Slashdot Mirror
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."
Sure. The pros oppose software patents, the cons support them.
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.
My little Linux and tech blog
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.
It won't matter if the USA doesn't do the same if every other country follows this change.
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.
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:
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
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.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
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.
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.