents came in with State Street back in '98. And while this year's SC decision in Bilski didn't go as far as many (including me) might have hoped, it did actually cut back quite a bit on what's patentable. See, for example, this Groklaw article on a post-Bilsk software patent rejection.

I think a better statement might be, "meanwhile, in the US, the way for business method patents has been only partially blocked."

Re:Huzzah!

[cashdot]

Apparently our patent clerks cannot tell the difference when it comes to software

I was working as such a patent clerk (with focus on software) in Europe.

While it is easy to accept every software patent application (as in US) or reject all of them (as apparently now in New Zealand), it is very hard to find objective criteria to separate obvious things from truly innovative stuff.

The basic problem is, that in Software, there are usually very little unforeseen obstacles to overcome, when a concept is turned into actual code.

Lets say, state of the art is, that software A can do X, and software B can do Y.

Now somebody invents a software C that can do both, X and Y. Is this innovative? Usually not.

If we apply this example to the physical world, the situation is entirely different. A submarine can dive, and an aircraft can fly. Inventing a "machine" that can do both, would require a lot of innovation.

Now, a patentable idea has to be technically feasible. In the case of software, there is not much justification required, as every expert in the field knows, that it is in principle possible to combine X and Y. On the other hand, in the physical world, it requires much more than just an "idea" of a flying submarine to have a patentable innovation.

Therefore, it is very easy to apply for a patent for a software, that is unknown in the state of the art, while technically and economically feasible. In the physical world, this is much harder to achieve.

The problem is not, that the patent offices only have incompetent examiners. Rather, the definition of "patentable innovation" is not suitable for software.

Re:Huzzah!

[dov_0]

A patent is there to encourage innovation by making it possible for inventors to profit, yes? Well why don't patents become invalid after a certain number of years if no product is released? Say, 2 years for software and 5 or 10 years for technology at the discretion of the patent office.

Re:Huzzah!

[marcosdumay]

"Meanwhile in the US, the way has been paved for business method patents."

You should take a look on the case on Blinsk, recently decided by your supreme court. Some time is needed to see how far that will affect software patents, but the tide has clearly changed.

Re:Huzzah!

[trout007]

Patents are a legal temporary monopoly that are to be used to help technical progress. Can you imagine how long in the 1800's it took to get the word out on a product? It almost made sense to have a 20 year patent. But these days I don't think it's needed anymore. It takes a second to roll out a product nationally. Plus the things that get patents are mostly marginal improvements that won't be useful for 20 years. How about this. The US patent system only gets to grant 100 patents a year for the really great inventions. You can make it a reality show.

Re:Huzzah!

[Bigjeff5]

Not really, the SC simply upheld the specific rejection of Bilski, but struck down the broader machine-test portion, which was the key in eliminating business method patents.

In other words, Bilski originally said business methods were un-patentable, because all patents must this test. The SC said that the Bilski test isn't the only test.

Thus, business method patents are still potentially valid, even though the specific patent in Bilski is not.

If that's not paving the way for business method patents, I don't know what is.

Re:Huzzah!

[Bigjeff5]

I disagree with most of your post. I'll sum up how the preliminary software patent test should work (only to show what is definitely not patentable) here:

If you can take an idea for a piece of software to any software engineer and say "Here, program this for me" and they can program it for you, it isn't an innovative enough idea for a patent. If you take it to an engineer and they say "How the hell am I supposed to do that?" then you have something special. After you get the patent, that same engineer should be able to read your patent and say "Oh, that makes sense" and write the program.

Most software patents would fail this test, but the really groundbreaking stuff would not fail, and that's the stuff that patents exist for. That's why they are called innovations.

It may mean they need to hire some software engineers to sit and look at the idea and try to come up with a way to implement it on their own before they look at the solution. If they come up with the same solution, then obviously it should not receive a patent.

The test I give is applicable to physical inventions, too, with some slight modifications in wording. If you can give any engineer in the particular field a problem and they come up with the same solution you did, your solution is not original and is not patentable. If they are stumped, or their solution is significantly inferior to yours, you are probably on to something, and after a little more verification you can get a patent.

Re:Huzzah!

[bit9]

The problem is not, that the patent offices only have incompetent examiners. Rather, the definition of "patentable innovation" is not suitable for software.

Nonsense. The parent was specifically referring to the current state of software patents in the U.S., and patents such as Amazon's 1-click patent have everything to do with incompetent examiners, and nothing to do with the difficulty of finding a suitable definition of patentability. The 1-click patent may just be the most egregious and/or the most often cited example, but it is not even close to being an isolated instance.

Like the parent poster, I have no problem with software patents in theory, provided that they are limited to ideas that are truly innovative. You're right that knowing where to draw that line is a difficult problem, but the current system in the U.S. is not merely struggling with difficult definitions - it's totally FUBAR. As a software developer, it really pisses me off to think that if I come up with a solution that is simple, elegant, efficient, and intuitive, that I might get sued out of existence by some patent troll, despite the fact that I was merely using my intellect and applying my skills to solve a relatively simple problem, and that the solution I came up with is roughly the same solution that tens of thousands of other software developers have (or would have, given the same problem) come up with.

To use your method of analogy between the software world and the physical world, allowing software patents on such simple ideas is akin to allowing a cabinet maker to patent the 90-degree angle. All this does is artificially enforce and sustain a market hegemony and makes it harder for people like me to do our jobs. And yes, this is absolutely indicative of incompetence at the USPTO.

Re:Huzzah!

[RandomAdam]

NZ FTW ~ http://www.nzcs.org.nz/news/blog.php?/archives/97-.html ~ an interesting article from the NZ computer society

Re:Huzzah!

[innocent_white_lamb]

If you can take an idea for a piece of software to any software engineer and say "Here, program this for me" and they can program it for you, it isn't an innovative enough idea for a patent. If you take it to an engineer and they say "How the hell am I supposed to do that?" then you have something special. After you get the patent, that same engineer should be able to read your patent and say "Oh, that makes sense" and write the program.
 
Your solution doesn't cover the situation where someone thinks of doing something that has never been thought of before.
 
I have a fire burning. If I poke a stick into the campfire, I have a torch that I can use to transfer the fire to a new location!
 
If nobody thought of poking a stick into a fire before, is that an innovation? Particularly if the question wasn't phrased as "move the fire from point A to point B" because nobody ever considered moving it before?
 
I don't know.. that might be a bad example. What I'm trying to express is a situation where someone solves a problem that nobody actually realized was a problem before the solution is presented.

Re:Huzzah!

[cashdot]

You are probably right about the incompetence of the USPTO. On the other hand, it is like I said, they just patent everything which is new, i.e. no prior art is found by them within reasonable amoumt of time. That takes the least effort, you know...

You are also right, the US patent system desperately needs to be reformed, as it is incompatible in many aspects with the rest of the world. It leads to way to many lawauits too.

I was refering to the cituation in Europe. It is much better here, but the question of software patents is still unresolved.

To use your method of analogy between the software world and the physical world, allowing software patents on such simple ideas is akin to allowing a cabinet maker to patent the 90-degree angle

In Switzerland you would absolutely get a patent for the 90-degree angle! Provided it solves a technical problem, but I think this is the case here. (In Switzerland novelty is not checked by the patent examiner, but of course required by the patent law. In other European countries novelty is searched for by the examiner). But what would you do with such a patent? The chances to win a patent litigation over novelty is zero, as it is trivial to show prior art.

But for the 1-click patent it is obviously not so easy to find any documented prior art.

My common sense also tells me that this should not be patenable, but common sense is not a legal basis to revoke such an application.

I think to reject software patents alltogether is the best solution. Software "as such" isn't patentable in most parts of Europe. But there are of course ways arount that. For example, you can still patent a data carrier containing a specific software...

Re:Huzzah!

[steelfood]

That's because software is design. It's code that tells the machine what to do, not the actual machine doing the job.

Software's covered by copyrights. You can't patent it just like you can't patent a story or a color scheme.

Re:Huzzah!

[cashdot]

Can you give an example of something that would pass this test?

LZW-Compression comes to my mind. When you tell the engineer to develop a lossless data compression with such specific properties, he probably would fail. On the other hand, the specific compression properties are part of the problem you want to solve, not part of the idea. The "idea" here would be a (de)compression algorithm, that builds up a suitable decompression code lookup table on the fly, rather than supplying it. With this information the engineer could come up with a solution.

It may mean they need to hire some software engineers to sit and look at the idea and try to come up with a way to implement it on their own before they look at the solution. If they come up with the same solution, then obviously it should not receive a patent.

That would be very difficult, and expensive too. Who checks, that the engineer is competent and unbiased? .

Re:Huzzah!

[MechaStreisand]

You should take a closer look at it. The general consensus is that Bilski was as close to a crushing defeat for the anti-software-patent crowd as was possible to get.

Re:Huzzah!

[bit9]

But for the 1-click patent it is obviously not so easy to find any documented prior art.

As far as prior art goes for 1-click shopping, I'm hard pressed to believe that Amazon was truly the first web company to ever have a 1-click checkout. I would guess that this had been done before, even if only by some mom and pop online store being run out of a garage.

