Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Zealand Draft Patent Law Rewritten After Microsoft Meeting

Posted by Soulskill on from the spreading-goodwill-and-benevolence dept.

ciaran_o_riordan writes "After two private meetings with Microsoft and IBM, New Zealand's proposed new patent legislation has been changed by 'replacing an exclusion in clause 15(3A) (which relates to computer programs) with new clause 10A. Rather than excluding a computer program from being a patentable invention, new clause 10A clarifies that a computer program is not an invention for the purposes of the Bill.' The difference is that the new 10A clause contains the 'as such' loophole — the wording that is used by the European Patent Office to grant software patents. This is the same Patents Bill launched in 2009."

73 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. New M$ outsourcing to Kiwiland? by sabri · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now let's wait and see whether or not M$ will outsource part of their workforce to Kiwiland to thank the politicians for their great cooperation...

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    1. Re:New M$ outsourcing to Kiwiland? by BSAtHome · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Surely, part of the lawyer workforce will be outsourced to squeeze the kiwis (it is like pressing lemons, just more sweet). Wasn't that the point of the meeting?

    2. Re:New M$ outsourcing to Kiwiland? by linatux · · Score: 1, Troll

      Probably just got a $5 discount off our govt licence agreement.

    3. Re:New M$ outsourcing to Kiwiland? by grcumb · · Score: 1

      Now let's wait and see whether or not M$ will outsource part of their workforce to Kiwiland to thank the politicians for their great cooperation...

      Kiwiland? ...is that near Hobitton?

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    4. Re:New M$ outsourcing to Kiwiland? by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      squeeze the kiwis (it is like pressing lemons, just more sweet)

      I think that all depends on what kind of kiwis the lawyers will be squeezing. Given the disposition of lawyers, I don't expect anything sweet to come out of their kiwi-squeezing endeavors.

    5. Re:New M$ outsourcing to Kiwiland? by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      You mean they take things literally, so they'll be squeezing the birds instead of the fruits?

  2. Meetings, hey? by Everything+Else+Was · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like the kind of 'private meetings' where large sums of money change hands.

    --
    My other account has mod points!
    1. Re:Meetings, hey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No money, as such, changes hands.

    2. Re:Meetings, hey? by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      No, no. Far more sinister.

      It is where money changes government policy and laws....

      The old hands never change....

    3. Re:Meetings, hey? by fredprado · · Score: 2

      The fact that corporate lobbyists managed to change the legislation says otherwise...

    4. Re:Meetings, hey? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      While I may not agree with the change, the fact that corporate lobbyists can get legislation changed is not an issue or a sign of corruption. Anyone that can present a legitimate and convincing set of logical reasons that the government can agree with should be able to get such changes enacted whether they are citizens or corporations. No idea what happened behind closed doors here so can't really comment whether legitimate logic was presented from IBM and MS.

    5. Re:Meetings, hey? by Antonovich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really. Kiwis are not corrupt, just naïve and often a bit stupid. It's too small and too far away to maintain a critical mass of intellect. The people that stay (I didn't) are easily impressed by megacorps like Microsoft and IBM and these "experts" are usually believed. These guys work for MIcrosoft! That's what a computer is, right? They must be soooo brainy, we'd better do what they say! I may be painting it a bit darker than it really is - they aren't nearly as stupid as most anglo-saxons but that's not very difficult either...

    6. Re:Meetings, hey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it is not the arguing, it is the fact that private entities may obtain closed door meetings where the arguments, convincing or not, are unheard from the population that the government ought to represent.

    7. Re:Meetings, hey? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's because no one else bothers to meet him and tell him that it's a stupid idea. Instead they just sit on the internet whining.

    8. Re:Meetings, hey? by dlane · · Score: 1

      Just as important, it's the privileged access to politicians for foreign multinational corporations who are not part of the government's constituency, and supposedly "representative" organisations who actually don't represent *all* of their members - they just represent the few multinational members, who in turn benefit from the government officials *believing* that the organisation represents a broader set of views (e.g. voters and taxpayers). It's the plausible deniability that makes this scenario attractive to the multinationals.

      Actually, I'd be very interested to know how much tax those multinationals contribute to the economy compared to the many small locally owned software companies...