However, for me, prior art (or lack thereof) is not the most important issue with the Amazon 1-click patent. By far the biggest issue I have with the 1-click patent is its complete and utter obviousness.

I'm sure I'll get the usual replies explaining how just because it seems obvious in retrospect, doesn't mean it was obvious at the time. That may in fact be true when you view Amazon 1-click purely as a marketing ploy - I'm sure it was quite the career-making insight for whatever marketing douche thought it up. However, when viewed as a software "algorithm", it is stupefyingly obvious and far too simple to deserve a patent. A software patent is supposed to be for actual software methodology, not marketing gimmicks.

Perhaps the 1-click patent would be more accurately described as a "business methodology" patent, and perhaps that has something to do with which of the specific claims were thrown out in 2006/2007 when the USPTO reexamined the 1-click patent. However, IMO the 1-click patent is still totally absurd, even if you view it as a business methodology patent, and I'm not convinced that business methodology patents should even exist at all.

The bottom line is, no matter what category you try to stuff it into, the idea of only having to click a single button to perform some action is ridiculously obvious and trite, and not deserving of any kind of patent whatsoever. And thanks to the USPTO, there are thousands upon thousands of patents floating around for "innovations" that aren't actually innovations - either because they've already been done or because they're ridiculously obvious.

Re:Huzzah!

[Xtifr]

Bilski as a whole greatly improved matters in the US. It's true that the SC didn't go quite as far as the lower court, but the lower court decision wasn't binding on other districts, while the SC decision is. Even East Texas. Anyway, the net result was still a major improvement. And the test (machine-or-transformation) wasn't rejected; it was simply stated to be not-necessarily-sufficient by itself. But the bar for any candidate patent that fails the machine-or-transformation test is much, much higher than it was. The State Street test is dead. The Bilski test survived, although it was mildly wounded.

Pre-Bilski business/software patents are still going to come under a lot more scrutiny than they did before.

Or to put it another way, the answer to your last question is: since (some) business method patents are "still potentially valid", as you yourself admitted (emphasis mine), it's not a case of "paving the way"-- it's a case of "failing to block the way as much as we might have hoped." The only way it could have been "paving the way" is if it made more patents possible--but it did just the opposite.

Re:Huzzah!

[mjwx]

Actually, he's violating Steve Jobs' entirely separate patent on "Thinking for yourself on a computer".

Is this a submarine patent?

I've never seen any of this displayed in a computer designed by Steve Jobs.

Re:Huzzah!

[tchall]

This should have been intuitively obvious from the very beginning of general programming languages... NOTHING can be done in any language without using the "prior art" that was involved in developing the language.... Software written in a general programming language should never have been allowed a patent... Copyright covers software code, and gives the holder a much longer span of time in which they can control the use of their specific code... It would be nice to think that the US Patent Office would get on board with this.. but they've been wrong before, and I'm pretty sure that a good lawyer could tie them up by claiming if they did it once, they MUST continue to issued patents wrongly...

Re:Huzzah!

[Jare]

Vending machines have let you buy things with one click of a button for ages. The fact that it's now in a web page instead of a metal box does not make it innovative at all.

Re:Huzzah!

[FredFredrickson]

I think what made it patentable (not that I agree with it, because I don't) was that the vending machine remembered who you are and allowed you to buy things in the future without the hassle of providing payment information.

There are pros and cons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. The pros oppose software patents, the cons support them.

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[beschra]

Yes. And this wouldn't help a NZ company if they sell outside NZ, correct?

Not all patents should be disallowed

[ergrthjuyt]

Software patents need to get much more stringent, and the terms should be much shorter, but I think it would stifle innovation to disallow them altogether. There are some really innovative things happening all the time in software and they take money and time to research. Amazon's one-click checkout doesnt count.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Draek]

There are some really innovative things happening all the time in software and they take money and time to research.

Same for Mathematics yet they're unpatentable *and* uncopyrightable. Yet innovation goes on.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[ergrthjuyt]

I agree with you 100% - and it just goes to show that there is sometimes no amicable solution and someone has to lose out. I think a lot of people miss this very important point when considering intellectual property rights.

Overall, I think this news is a win for New Zealand. But that doesnt mean all the losers are patent trolls.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[AndersOSU]

What could happen is that some company realizes that the only thing really holding them back is the competitive advantage amazon controls in it's one-click patent. If only they could implement one-click shopping they'd take the world by storm. So, they relocate to Auckland, set up shop and relaunch their website now with all the glory of one-click. When they make their first billion dollars, instead of paying $250 million in taxes to the US, now the kiwis get it.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[DutchUncle]

The USPTO started with the same blanket refusal to allow any kind of software patent; and unfortunately the same rationale denied copyright protection as well. While many developments were made by the "open source" predecessors of the time, like users' groups and academic publications, there was a serious problem of people taking credit - and payment - for other people's work. There was also a problem with good ideas being kept hidden as trade secrets, rather than raising the general level of knowledge, precisely because there was no middle ground between secrecy and giving everything away for free, and the companies that had paid for research and development wanted to recoup that investment before allowing publication.

This is an issue that needs to be addressed thoughtfully. Conditions of novelty and specific implementation, and short terms with required licensing, would be a start. It's shouldn't be all or nothing.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Xtifr]

Same for Mathematics yet they're unpatentable *and* uncopyrightable. Yet innovation goes on.

Mathematical principles are facts that are discovered, they are not analogous to software

You mean aside from the fact that all software is, provably, mathematics?

(Actually, there are exceptions in the case of hardware/software combinations, like motion control, but the point is that those aren't pure software. Pure software is always purely mathematical.)

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[bieber]

You're fundamentally misunderstanding patents. If you patent your software technique, that absolutely does prevent me from reimplementing it in a novel way. In fact, that's exactly the purpose of a patent: it prevents your competitors from using your idea. Not your specific implementation, but any implementation of your idea. You think the terms should be much shorter, so how much shorter? How about three years? How great do you think your computing experience would be today if every new idea in computing that's less than three years old was the exclusive property of a single firm and couldn't be reimplemented by competitors (or even F/OSS software, which obviously could never pay license fees on patents)?

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[ergrthjuyt]

Engineering is all mathematics. Does that prove that nothing that is engineered should be patentable?

Its the arrangement and application of the mathematical statements in software that makes it patentable, not the mathematical principles themselves.

I had a fleeting suspicion someone would bring this irrelevant point up...

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[jc42]

Mathematical principles are facts that are discovered, they are not analogous to software.

You're claiming as "fact" something that has long been debated among mathematicians. And the general consensus seems to be that you need to be very careful with your definitions if you want to claim that anything in mathematics is "fact". The reason is simple: Facts are usually defined as statements that are true in the physical universe, and mathematics has little if anything to do with the physical universe. Mathematics is about logic and reasoning, not physical objects. In even the oldest and most basic fields of math, this is fairly clear. Try finding a number in the real world. There is no "two" anywhere to be seen. You might have two objects, but you don't have a "two". You might write a '2' on a surface, but that's a symbol, and it's well understood that a symbol isn't the object. Similarly, in geometry we reason and make proofs about points, lines and circles, but those don't exist in the physical universe. They can only be approximated. And on and on.

One of the ongoing mysteries in mathematics is its usefulness in science and engineering. It's easy to find long discussions of this, but it's difficult to find good explanations explaining it. The difficulty is based on the fact (;-) that nobody seems to be able to find physical objects in the real world that exactly satisfy any mathematical definitions or axioms.

In any case, the majority of mathematicians would argue that they don't deal with facts, and all of mathematics is abstract ideas that exist only inside our minds. These ideas were made up by our minds, and didn't exist in the physical universe until we thought them up.

Not that this means much in any legislature or court room, of course. Or in any corporate boardroom.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[bieber]

Well, I guess having computer scientists spending their days finding new (usually suboptimal) algorithms for already solved problems to skirt the dozens of software patents any given project will likely infringe, rather than doing meaningful new work is an innovative concept, but it's certainly not a productive one.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Theaetetus]

Well, I guess having computer scientists spending their days finding new (usually suboptimal) algorithms for already solved problems to skirt the dozens of software patents any given project will likely infringe, rather than doing meaningful new work is an innovative concept, but it's certainly not a productive one.

No, it's both innovative and productive. Maybe your background is programming rather than engineering, but in general, you want to have several different solutions for any problem. One may be optimal in some situations, others may be better elsewhere. But if someone said, "pfff, we already have a solution, let's not investigate any others," we'd be stuck with a one-size-barely-fits-all answer.
If you live your life by "include" statements, then innovating may seem unproductive, but then, if you're constantly copying other people's code, why shouldn't you pay them royalties?

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[alexo]

Engineering is all mathematics.

Most engineering is physics.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Halo1]

Well, I guess having computer scientists spending their days finding new (usually suboptimal) algorithms for already solved problems to skirt the dozens of software patents any given project will likely infringe, rather than doing meaningful new work is an innovative concept, but it's certainly not a productive one.

No, it's both innovative and productive.

If there is a reason for doing something in another way, engineers (and many programmers) will do so by themselves. It's their nature.

Maybe your background is programming rather than engineering, but in general, you want to have several different solutions for any problem. One may be optimal in some situations, others may be better elsewhere. But if someone said, "pfff, we already have a solution, let's not investigate any others," we'd be stuck with a one-size-barely-fits-all answer.