  3. This is why regulations rarely work. by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The idea is sound in principle (government regulates corporations to keep them from being abusive). But in practice the government usually lets the corporations *write* the regulations so they regs end-up being favorable to corporations and/or allows them immunity when they abuse their power.

    This revised patent law is one example. Another example is the recent U.S. Whistleblower regulation that requires employees who observe illegal activities to tell their boss (and then they get fired). So basically the corporations write the law to protect themselves from prosecution. This regulation was passed by a Democrat Congress and Democrat president.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:This is why regulations rarely work. by Charliemopps · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're a tool. There is no difference between the Democrat and Republican parties. Keep falling for this horseshit idea that one of the parties is "Evil" and the other is "Good" and you'll just keep perpetuating the same old fucking nonsense that's been going on for 100 years now. Obama invaded MORE countries than Bush did for fucks sake. He ordered the assassination of a US citizen without trial. He ordered the death of Bin Laden after he was already in custody. They executed the guy in front of his family then dumped him in the ocean. Democrats and Republicans work together toward the same goal: POWER

    2. Re:This is why regulations rarely work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He ordered the death of Bin Laden after he was already in custody. They executed the guy in front of his family then dumped him in the ocean.

      Can we get a fact check here?

    3. Re:This is why regulations rarely work. by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      Really? Really? "This is why regulations rarely work"? Any fool that actually believes this Libertian bullshit needs to go spend sometime in Mogadishu. Regulations work my friend, it is no accident that the countries with the most rules and highest taxes are also the least corrupt, are the safest and have the highest quality of life*. Regulations are what are keeping you alive right now. As for TFA, of course the govt consult with business, that's who pays the fucking bills and keeps the country running. it would be pretty ridiculous to create new laws that suffocated your economy. I'm not sure what Dr Evil scenario you are imaging happened in this meeting, but in my experience, real life doesn't work like that. * Note the US does not make these lists for a reason, so please do not extrapolate your bizarro US system onto anywhere else.

    4. Re:This is why regulations rarely work. by erroneus · · Score: 2, Funny

      But we're all Christians! We don't kill! God said so! What am I missing here?

    5. Re:This is why regulations rarely work. by gtall · · Score: 1

      If you are talking about Anwar al-Aulaqi as being the assassinated U.S. citizen, this was the man who renounced his U.S. citizenship and decided to mount an internet and media campaign to have Americans killed. Death was too good for him.

      Gee, what where they supposed to do for Osama, read him his Miranda rights? He wasn't a U.S. citizen, called for the death of Americans, took credit for 9/11. So yes, the U.S. executed him in front of his family and dumped him at sea. And that was way less than he deserved.

    6. Re:This is why regulations rarely work. by mpe · · Score: 1

      The idea is sound in principle (government regulates corporations to keep them from being abusive). But in practice the government usually lets the corporations *write* the regulations so they regs end-up being favorable to corporations and/or allows them immunity when they abuse their power.

      Even worst here is allowing foreign corporations to do this.

    7. Re:This is why regulations rarely work. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>"This is why regulations rarely work"? Any fool that actually believes this Libertian bullshit needs to go spend sometime in Mogadishu.

      Libertarian =/= Anarchist. You are the "fool" to equate these two philosophies. Libertarianism can be summed up eloquently by Jefferson: "It it were possible to have no government we would, but we resort to its creation in order to protect our inalienable rights." i.e. We believe in having a government not anarachy like Mogadishu.

      >>> it is no accident that the countries with the most rules and highest taxes are also the least corrupt, are the safest and have the highest quality of life*.

      From 2000 the number of U.S. regulations rose 80,000 to 140,000 pages, and yet we are more corrupt now than we were thirteen years ago. The regulations have been written by the corporations which have given themselves bankruptcy protection, bailouts, immunity from classaction suits, whistleblower laws that protect the company instead of the employee, and on and on. Those extra regulations have brought MORE corruption, not less.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  4. Keep on diggin', boys! by pla · · Score: 2

    Let it pass. Let them all get their wildest wet dreams encoded in the laws of the world.

    And then... Let them sue each other into oblivion, a la Apple v. Samsung.

    And then... Let them realize that We The People really don't give a fuck about their rules. Digital media killed the old media monopolies (they just haven't fallen over yet); A few more generations of RapReps will kill what remains. The robber barons finally lost; Le Roi est morte, vive le Roi!

    1. Re:Keep on diggin', boys! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      A few more generations of RapReps will kill what remains.

      Ominous Voice-Over: You wouldn't steal a car, so why would you steal a movie?
      Me: If I could download a car, I probably would!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Keep on diggin', boys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Le Roi est morte, vive le Roi!

      Perhaps you were being ironic. "The King is dead; long live the King" means that the moment the king dies, another takes his place, so that we are never faced with the horror of being free from rule for even a second. So yes the downpressors might collapse in a heap of ash and dust, and we may be free of them perhaps for a moment until new ones come along with Fresh new ideas about how to squeeze the vise to extract more money from people. Is the moment worth waiting through all the "And then..."s?

      In the meanwhile, while we wait out the workings of the barons, I guess at least we can pretend that they're not really being all that effective at keeping people down, and we can tell ourselves that everybody has equality, freedom, and a fair shot at life.

    3. Re:Keep on diggin', boys! by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Ominous Voice-Over: You wouldn't seed a torrent of a movie, so why would you seed a torrent of a car template?

    4. Re:Keep on diggin', boys! by pla · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you were being ironic.

      Huh, I don't think I've ever heard that used in a non-ironic sense (or if not quite "ironic", more in the context of replacing an authority figure with an alternate form of "king", eg rule by the people).


      we may be free of them perhaps for a moment until new ones come along with Fresh new ideas about how to squeeze the vise to extract more money from people.

      I have no doubt that someone, somewhere, will always try (with some degree of success) subjugate as many people as possible, whether by withholding basic necessities or with some form of memetic poison such as religion or simply at the wrong end of a gun. I do, however, firmly believe that ubiquitous "replicator" technology will count as a total and irreversible game-changer. All the old power structures based on physical scarcity will collapse in short order.

      Going further, once we reach a certain critical threshold of the complexity possible via replicators, even energy will become something of a moot point - When you can "print" solar cells for a few bucks per square foot (which we can already do, albeit low efficiency and durability cells), issues like insolation, efficiency, and space become moot; pave your driveway with them, use them as shingles and siding.

      That really just leaves ideology and violence as viable tools of oppression. The former requires you to buy in to the BS; the latter, I suppose we'll never completely eliminate (but I'll take a world where I can print my own guns over one where only "they" have them).

    5. Re:Keep on diggin', boys! by pla · · Score: 1

      Oh really? They're still there and they're calling the shots.

      Tell that to all the people with terabytes of MP3s, ebooks, movies, video game ROMs...


      It's Google that has to filter search results to comply to media monopolies' wishes, not the other way round

      Only because Google wants to play with their ball, hoping to make a buck skirting the edges of what "they" will allow. TPB, for comparison, has relatively little money, and no commercial motive, and has managed to remain a thorn in Big Media's side for over a decade - Even to the point of winning multiple seats in the parliaments of several countries (including a respectable forty-five seats in Germany).


      If we want them gone, action must be taken before Internet becomes InterMarketNet(TM).

      Agreed - But for a different reason than currently under discussion. You can already get anything you want over the internet, if you know where to look; For most of it, you don't even need to resort to hitting the "dark" net.

      That said, we do still need to remain vigilant, to keep the internet a network of our peers rather than just an extension of the old-school push-on-their-terms advertising-as-content delivery system.


      Loserboy nerd, learn your French

      ...I can't decide whether to consider it sublimely funny, or just moronic, that someone with the handle "JockTroll" would go around calling people names. :)

      Anyway, yep, good catch on the feminine. Now you might want to learn how sometimes, people use words in ways contrary to their literal meaning, either figurative or even ironically; case in point, the expression I quoted. Taken literally, as you perversely chose to do, it means "more of the same". Taken figuratively, it means a paradigm shift, a changing of the guard. And taken ironically, it means throwing away the old ways as the new norm.

      Two of those make sense, in context. One does not. You chose... Poorly.

  5. Re:Good! by Githaron · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, patents and copyright are a form of government regulation.