History has proven it does not go that way in practice.

If you live your life by "include" statements, then innovating may seem unproductive, but then, if you're constantly copying other people's code, why shouldn't you pay them royalties?

If you copy code, you have to live by the copyright license (which may mandate paying royalties, releasing your source code, or anything else).

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Theaetetus]

Well, I guess having computer scientists spending their days finding new (usually suboptimal) algorithms for already solved problems to skirt the dozens of software patents any given project will likely infringe, rather than doing meaningful new work is an innovative concept, but it's certainly not a productive one.

No, it's both innovative and productive.

If there is a reason for doing something in another way, engineers (and many programmers) will do so by themselves. It's their nature.

You should probably talk to the grandparent, then. He thinks that it's unproductive to do something a different way.

Maybe your background is programming rather than engineering, but in general, you want to have several different solutions for any problem. One may be optimal in some situations, others may be better elsewhere. But if someone said, "pfff, we already have a solution, let's not investigate any others," we'd be stuck with a one-size-barely-fits-all answer.

History has proven it does not go that way in practice.

Which part? Last I checked, lighting technology had advanced quite a bit beyond fire.

If you live your life by "include" statements, then innovating may seem unproductive, but then, if you're constantly copying other people's code, why shouldn't you pay them royalties?

If you copy code, you have to live by the copyright license (which may mandate paying royalties, releasing your source code, or anything else).

And if you say, "oh, ho, copyright only protects that exact code, so if I rewrite it myself from a flow chart, then I don't have to pay copyright royalties," then you're still not innovating, and why should we consider your actions at all valuable for advancing the state of the art?

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[bieber]

...because I copy code that others have explicitly given me permission to copy without paying them royalties, the same way I allow others to copy my code? If there's already a good solution to the problem you're trying to solve that you can use with an include statement, why in the world wouldn't you? How could you possibly consider it productive to needlessly duplicate someone else's work when you could be busy building something new and useful of your own? Regardless, patents have nothing to do with copying code, but rather with implementing algorithms.

If a problem has been solved, the only reason you would want a different one is if it does a better job at solving that problem (or if you find it amusing to find a new solution, which is a perfectly valid reason to pursue solutions, but not of any particular benefit to society at large). You may want different solutions for subtly different problems, but if you're dealing with the same problem in either case, the optimal solution will always be optimal.

If I need a data structure that I can allocate dynamically and traverse cheaply in one direction, then I want a singly linked list. If you patent the singly linked list and force me to look for a different solution, I'm not going to find a better one, and it's unlikely that even the most brilliant minds in computer science would find a better solution. What you will end up with are myriad sub-optimal solutions being used all over the place not because it makes any sense to use them, but because no one can use the one that does make sense. In reality, you just end up with things like VP8, which is, as I understand it, remarkably similar but slightly inferior to H.264. It does the job, it works well enough, but it's still not quite as good as what it's working around. That's the kind of "innovation" you get from software patents.

Now, as for the good type of innovation you seem to insist can only arise from restrictive licensing of mathematical concepts---more efficient solutions to existing problems, or modified solutions that solve subtly different problems more effectively---we have volumes full of algorithms that constitute exactly those sorts of innovations, and the vast majority of them predate software patents.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Theaetetus]

...because I copy code that others have explicitly given me permission to copy without paying them royalties, the same way I allow others to copy my code? If there's already a good solution to the problem you're trying to solve that you can use with an include statement, why in the world wouldn't you? How could you possibly consider it productive to needlessly duplicate someone else's work when you could be busy building something new and useful of your own?

As I said, there are reasons why include statements don't always accomplish what you need. For one, overusing them tends to lead to bloated inefficient code with lots of dependencies to break. And you say "duplicate someone else's work", but that misses the point... if you're innovating, you're not duplicating someone else's work at all. You're coming up with a new solution.

If a problem has been solved, the only reason you would want a different one is if it does a better job at solving that problem (or if you find it amusing to find a new solution, which is a perfectly valid reason to pursue solutions, but not of any particular benefit to society at large). You may want different solutions for subtly different problems, but if you're dealing with the same problem in either case, the optimal solution will always be optimal.

Well, that's just flat out untrue. Do you have any practical industry experience, or are you based purely in academic theory? There are situations where someone may not have infinite time, or infinite money, or infinite processing power, and may want solutions that are better in certain areas than others.

If I need a data structure that I can allocate dynamically and traverse cheaply in one direction, then I want a singly linked list. If you patent the singly linked list and force me to look for a different solution, I'm not going to find a better one, and it's unlikely that even the most brilliant minds in computer science would find a better solution.

And what if I don't want to be limited to sequential access? Sure, if you define your "problem" narrowly enough that only one thing could possibly fit, then yes, but in the real world, the problem isn't "I want structure X. Hey, I guess I'll use structure X." This isn't a midterm exam where there's only one way to answer a question - the problem will be "design a customer database that allows the sales force to predict which customers may want a new product". And for that, there is no single optimal solution, but several solutions that are optimal depending on other requirements.

Now, as for the good type of innovation you seem to insist can only arise from restrictive licensing of mathematical concepts---more efficient solutions to existing problems, or modified solutions that solve subtly different problems more effectively---we have volumes full of algorithms that constitute exactly those sorts of innovations, and the vast majority of them predate software patents.

See, that's moving the goalposts. First, you're arguing that software should be unpatentable because... well, I'm not quite sure. You seem to be arguing that it's unproductive, but even assuming that's true, I don't see how it's a justification for the government to ban a whole field from patentability. This isn't some sort of fascist state where we ban people from being less than 100% productive, comrade.
And then here, you suddenly change gears and argue that software should be unpatentable, because it's not new, and everything has already been invented. That's not an argument against software patents, that's an argument against all patents. And it gets raised every decade or so, starting in the 1840s, by someone who lacks vision. So, color me skeptical that every more efficient solution to existing problem is already known.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Halo1]

If there is a reason for doing something in another way, engineers (and many programmers) will do so by themselves. It's their nature.

You should probably talk to the grandparent, then. He thinks that it's unproductive to do something a different way.

He thinks it's unproductive to be forced to program something in a different way if there's no good technical reason for it, but rather only because someone else thought of/patented it first. I agree.

Maybe your background is programming rather than engineering, but in general, you want to have several different solutions for any problem. One may be optimal in some situations, others may be better elsewhere. But if someone said, "pfff, we already have a solution, let's not investigate any others," we'd be stuck with a one-size-barely-fits-all answer.

History has proven it does not go that way in practice.

Which part?

The part that where you suggest that if people can freely imitate innovation in software that we get stuck with a "one-size-barely-fits-all answer".

And if you say, "oh, ho, copyright only protects that exact code,

Then you'd still be wrong.

then you're still not innovating, and why should we consider your actions at all valuable for advancing the state of the art?

Just like the umpteenth novel about a magician's academy can be a valuable addition to the world of literature, so can the umpteenth app that supports wireless email checking.

And of course, your point is based on the classic fallacy that a single application would only ever use known algorithms or embody known "system and method to do X", or that it would be completely new. No single application in the world is like that.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Theaetetus]

You should go back and re-read your own posts, I'm thinking...

He thinks it's unproductive to be forced to program something in a different way if there's no good technical reason for it, but rather only because someone else thought of/patented it first. I agree.

History has proven it does not go that way in practice.

Which part?

The part that where you suggest that if people can freely imitate innovation in software that we get stuck with a "one-size-barely-fits-all answer".

So, according to you, it's unproductive for people to come up with new code, but they won't be stuck reusing old code.

I'll wait to address this further until you pick one argument and stick with it.

And of course, your point is based on the classic fallacy that a single application would only ever use known algorithms or embody known "system and method to do X", or that it would be completely new. No single application in the world is like that.

And your point is based on the classic fallacy that if you paint a wooden wagon red or add a cupholder to it, suddenly it's completely different and you don't own that first wagon maker anything.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[kaffiene]

Yeah, because there was no innovation prior to the (fairly recent) introduction of patents to software.

Give me a break!

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[bit01]

I think you can appreciate that just because innovation *can* happen without patents is not necessarily evidence that they should be abolished.

The patent system is a massive interference in the citizen's business. The onus is on proponents to show that that interference is fully justified at every stage and in every technical area. The onus is not on anybody else to prove a negative.

---

Every new patent is a new law; another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[bit01]

But, it doesn't stop you from solving the same problem in a different way.

Come back to us when you can define "different" objectively. Until then you're just handwaving.

Two shades of the color orange could be the same or different. The PTO can't even objectively decide that. Whether two ideas are the same or different is a far more complex and infinitely dimensional concept.

---

Every new patent is a new law; another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Theaetetus]

But, it doesn't stop you from solving the same problem in a different way.

Come back to us when you can define "different" objectively. Until then you're just handwaving.

What does that have to do with whether software should be patentable? The above is an argument about novelty or obviousness, and unless you're saying that all software has been invented, then it's irrelevant to the question of whether new, nonobvious software should be patentable.

Two shades of the color orange could be the same or different. The PTO can't even objectively decide that.

Seems they do pretty well at it, actually, on the trademark side and in design patents. For utility patents, the color is almost always irrelevant. Why do you think it matters what color someone paints a gear?