  6. So who does the government represent? by karit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems that the NZ government is meant to represent the voters wishes, but it does seem to do what the US and Multinationals want. The Office of the United States Trade Representative said clause excluding software from patent-ability "departed from patent eligibility standards in other developed economies" (http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7570288/Govt-accused-of-Patent-Bills-betrayal), umm so can't one country take the lead and see a problem, address it and move on to a better place?

    --
    http://blog.karit.geek.nz/
    1. Re:So who does the government represent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The current NZ govt is very business friendly - the Prime Minister is a former banker/currency trader. They have changed laws using urgent processes to strip worker rights to satisfy Hollywood. This is just the most recent example of selling out to big foreign corporate interests.

    2. Re:So who does the government represent? by BlakJak-ZL1VMF · · Score: 2

      ^^ What he said.
      Those who voted in the National Government chose to elect a party that is well known for its position supporting business (over the individual).

      There's reports that around 1 Million NZ'rs (out of ~4.4M) didn't vote in the last election. There's still a chance to have an affect on the outcomes if enough of the apathetic step up and make their voices heard. Unfortunately for laws such as this, many folks don't see it as affecting them, and will remain oblivious...

      Yes i'm cynical about it. :(

      --
      -.-. --.-
    3. Re:So who does the government represent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sadly, yes. Once upon a time, we had a NZ Goverment that would simply say to the USA and multinational organisations that they can Go Elsewhere.

      NZ said, "No Nuclear Vessels". The USA said "we can't stand for that. You'll be sorry." And they cancelled ANZUS. And NZ ... did not actually care. This much have infurated the USA Dept of State, a small little pacfiic island nation actually having the tenacity to ignore the mighty and powerful USA.

      But, this was years ago. Now, the current goverment is very USA friendly.

      (Where is David Lange when you need him? Sigh.)

    4. Re:So who does the government represent? by linatux · · Score: 1

      Baaa!

    5. Re:So who does the government represent? by Kittenman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ^^ What he said. Those who voted in the National Government chose to elect a party that is well known for its position supporting business (over the individual).

      There's reports that around 1 Million NZ'rs (out of ~4.4M) didn't vote in the last election. There's still a chance to have an affect on the outcomes if enough of the apathetic step up and make their voices heard. Unfortunately for laws such as this, many folks don't see it as affecting them, and will remain oblivious...

      Yes i'm cynical about it. :(

      I'm one of the 1 million who didn't vote in NZ. I don't believe any of the parties reflect my personal views. I'm not apathetic, I'm disenchanted.

      And before someone rants on about the need to take part in the democratic process, this isn't a democracy. This is an elective oligarchy. The last democracy in the world was about 300 BCE, in Athens.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    6. Re:So who does the government represent? by dlane · · Score: 1

      I wrote about this leadership opportunity for NZ on the Fair Deal site (an anti-Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement "IP Chapter" effort): http://fairdeal.net.nz/2012/08/nzoss-software-patent-exclusion-vs-tpp

    7. Re:So who does the government represent? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      They've already bought every side with a reasonable chance at power anyway. Politicians are very inexpensive.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    8. Re:So who does the government represent? by linatux · · Score: 2

      Pretty sure he's dead

    9. Re:So who does the government represent? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      You get what you don't vote for. Choke on it.

      You never get the chance to vote on what you want. The game is rigged, there are no choices.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    10. Re:So who does the government represent? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      I'm not apathetic, I'm disenchanted.

      VortexCortex enters from the west.
      VortexCortex says:       Heh, I can fix that.
      VortexCortex Casts Basement Dweller's Rage (Lv4) on Kittenman.
      Kittenman gains status effect: Ineffectual Comment (score +4)

      >_

    11. Re:So who does the government represent? by peppepz · · Score: 2

      I almost can see a pattern there, as it's the same thing that's happening in Italy. Multiple bankers at the government, stripping the workers' rights, selling public heritage to speculators and passing laws that are killing the country's economy even more.

    12. Re:So who does the government represent? by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 1

      I'm in the same boat -- didn't vote because I felt that none of them were worthy of my endorsement.

      Choosing the "least bad" is not the same as choosing "the best".