Whether two ideas are the same or different is a far more complex and infinitely dimensional concept.

And yet, we have objective tests for that that are well known and have been used for over a hundred years. Just because you don't understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Furthermore, this is all off-topic. This thread is not about "is this a new idea", it's about "should software be patentable at all".

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Lando]

Copyright laws handle the use/copying of other people's code not patent law. Patent law keeps others from using ideas that have been thought of before. Case in point, one click shopping. A completely obvious idea. Don't say it's the exception to the rule of a good patent. The fact remains that it has been defended in a court of law and Amazon won.

I've been a part of two companies that have been sued over patent issues. In neither case were said companies found to be infringing on said patents; however, the court costs drove one company into the decision to stop producing software in the specific market and the other drove the company out of business. Even though the second company "won", the court cost after the patent suit, ie filing costs and such to reverse an earlier injunction were just too much and couldn't be afforded after having been effectively unable to sell their product for over 2 years.

I've also been a part of a company that had a patent, but lacked the resources to actually fight when another company used the idea that they had patented. Not to imply the other company had copied anything it was just the "obvious" way to do things. The other company was a division of a much larger company with the resources to actually develop the idea faster since they had more resources to throw at the development. In the end the primary company decided to sell out to the bigger company because the costs to fight for the patent enforcement were likely to cost more than could be afforded.

I've only worked for a few companies that were large enough to have significant patent portfolios and resources to fight patents both for an against. I have worked for a number of smaller companies and haven't seen any advantage for said small companies from patents.

So I have a variety of negative experience from patent issues and frankly haven't seen anything positive that patents have promoted.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Bigjeff5]

Mathematics are a description of the physical universe, a sort of source code, if you will. The rules in math are not arbitrary, they are rules set by the physical world. For example, lets take two objects. Math tells us that if I have two objects, and I add one more, I'll have three objects. So I add another object and lo-and-behold, I have three objects now.

It's like the universe is a giant computer and math is its assembly language. The universe itself just does what it does, we don't get any say in that, but we can describe what it does with math, and make it do other stuff.

If we put the source together right, we can do all kinds of cool shit with physics.

Engineering is like universe-coding. The math itself isn't patentable, but the way you put everything together to solve a particular problem is (if it is truly innovative).

In the same way, you can't patent source code, but you can patent the resulting product if it is truly innovative.

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Theaetetus]

Copyright laws handle the use/copying of other people's code not patent law. Patent law keeps others from using ideas that have been thought of before. Case in point, one click shopping. A completely obvious idea. Don't say it's the exception to the rule of a good patent. The fact remains that it has been defended in a court of law and Amazon won.

But it wasn't a "completely obvious idea". Not only has it been reexamined and found patentable, but that was with the entire anti-software patent world sending prior art references to the USPTO. You know why? It wasn't a patent on "one click shopping". That was the title, not the claims, and the claims are the important part of the patent. The title has no legal weight whatsoever.

I've been a part of two companies that have been sued over patent issues. In neither case were said companies found to be infringing on said patents; however, the court costs drove one company into the decision to stop producing software in the specific market and the other drove the company out of business. Even though the second company "won", the court cost after the patent suit, ie filing costs and such to reverse an earlier injunction were just too much and couldn't be afforded after having been effectively unable to sell their product for over 2 years.

So, rather than take the obvious and sensible route that preliminary injunctions should only be available in extreme circumstances, and that we should take steps to reduce the costs of litigation, you instead take the nuclear option that we should abolish patents?

I've also been a part of a company that had a patent, but lacked the resources to actually fight when another company used the idea that they had patented. Not to imply the other company had copied anything it was just the "obvious" way to do things.

Then why did your company spend the time and money getting patents that they would never enforce? Oh, wait... licensing and cross-licensing. That's not a problem with the patent system, rather it's a business judgement.

The other company was a division of a much larger company with the resources to actually develop the idea faster since they had more resources to throw at the development. In the end the primary company decided to sell out to the bigger company because the costs to fight for the patent enforcement were likely to cost more than could be afforded.

So, consumers get the benefit of the technology faster and everything is legal and above-board... I don't see what the problem is.

I've only worked for a few companies that were large enough to have significant patent portfolios and resources to fight patents both for an against. I have worked for a number of smaller companies and haven't seen any advantage for said small companies from patents.

So I have a variety of negative experience from patent issues and frankly haven't seen anything positive that patents have promoted.

You say that, but then you provide an example of a small company getting purchased by (or at least selling patent rights to) a large company. Did the investors or owners of the small company make any money? If so, what's the problem? And more importantly, why should the government be involved in the business transactions of private companies by abolishing the property of the little companies? If that small company didn't have the patent, do you think they would have even had an opportunity to sell out to the big company? Or would they just be crushed in the marketplace, particularly since they lacked sufficient resources to develop the product as fast? Why do you think that someone who is late to market would be in a better position without IP protection?

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[losfromla]

uh. Engineering is not all mathematics. Refinements and optimizations can involve mathematics, but, they're not necessary and don't have to involve mathematics. One can do a lot of "optimization" with good old trial and error. When you come down to it, a lot of things are so nonlinear and useful only in their linear regime that the mathematics mostly help to keep you in that region.... A lot of engineering is instinct and experience, coupled with some flashes of insight. A lever was a great engineering leap, was mathematics involved in developing it? Probably not. Just because we can use mathematics to quantify or predict behavior does not mean that "Engineering is all mathematics".

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Xtifr]

No, there is nothing mathematical about, e.g. the binding properties of electrons. We can describe physics using mathematics, but you can't confirm a physical experiment with pencil and paper. You can with mathematics and with software (although it make take millions of years in the latter case).

Re:Not all patents should be disallowed

[Doomdark]

If I patent a mathematical proof, it actively obstructs you from using it to further mathematics. I can patent my software and that does not prevent you from re-implementing it in a novel way.

Rubbish. I can similarly claim that even if you patented a mathematic proof, it doesn't prevent me from finding alternate proof for same problem -- and situation is actually very similar to software. It may or may not be possible to work around land mine that the patent presents; and tactically well-placed patent is, well, just like a well-placed landmine for conflicts.

And innovation tends to flourish to some degree with or without patents; similar to how copyrights may or may not help in arts (music, literature). Innovation and creation are not dependant on specific instruments designed to reward authors. This should be obvious for anyone with even basic knowledge of contemporary psychological research into what motivates people.

New Zealand is looking to be a better

[GilliamOS]

place to live everyday. The took away farm subsidiaries and now they have four times the output. No more patenting ideas that you will never try to build and sell, only to sue some other poor soul who's trying to make his life better. Not to mention the climate of NZ looks quite appealing. Imagine where touch tech would be today if some dipshit in the 80's hadn't locked it up in patents? The touch tech of the movies could already be common place.

Re:New Zealand is looking to be a better

[Lythrdskynrd]

place to live everyday. The took away farm subsidiaries and now they have four times the output. No more patenting ideas that you will never try to build and sell, only to sue some other poor soul who's trying to make his life better. Not to mention the climate of NZ looks quite appealing.

Imagine where touch tech would be today if some dipshit in the 80's hadn't locked it up in patents? The touch tech of the movies could already be common place.

Maybe you've just got to set up a "shell corporation" in NZ. If for example you wanted to found an online store with one-click checkout. Set up a holding company in NZ to carry your software licenses, then use the web page to serve orders globally?

Of course it's more complex than that... but not nearly as complicated as moving there.

Re:New Zealand is looking to be a better

[blair1q]

Yeah, but it's full of giant gorillas and lesbian warriors.

I don't need my ego shoved in a drawer every day like that.

Re:New Zealand is looking to be a better

[alexo]

Yeah, but it's full of giant gorillas and lesbian warriors.

Better than the other way around.

Re:New Zealand is looking to be a better

[Kryptonut]

You like rain? Can ducks use /.?

Now watch the New Zealand Software Industry boom!

[Marcion]

If the New Zealand government manages to get the bill enacted without bowing to pressure from foreign patent trolls, then New Zealand will be a safe habour for genuine software firms wanting to get on with developing software. If the New Zealand Software Industry now booms, hopefully other regulators will take note.

Historians will look back and see patent trolling as one of those mad schemes of the first decade of the 21st Century, alongside subprime mortgages, leveraged investment vehicles and so on.

QT licence

[gbjbaanb]

remember the clause in the Q Public Licence that says "if you want to initiate legal procedings, you have to do it in a Norwegian court", well I have an amendment for the other OSS licences :)

Re:QT licence

[sydneyfong]

As far as I understand, generally it is possible for a court to apply foreign laws, particular in these quasi-contractual licenses. In more technical terms, the choice of law and where jurisdiction lies are different issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_laws

IANAL.

Re:QT licence

[imamac]

Some courts seem to think that. They are wrong. Courts are there for our laws, not anyone else's. I forget which SCJ mentioned looking to other countries to decide if something was constitutional or not, but it happened. That's just sad.

Re:QT licence

[sydneyfong]

You may say so.

More precisely my point is that specifying the country in which proceedings must take place does not necessarily imply the laws of that country being applied.

One important caveat

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

Some news sources over the Internet state that according to the proposed law inventions for software destined for embedded systems will remain patentable, which IMO doesn't sound/look good since it opens a loophole for dirty manoeuvres.

Hopefully other countries will follow

[kyrio]

It won't matter if the USA doesn't do the same if every other country follows this change.

Re:Hopefully other countries will follow

[Anonymous Coward]

He's saying quite the opposite. He's saying what the US does or doesn't do won't matter if all the other countries develop some form of sanity.

Which, of course, won't happen, so he makes his point with a VERY hypothetical "what if..." scenario.

Re:Hopefully other countries will follow

[dyingtolive]

Quite the contrary, I'm sure. We Americans (well, most of us) realize that our government has as much control over the world as we ourselves have over our government.

Re:Hopefully other countries will follow

[Draek]

I believe he meant to say "as long as everybody else bans software patents, it won't matter if the US keeps them" which would be the entire opposite of your interpretation. Though I understand why you read it that way, the GP's post could've been phrased better.

Re:Hopefully other countries will follow

[hilather]

It won't matter if the USA doesn't do the same if every other country follows this change.

Yep, that worked well with the metric system too.

OpenOffice NZ version

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we now expect the OpenOffice New Zealand version to basically "be" microsoft office, since software patents won't work there? How about a linux or other OS that is 100% Windows compatible? Do you really think M$ will let this fly, once stuff like this starts hitting torrents, etc. from New Zealand?

Re:OpenOffice NZ version

[Firethorn]

Can we now expect the OpenOffice New Zealand version to basically "be" microsoft office, since software patents won't work there?

Well, there's two factors here: Patents and Copyright. Patents are more general than copyright, generally speaking.

Get OpenOffice or other software too close to 'Microsoft Office' and you'll likely be treading into copyright violation zone. Copyright also lasts a lot longer than patents.

How about a linux or other OS that is 100% Windows compatible? Do you really think M$ will let this fly, once stuff like this starts hitting torrents, etc. from New Zealand?

Would be possible, not much microsoft could do without breaking compatibility in other ways. You'd still have to be careful of copyright. Political lobbying would still probably be used though.

You probably wouldn't need the full 'cleanroom' reverse engineering that was done with BIOS back in the day. You had one team disassembling the sytem, writing up it's behavior and technical specifications, and another team making a ROM that met the specifications, never having looked at the original ROM.

Re:OpenOffice NZ version

[Dragonslicer]

Get OpenOffice or other software too close to 'Microsoft Office' and you'll likely be treading into copyright violation zone.

I can only speak from the point of view of the U.S., but that's completely wrong. No matter how much functionality you duplicate, unless you actually copy the code from Microsoft Office (i.e. you don't write it yourself), there is no copyright violation.

Re:OpenOffice NZ version

[Firethorn]

No matter how much functionality you duplicate, unless you actually copy the code from Microsoft Office (i.e. you don't write it yourself), there is no copyright violation.

Don't have to copy code; simply copying the design too much might be enough to trigger it. The images used for copy/paste and such, for example.

Re:OpenOffice NZ version

[Dragonslicer]

Don't have to copy code; simply copying the design too much might be enough to trigger it.

Not for copyright of software. Obviously you can't use anything that's trademarked, and it's possible to have design patents, though I don't know if Microsoft has any for Office.

The images used for copy/paste and such, for example.

Sure, if you extract the images, take a screenshot of them, or otherwise actually copy them. Creating your own icons that look similar can't be a copyright violation, since copyright is on a specific expression/implementation, not a general concept.

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[Anonymous Coward]

It could help/protect open source software since they only make source available. Now they don't have to worry about breaking the law (in NZ) in doing so. Will this lead to the U.S. blocking NZ sites?

I for one welcome our new Kiwi overloards.

[Picass0]

NZ is becoming a new magnet for film making and now software houses have a huge incentive to move there. THIS is how you build an economy.

Re:I for one welcome our new Kiwi overloards.

[imamac]

They also lowered taxes to help the economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_New_Zealand#New_Rates_from_October_2010

Re:I for one welcome our new Kiwi overloards.

[Nazlfrag]

They're also not afraid to stand up to pressure from the yanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand's_nuclear-free_zone

Re:Now watch the New Zealand Software Industry boo

[jlebrech]

NZ may become a safe haven for innovative Linux distros.

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[Tanuki64]

Don't know if this is so great for NZ. If this decision hurts the US economy too much, there might be weapons of mass destruction be found in NZ.

Immigration

[Lando]

Anyone know what the immigration laws are for NZ? I'm real tired of having to worry about getting sued for the software I work on.

Any other issues with NZ law? They aren't trying to filter the internet or anything are they?

Re:Immigration

[SiaFhir]

Everything you need to know about migrating to NZ is here.

Re:Immigration

[RandomAdam]

As a Kiwi I welcome more people. Highly skilled software engineers / computer scientists, these are the type of people who make a country grow. Innovation and problem solving skills are what we need here. Oh and we have nice open country to enjoy also. If you like that kind of thing.

Re:Immigration

[stimpleton]

"They aren't trying to filter the internet or anything are they?"

Sadly yes. Its not a strict as Australia but it is there. The ISP has to volunteer to join the scheme. Needless to say, I was on the phone to ask. And I actually enjoy getting sales calls from the big ISP's. "No, I will not join your service, as you have subscribed to the Internet Filter mandate".

Fortunately the small ISPs regularly score best in consumer surveys for service and performance..

Re:Immigration

[stimpleton]

"Anyone know what the immigration laws are for NZ"

Fairly tough. The reason is that NZ engages in a tit-for-tat rule system. So a question might be for a citizen in a foreign country, "How easy is it for an immigrant to come to my country and live".

Re:Immigration

[mjwx]

Everything you need to know about migrating to NZ is here.

After you've done that you'll want to take the next logical step.

Everything you need to know about immigrating to Australia is here.

Huge outbreak of common sense

[unity100]

it is huge, because this Simon Power person apparently knows everything and understands everything as it is. not one bit more, not one bit less. he basically precisely identified the issue in most bare and sharpest form. this was unprecedented, among politicians. hopefully more will follow.

Re:Now watch the New Zealand Software Industry boo

[Lando]

Doubt you'll see large companies spring up, since exporting software would still require the software to respect laws in the the countries that the software was sold in.

That being said, for someone that likes to work on computers and write programs, retiring to somewhere that guarantees that you will not be living in fear of being sued for accidentally publishing something that someone has a patent on would be nice.

Heck, doesn't matter if you actually did step on someone's patent or not. As a retiree I don't see how I could afford to fight any patent infringement suit whether or not I was infringing. I have no desire to forfeit my retirement income which is needed to actually feed cloth and house me all because someone wants to control something I thought of.

Oh yes

[BudAaron]

I think patents are great - for physical things. I think software patents are stupid in the extreme. I hope this starts happening around the world!!!

The World's Software Companies Will Now Leave U.S.

[MogNuts]

And watch as the world's software companies incorporate in NZ, and hence leave the U.S. out of its taxes. If they're smart, that is.

Slashdotters can have a huge argument until they're blue in the face. I say, don't bother arguing. Just give the business to people who want it.

This isn't over at all

[ciaran_o_riordan]

The most important point is that this isn't over. The Bill isn't even written yet, nor are the patent office guidelines. Background info:

• New Zealand returns to abolition of software patents
• New Zealand software patents victory crumbling (June)
• New Zealand govt against software patents! (March)

Re:This isn't over at all

[ciaran_o_riordan]

If I didn't forget to write the link text, the first link whould have been:

• New Zealand

That's a general page of background for the situation, more important than the other three links :-)

Re:This isn't over at all

[ciaran_o_riordan]

> The most important point is that it'll *never* be over

That's true, but there's a legislative process in progress now in New Zealand. That process will end one day. We grab the opportunity now or we lose it.

Re:This isn't over at all

[shermo]

Hence it's important to thank Mr Powers

Please let us know these "worthy" patents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please let us know these "worthy" patents.

Compression is application of maths (not patentable). In any case, without compression, digital effects on movies would be impossible. Sales of movies would be still on VHS or Laserdisk. No digital theatres to get us away from our Home Theatres. Therefore IN THE INTERESTS OF MAKING MONEY, the entertainment industry would have invested in digital compression.

Just like the BBC did: http://diracvideo.org/about-dirac/

Because the BBC had a need and that need was cheaper to fill with compression techniques made available, compression would have been paid for by the BBC. The patents however allow monopoly rent, so rather than pay the license fees, they made their own.

Think about that.

When you sell copies, most of the work is done in the original work. This is what your comment is saying too. Therefore that cost has to be amortised over the licensing costs. This would (or should) mean that the cost of licensing that product, each product sold should be much less than the cost of developing that product. But for the BBC, this was not the case. It was cheaper to do all that work themselves than pay the amortised cost that lots of other people are paying for. This MUST mean that the original developers of all the compression techniques have made their money back many-fold. Either that or the BBC was going to be their ONLY customer...

If such robber baron rates are possible, then patents were the only reason it was possible.

If patents made them possible, they were being abused.

Therefore, the compression patents are a MASSIVE drain on the economy.

Since they are only an economic incentive created by government fiat, they should be removed. Sucks for the owners, but they've already made multiple times the development cost already, so hardly sucks at all. And with less money spent on old rope, there's more to be spent in PRODUCTIVE activities.

Re:The World's Software Companies Will Now Leave U

[MogNuts]

Forgot to add:

Maybe the U.S. will then start some patent reform if they see millions leaving its tax coffers. Hurt them in the pocketbook, and people change *real* quick.

Migration time...

[EriktheGreen]

No software patents, beautiful country, and I've heard the scuba diving and beer are good. Time to move....

So...

[DdJ]

So companies in NZ will be producing algorithms that in the rest of the world would be patentable, but will just let anyone use them for any purpose with no regard or no compensation?

It may become a haven for patent trollops!

Re:So...

[Natanael_L]

Bad trolling attempt. Oh, so anybody can write a Harry Potter parody? OH NOEZ, nobody will buy the real books anymoarz! JK Rowlings will be POOR! Nobody will have any incentive to write books! Copyright still apply. If the author choose a license that don't let you take the software binaries and decompile them, you're not allowed. You are still allowed to write something that mimics it, but that means you have to do real work yourself. Just like how you can write a parody book or use as many plot ideas as you wish from any book you wish, and still not get sued. Would you have liked literature patents? "Oh, but my plot twist is unique! I should have exclusivity on it!" Algorithms, matematics and plot twists should be equally unpatentable. Just think about free software such as Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox and the like.

Re:So...

[DdJ]

Someone has never read the Bob Asprin "Myth" books, eh?

Holy Crap!

[tpstigers]

Did we actually win one?

Re:The World's Software Companies Will Now Leave U

[gstoddart]

Maybe the U.S. will then start some patent reform if they see millions leaving its tax coffers. Hurt them in the pocketbook, and people change *real* quick.

No, they'll issue a "special watch" or some such against New Zealand as a place without adequate protection for intellectual property.

They'll apply diplomatic and economic pressure. They'll try to hit the bottom line of NZ companies by applying tariffs or banning the import of software from there.

They will not simply accept that NZ has the right to disallow software patents. The US is far too dependent on its vision of "Intellectual Property" to not push back against this. I'm sure they'll beat them with the ACTA stick and whatever else they can get.

I applaud the New Zealand government for taking this stance. But, I'm skeptical that it is over even if this law passes. The corporate interests will not be silenced, and the US is entirely going to champion the cause of corporate interests.

Re:The World's Software Companies Will Now Leave U

[NotBornYesterday]

What would prevent patent trolls from eyeballing developments in NZ, and patenting them in the US? Even if their patents get overturned in court, they would still be forcing a company to unnecessarily defend their IP in order to do business here.

Re:As a software patent holder..

[Anonymous Coward]

You can sell the software just fine without patents. It'll take time for competitors to catch up and if you're constantly improving your software, instead of sitting on your ass, then you're always going to be ahead. In fact, the competition will motivate you to continue working on your algorithms and your clients will be better off.

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[Julie188]

Instead of patent trolls, we'll send them patent Rambos. Julie188

Im somewhat torn abuot this whole subject

[nurb432]

One should be able to protect yourself if you create something new. True, the entire patent sturcture has been abused, but there needs to be something. ( and i don't think copyright is it either )

Re:Im somewhat torn abuot this whole subject

[ledow]

If you *create* something you, you can.

The problem is the definition - at the moment people are patenting things as basic as how to sort a list of windows and stupid things like that. They are not "inventions", and it's hard to "invent" anything on a computer that is purely software. Machines that rely on computers to do a certain task are still patentable worldwide, but just saying "I take these bits and do this to them" isn't an invention and isn't patentable in New Zealand now. It won't be too long (on a government timescale - i.e. 20 years+) before everyone else starts following suit.

Software patents have never been seriously considered patentable in the EU, for example, and nobody really suffers from this.

Re:Im somewhat torn abuot this whole subject

[mjwx]

One should be able to protect yourself if you create something new.

The patent and copyright systems were designed so that the original inventor/creator could have the opportunity to make money from their inventions/art without larger, more powerful entities stealing the design/art or forcing you into a predatory deal. Nothing about protecting ideas, even ones you've patented. So, how's that working out for us.

This is why the US patent system is mostly broken and the US copyright system is completely broken. I don't wish to get rid of either but patents need to be fixed in order to be useful and copyright needs to be completely overhauled to perform the task it's meant to. The first things should be the immediate revocation of any patent that has not resulted in a released or developed product in 24 months (kill submarine patents/patent trolls) and the revocation of any patent that is obviously able to be independently recreated by following standards/common sense (I.E a mathematical function, block of code or business method)

international effects

[ciaran_o_riordan]

> this wouldn't help a NZ company if they sell outside NZ, correct?

The NZ government only has decision making power in NZ. For where they have power, they've decided to make companies safe. What NZ is doing is great and should be applauded and helped. It's up to the US government to make companies safe in the US.

On the international level, this sends two messages to other countries: 1. Countries aren't obliged to do what the US says regarding patent policy; 2. Abolition of software patents is a reasonable choice for developed countries.

These messages contribute to saner patent policy in other countries in the future, even in the US.

Re:international effects

[RandomAdam]

Sometimes it is good to be a New Zealander. First it was nuclear ships now software patents. There was recently a really cool ad on tv for steinlager (beer), with Willem Dafoe going on about NZ telling the US to f-off with your nuclear powered ships. it even made it onto the news: http://www.3news.co.nz/Brewery-using-American-actor-to-sell-Steinlager/tabid/369/articleID/82050/Default.aspx

Re:international effects

[Theaetetus]

On the international level, this sends two messages to other countries: 1. Countries aren't obliged to do what the US says regarding patent policy; 2. Abolition of software patents is a reasonable choice for developed countries.

These messages contribute to saner patent policy in other countries in the future, even in the US.

Uh, maybe you didn't follow the link in the article to the official statement, but they're making NZ law the same as current US patent law, and allowing software patents. The article is wrong.

Software Patents are anti-competitive

[Marcion]

exporting software would still require the software to respect laws in the the countries that the software was sold in.

I have long thought about this. I live in the EU, and the software patents are not valid (but they sometimes grant them anyway). I would make an unfair competition law to prevent foreign governments using their patent systems to stymie EU-based software firms.

The way it would work is as follows, an EU firm creates a program and sells or gives it away in the US (or other country with nonsense software patent systems). A US company sues for patent infringement damages in US court. The EU company pays but takes the receipt back to the EU.

The EU software firm then hands the receipt to the European Commission who then sues the US company under my new unfair-competition law. The European Commission recovers the damages back and hands them back to the EU software firm. The European Commission charges punitive damages above the initial amount which it pockets itself to cover its own costs (or even make a profit).

The European Commission could make the process so easy that the EU-based software firm just carries on with making software and competing on the merits of the software.

Re:Software Patents are anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly your solution is so one-sided it'll never work.

First, let's consider the US company doing the suing...what if they have no assets the EU can touch? Oh my! Now the European Commission can sue them all they like, but what are they able to get from it? Nothing.

Not without the cooperation of the US government...which has its own unfairness laws, which protect the US company from the mean-old bullying EU.

Things don't exist in a vacuum.

Re:Software Patents are anti-competitive

[Bigjeff5]

If the EU company has no presence in the US, they don't have to worry about US laws, even if they sell to someone who does sell in the US.

If the US company tries to sue the EU company, they'll have to come to the EU to do it, and the patents aren't valid in the EU.

Problem solved.

However, if you want to do business in the US, expect to comply with the laws of the US.

Re:Software Patents are anti-competitive

[Marcion]

True, but patent trolls are only part of the story. Big US-based proprietary software companies are pilling up the software patents.

My suggestion is about making the American system a problem for Americans, and removing EU companies from this unfair competition.

Re:Software Patents are anti-competitive

[Marcion]

Injunction against who? The European Commission? What does it care about doing business in the US?

Re:Software Patents are anti-competitive

[Marcion]

It is not about whether one wants to comply with the laws of the US. I was suggesting that the hypothetical company pays the damages and so does comply with the law.

It is about fairness. The EU allows American software firms to sell and distribute their software in the EU. The American firms compete based on the merits of their products.

This needs to be a two way street. The US government grants exclusive monopolies on abstract ideas that are just part of the known Universe. This is unfair competition on countries.

EU firms (and others) cannot compete on the merits of their products in the US if they risk frivolous and expensive lawsuits based on these nonsense software patents. My suggested unfair competition law would mitigate this risk. The European Commission would 'insure' this by providing a European based way to get the money back.

I am suggesting that we should have fair competition between countries, where we compete on the merits of the products.

The US federal government's way is to game the system. So it is based on who has the most slippery lawyers and bureaucrats. Like the World Series of Baseball that only has the US competing. Federal and legal monarchy instead of a free market.

Re:Software Patents are anti-competitive

[Marcion]

Easy way to sort that, make patents only for real substantial inventions. Not for abstract ideas or for incremental changes that can be implemented by anyone versed in the state of the art.

So you get a patent for inventing the first steam engine. You don't get a patent increasing that efficiency of a steam engine by 1%, or for controlling a steam engine using software.

Re:Software Patents are anti-competitive

[Marcion]

First, let's consider the US company doing the suing...what if they have no assets the EU can touch?

Well I see no reason why selling a software patent removes liability (in the eyes of my hypothetical version of the European Commission). The European Commission (EC) would want to decide for itself whether the transfer of a software patent was performed in good faith or not. I.e. when you sell a software patent, the liability may not transfer in the eyes of the EC.

So for example, Dow Jones software company A, patents a software idea. They then grant themselves an eternal licence to use the idea and then sell the patent (i.e. the enforcement rights) to patent pool B. B then sues European-based company C.

C goes to the European Commission and asks for the refund. The EC then sues both B and A for the money.

Most software patents are developed within a context of software development. It is the fact that they are resold that creates the patent trolls. However, the patent still has the original company's name on it.

Sometimes getting the money will be difficult, but if it is a software patent that is generating income, there is usually a link somewhere.

In other cases, none of above stops the EC on behalf of A, from trying to prove that the patent is invalid within the US system.

Lastly because the EC is imposing punitive damages above the original damages awarded in the US, there should be enough profit in the pool from the successes to take a hit on the failures.

Re:This is Short lived

[Marcion]

Well that is a real threat. The solution of course is to bin the WTO, and all the crazy US laws it dumps on everyone (software patents, anti-filesharing, private health care, etc).

Let's Harmonize

[eddy]

If this happens for real, the rest of the world should harmonize to NZ standards. Right politicians and lawyers, harmonization is important, isn't it?

Re:Let's Harmonize

[Theaetetus]

If this happens for real, the rest of the world should harmonize to NZ standards. Right politicians and lawyers, harmonization is important, isn't it?

It is harmonized... New Zealand is following both European and US patent law, and allowing software embedded in a device to be patentable. "Embedded in a device" sounds a lot like the "tied to a specific machine" language from Bilski, huh?

Re:Let's Harmonize

[eddy]

>New Zealand is following both European and US patent law, and allowing software embedded in a device to be patentable. "Embedded in a device" sounds a lot like the "tied to a specific machine" language from Bilski, huh?

I guess we haven't really hit the "happen for real" threshold yet then have we? Allowing software patents when they're "embedded in a device" sounds a lot to me like saying you're allowed to patent perpetual motion machines ONLY IF the patent application comes framed in crayon drawn clouds and glue-on sparkles.

Re:Let's Harmonize

[Theaetetus]

I guess we haven't really hit the "happen for real" threshold yet then have we? Allowing software patents when they're "embedded in a device" sounds a lot to me like saying you're allowed to patent perpetual motion machines ONLY IF the patent application comes framed in crayon drawn clouds and glue-on sparkles.

Really? Sounds to me more like they're allowing patents on automation control software for industrial plants, or allowing patents on pump control systems for chemical engineering. That doesn't sound at all unreasonable.

I think the key is to go back to the root question: why should software be unpatentable? "Because it's math" just leads to the follow up question, "why should math be unpatentable?"
Also, "because it's not new", because it's obvious", or "because it's trivial" isn't an argument against software being patentable in general... To be patentable, something must be new, nonobvious, and be patentable subject matter. So, assuming you've got something that's entirely new and nonobvious to anyone, should it still be unpatentable, merely because it's software? And if so, why?

Rationale

[Anonymous Coward]

While I definitely think there are legitimate software patents

Opinion is worth nothing without rationale.

I'm a little disappointed

[idontgno]

but not at all surprised that the argument against software patents in NZ didn't came down to "they're bad, often abused, and stifle competition" but instead to "they're bad for New Zealand".

It's a principled stand, where the principle is "what's good for us is good."

Nations, like people, are guided by "enlightened self-interest", I guess. (As a citizen of the USA, I'll admit to being quite familiar with the concept.)

Re:I'm a little disappointed

[Hairy1]

As one of the primary authors of the submissions to the NZ Government proposing an exclusion for software patents I had to use multiple arguments. Those arguments included that they are abused by multinational companies, that the stifle competition, and that we should not change our law to suit the interests of these mutltinationals.

You will note that the US is currently trying to push US style intellectual property legislation onto other countries because it is in the interest of the US multinationals. Not just patent law, but copyright law - the DMCA - which has killed fair use in the US. Just look at how emasculated YouTube has become after what might have been a golden age; the wide availability of historical material.

This decision may have been in the interests of NZ, but as an example it will also serve to free people in the US from the same shackles.

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[geminidomino]

Whoosh.

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[columbus]

This is what I was curious about.

How does this affect open source companies that are based in NZ, but distribute globally?

What if the Mozilla corporation moved its operations to New Zealand? Could it then incorporate the h264 codec into Firefox & release Firefox to whoever wished to use it? Would Mozilla be beyond the reach of MPEG-LA who hold the software patents on h264? Would MPEG-LA be able to sue users of Firefox outside of of NZ (note: I don't think they would do this).

NZ case law

[Bemopolis]

Too bad — I was looking forward to re Bilskiwi.

Re:Software Patents are...

[gmuslera]

Hanlon's law say that don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity. An "... unless you are talking about software patents" addendum is very much needed.

Small global effect

[GlobalEcho]

The global effect of a single country rejecting software patents is much less than, say, the effect of allowing decryption and reverse engineering tools a la DVDCSS.

New Zealand authors and users will be safe from lawsuits, but users who download and use code in countries where the patents apply remain vulnerable to lawsuits, despite not being the authors.

Re:Now watch the New Zealand Software Industry boo

[Hurricane78]

Sorry for the layout catastrophe. Apparently Slashdot FAILs at <ul>s inside <li>s inside <ul>s, which is should accept, according to HTML (any version).

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[marcosdumay]

IANAL, but as far as I understand it, yes. That would make the Mozilla corp out of the reach of MPEG-LA, but MPEG-LA would still be able to sue users of the product.

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[marcosdumay]

Wouldn't help, but wouldn't hurt either. If a corporation has (or intends to have) business in a country where software patents are permited, it must apply for the patents there, even if it holds pantents at home. Making software not patenteable in one country changes nothing at all.

Re:Now watch the New Zealand Software Industry boo

[idontgno]

Slashdot fails at an amazing list* of basic HTML capabilities. We're used to it.

At least we don't have to suffer from page-widening any more.

------------------
*Which I can't include in this post, since proper handling of <ol> and <ul> is among that list, as you've described.

That doesn't seem to be the right article

[Theaetetus]

"Despite what appears to be a big-budget lobbying effort by the pro-patent fraternity, Hon Simon Power announced today that he wouldn't be modifying the proposed Patents Bill hence software will be un-patentable once the Bill passes into law.

Follow the link in the summary and you get:

It's official: Software will be unpatentable in NZ

Despite what appears to be a big-budget lobbying effort by the pro-patent fraternity, Hon Simon Power announced today that he wouldn't be modifying the proposed Patents Bill hence software will be unpatentable once the Bill passes into law.

And follow that link, and you get:

Simon Power 15 JULY, 2010 Minister announces way forward for software patents Commerce Minister Simon Power has instructed the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) to develop guidelines to allow inventions that contain embedded software to be patented.

So, seems to be the opposite of what the summary claims.

Re:That doesn't seem to be the right article

[ipeet]

I think it's a misinterpretation to say "allow inventions that contain embedded software to be patented" means "software patents are allowed".

The way I'm reading this, it means that if a larger invention happens to include some embedded software, that larger invention is patentable. So, if you invent a really cool electromechanical device (robot overlord), it doesn't become impossible to patent the mechanics just because they need some control software to work.

Which is pretty reasonable, IMHO. Patents were created back when inventions were primarily mechanical; since the hardest part about mechanical design is the initial concept. Unlike software, where million dollar ideas are a dime a dozen, and the real difficult is implementation. ( I speak from experience; I work in mechatronics, where design is a combination of software, electrical, and mechanical).

As long as the embedded software isn't patentable in and of itself, I see nothing wrong with this.

Re:That doesn't seem to be the right article

[Theaetetus]

I think it's a misinterpretation to say "allow inventions that contain embedded software to be patented" means "software patents are allowed".

The way I'm reading this, it means that if a larger invention happens to include some embedded software, that larger invention is patentable. So, if you invent a really cool electromechanical device (robot overlord), it doesn't become impossible to patent the mechanics just because they need some control software to work.

Which is pretty reasonable, IMHO. Patents were created back when inventions were primarily mechanical; since the hardest part about mechanical design is the initial concept. Unlike software, where million dollar ideas are a dime a dozen, and the real difficult is implementation. ( I speak from experience; I work in mechatronics, where design is a combination of software, electrical, and mechanical).

As long as the embedded software isn't patentable in and of itself, I see nothing wrong with this.

Contrary to what Slashdot may believe, though, that's the current state of the law both in Europe and the US. Software alone is unpatentable, but if it's tied to (or embedded in) a machine, it's patentable subject matter. So, a system claim with a processor and memory and the processor executing various software modules is patentable, because it's not the software that's being claimed, but the system with embedded software. Similarly, a method claim performing the software steps that has each performed "by a processor of a computing device" is an invention with embedded software.
The part that Bilski and other decisions split off is method patents that are purely computing steps, such that a person could perform them with a pad and paper, or even in their head. And the rationale for it is that if you allow people to get patents on something that could be done in your head, then how do you protect it, legally? If someone reads your patent application and thinks about it, did they just infringe? Do you get an injunction ordering people to stop thinking? No... So you can't patent that stuff. If the claim explicitly requires a computing device and processor performing various steps, it's impossible to infringe in your head, and we aren't making thoughts criminal, so patenting that stuff is fine.

Again, the rationale for why software per se isn't patentable isn't "because it's just math". You have to go a step deeper - what's the rationale for why "just math" isn't patentable? It's what I mentioned above - making thoughts criminal.

Opinion Disclaimer: I am a US patent agent in the high-tech field.
Legal Disclaimer: I'm not your patent agent, and none of this is legal advice, nor does it necessarily reflect the opinions of my clients or firm. This is solely my opinion and should not be relied on for any reason.

Re:That doesn't seem to be the right article

[ipeet]

I see where you're coming from. To allow patents on systems which have software as a component allows all software patents, because all software must necessarily be a component of an electrical system.

Let me clarify my thoughts and perhaps express my position a bit more clearly.

I think that there are fields where patents provide valuable protection, as they were intended to: my canonical example being mechanical systems. These fields, which should continue to be protected by patents, can often benefit from the introduction of software control. In some cases, non-software inventions are only really practical with software control (e.g. canard aircraft)

My (revised) position is that a ban on software patents is an overreach if it makes non-software inventions that use software unpatentable. Perhaps my interpretation was naive, but I thought that this was the point of the embedded software clause.

I the question I arrive at which I can't answer is, can such a distinction be made in law?

Re:That doesn't seem to be the right article

[bit01]

Software alone is unpatentable

Yeah, that's why video codecs et. al., simple algorithms with no specific hardware involved and that can be done by hand, aren't patentable. Not.

You know that. Why are you dishonestly trying to pretend otherwise? People like you really need to start thinking deeply about what a patent is for a change instead of parroting legal dogma.

The patent system is based on very shaky, superficial and inconsistent foundations. The PTO doesn't even have a objective basis for what a distinct idea is, the fundamental basis for a patent system. Without that, the entire patent system is just handwaving for profit.

---

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.
-- Judge Frank Easterbrook, Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69 [and quoted in several subsequent court decisions]

Re:That doesn't seem to be the right article

[Theaetetus]

Software alone is unpatentable

Yeah, that's why video codecs et. al., simple algorithms with no specific hardware involved and that can be done by hand, aren't patentable. Not.

You know that. Why are you dishonestly trying to pretend otherwise?

You know, name calling doesn't really support your argument, particularly when you haven't actually made one. And no, "not" is not an argument.

People like you

Really? Really?

really need to start thinking deeply about what a patent is for a change instead of parroting legal dogma.

You mean like the deep analysis of policy I did in my previous post that doesn't parrot any legal dogma, but instead gets to the heart of the constitutional and social issues involved? You're right. I think more people should start thinking deeply about it like I do.

The patent system is based on very shaky, superficial and inconsistent foundations.

That's a harsh thing to call our Constitution.

The PTO doesn't even have a objective basis for what a distinct idea is, the fundamental basis for a patent system.

Yes, they do. It's called 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, and the judicial interpretations of those statutes are quite clear. Plus, why are we even talking about this? It has nothing to do with whether software should be patentable... unless you're taking the position that all software has already been invented.

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.

Yes, like "software shouldn't be patentable, because I can't come up with any new ideas of my own, but still want to make money implementing other people's flow charts."

Re:Now watch the New Zealand Software Industry boo

[apoc.famine]

Luckily, the preview option will let you see that ahead of time....

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[BLKMGK]

I think if you check you will find that many of those laws have been removed or weakened. This is now much less of an issue...

Gotta love bureaucracy

[PerfectionLost]

Gotta love bureaucracy.

Re:Gotta love bureaucracy

[Marcion]

It is the US' nonsense software patent system that is the bureaucracy. I am simply suggesting that the European Commission mitigate the US' bureaucracy so that software companies can compete in the free market.

Yay New Zealand!

[Alan R Light]

One more reason to like New Zealand. Sensible people, those Kiwis.

Re:The World's Software Companies Will Now Leave U

[NoOneInParticular]

As long as these companies are willing to only sell their produce in NZ this could happen. However, the moment the companies try to sell anything in the US or in any other part of the world that has a patent on the software, they will have to pay up or move out.

This is good news for developers that want to sell locally in NZ without being afraid to be sued for creating software. Anyone that wants to sell in the US has to abide US law.

Few patents from multinational companies here

[rjcwlgnz]

If companies take patents in multiple countries, usually they don't take patents in NZ. There are no patents here on h264 for example. The market is too small to bother. So it won't make much of a different to multinational corps etc.

Re:Finally, an end run around the GPL.

[segin]

Except that the GPL is a copyright license, not a patent license, and still applies.

Re:Now watch the New Zealand Software Industry boo

[shermo]

Age is one factor. It primarily depends how much money you have which decides whether you'll be a net drain on the economy.

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[AK Marc]

To be fair, it is a valid comment. We did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They had no WMD program. Thy had no active weapons. They had no means to make more. They had no effort expended to make more. But there were WMDs found. All US made. And all inoperable.

Some people do not like to let that pass. It could be a Whoosh, or it could be a humorless "even if they aren't there, the US had previously shipped WMDs to Iraq, then invaded them because they possessed WMDs" comment. You have to admit, that is kind of funny. Like mailing someone your laptop, then when the tracking number shows it arrived, report your laptop stolen and watch the hilarity ensue. If you see a neighbor with their garage open, pull in, shut the garage and report your car stolen. Buy drugs, then slip them into the car of someone you don't like, then place an anonymous tip about a dealer. Those are all funnier than what the previous person said, but are essentially what the US did (only with a little more time in there). To invade someone for possessing what you freely gave them is a joke, and an accurate response to another joke. It just wasn't funny the way it was worded (And explaining a joke, as I am, is inherently humorousless).

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[Obfuscant]

To be fair, it is a valid comment. We did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They had no WMD program. Thy had no active weapons. They had no means to make more. They had no effort expended to make more. But there were WMDs found. All US made. And all inoperable.

I don't believe that the scud missle is manufactured in the US. They seemed quite operable when Saddam was lobbing them at his neighbors. And the chemical rockets found by the US about day two of the invasion must have been operable, given the screams of the media (at the time, followed by complete silence) about how the army left them unprotected after finding them.

And the yellowcake that was eventually sold to Canada was NOT given to Saddam by the US. Having that much yellowcake uranium is a sign that yes, indeedy doo, there was a program of some sort.

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[AK Marc]

A missile is not a WMD. And yellowcake? Really? After Bush lied to the American public about yellowcake in the State of the Union? You think bringing up anything about it will bolster your views?

Not to mention that yellowcake being sold would be an indication that he didn't know what he was doing when he bought it. He has no means to manufacture it and was selling it, so he obviously had more than he needed. Of course, that's because there was no WMD program, so even one gram was more than he needed...

And he purposefully had signs of a program. He anticipated a revolt if people knew he was impotent. So he manufactured stories, bought something here, sold something there. That's not a WMD program, that's a propaganda program. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to tell the difference. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[Anonymous Coward]

There ARE weapons of mass destruction in nz...

Jake Heke and friends welcome the US just try get lippy with nz

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[Kryptonut]

Nah....we don't have enough oil.

And

[mahadiga]

1. Will it hinder jobs creation?
2. Will it increase crude oil consumption?

Re:The World's Software Companies Will Now Leave U

[Dr.Syshalt]

Anyone that wants to sell in the US has to abide US law.

"Selling to US" (or any other country) becomes a moot term once you realize you don't need a territorial presence in a said country in order to sell something to its residents anymore. If, for example, Russian government wouldn't bend that easily in a case of allofmp3.com (most probably due to some big bribe), this site, perfectly legal in Russia, would still sell music to US, Europe and other citizens, despite of never having a local presence anywhere outside of Russia.

Re:As a software patent holder..

[gerddie]

Now before you mindlessly react by saying "Algorithms cannot be patented", read this.

How about: "Algorithms should not be patentable". Actually, even "normal" patents may hurt innovation if the patent holder decides that fending off rival inventors is more important then innovating by himself.

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[Obfuscant]

And yellowcake? Really? After Bush lied to the American public about yellowcake in the State of the Union?

You need to keep up with the news. Bush didn't lie. Canada bought 550 tons of yellowcake from the post-Saddam Iraqi government. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ It was there before they took over. Guess who was in charge?

Not to mention that yellowcake being sold would be an indication that he didn't know what he was doing when he bought it.

No, it's an indication that he hadn't done anything with it yet. He knew what he was doing when he bought it, and fortunately, he didn't get the chance.

He has no means to manufacture it and was selling it,

Yeah, right. Saddam was hanged in 2006. The sale of the yellowcake was in 2008. Somehow, from the grave, Saddam Hussein was selling yellowcake to Canada.

... that's a propaganda program.

No, that would be a miracle.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...

Liar liar pants on fire.

Re:If you live and work in NZ, great

[AK Marc]

I figured that with all the knowledge you pretend to have that you'd have heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

Even if they did find yellowcake, that doesn't mean Bush didn't lie.