      I really can't believe we're still using a political system designed hundreds of years before the internet was invented -- when, thanks to modern technology, we could create a system that introduced the checks and balances essential to real democracy.

      Never one to criticize without offering a better solution, I came up with this political system which I call Recoverable Proxy.

      It ensures that the people can always have the last word -- but only when necessary. On a day-to-day basis, the political system remains unchanged, except for the fact that the people can stop a wayward government (ie: most of them) from usurping their right to democracy.

    13. Re:So who does the government represent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US certainly ACTED like it cared.

      NZ didn't say it wanted the US military umbrella, NZ said it didn't want Nuclear powered ships in its waters.

      The US is still applying different treatment to NZ than it's other allies as a result of the ANZUS row, so it appears that the US still does care.

      But whatever, don't let facts bother your dick measuring competition.

    14. Re:So who does the government represent? by pantaril · · Score: 1

      I'm one of the 1 million who didn't vote in NZ. I don't believe any of the parties reflect my personal views. I'm not apathetic, I'm disenchanted.

      There will never be a party which accurately reflects all of your personal views. You should vote for the party which is most compatible with your views. If you don't vote, you support the party which wins the elections (e.g. you support this business oriented party).

    15. Re:So who does the government represent? by TummyX · · Score: 1

      NZ had the bulls to do that because we knew that the US would come to our rescue treaty or not.

    16. Re:So who does the government represent? by jedwidz · · Score: 1

      As a fellow NZ'er, can I balance that by pointing out that we have one of the best-functioning democracies on the planet.

      We have a fair electoral system in MMP. Nearly everyone's party vote counts. And we're continuing to improve it, with the lowering of the threshold vote from 5% to 4%, and the removal of the awful 'coat-tails' rule.

      We have a low level of corruption. Case in point: National MP Pansy Wong was shamed into resigning after her husband had a business meeting while on a taxpayer-funded overseas trip; it must've been front-page news for weeks!

      We have campaigns that aren't spend wars. The two main parties spent around $2M apiece on the last election, which didn't even test the spending limits that were in place.

      You don't have to be rich to get elected. John Key happens to be wealthy (~$50M net worth), but that's an exception, and doesn't explain why he was elected.

      Now, what we don't have is mainstream media and voting public engaging their critical faculties come election time. And so neither do the politicians. But that's not the system's fault.

    17. Re:So who does the government represent? by jedwidz · · Score: 1

      I was pretty young at the time, so forgive me if I have this completely back-asswards.

      We (as in, the Labour government of the day) had the balls to stand up to the US on the nuclear issue because it was an easy fight and a popular diversion from the simultaneous caving in to US/global interests on matters of the economy and economic ideology.

      I have all respect for David Lange as a folk hero, but let's face it, his government sold us out.

  7. Re:Good! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Informative

    I honestly can't tell if you're kidding or not. Poe's Law strikes again.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  8. What's wrong with software patents exactly? by brillow · · Score: 2

    I think most people who are against software patents are actually against stupid patents, "design" patents, and not against the idea that software could be an original invention that entitles its creator to protection.

    1. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One of the justifications of patents is a deal theory, whereby the inventor discloses the invention in return for a limited-time monopoly. However, in the case of software patents, the inventor discloses nothing, hides the source code, and keeps the binary protected by copyright. So the deal is completely one-sided. That is what's wrong with software patents.

    2. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by oakgrove · · Score: 4, Informative

      My problem with practically every software patent I've ever heard is they are patents on "ideas" not implementations. So when something like pinch-zoom is patented it doesn't have anything to do with how they actually achieved multi-touch but just the idea of spreading fingers apart to zoom the text. It's like patenting "going fast" and then hitting anybody going over 30 mph with a cease and desist. It's ludicrous.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    3. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      > However, in the case of software patents, the inventor discloses nothing, hides the source code, and keeps the binary protected by copyright. So the deal is completely one-sided. That is what's wrong with software patents.

      If that were true, software patents could be invalidated by any competent patent lawyer because they simply do not satisfy the statutory requirement for disclosure of the best known means of practicing the invention.

      However that isn't true. Patents are not copyrights. They don't cover the expression of the idea which would be the source code. They cover the implementation. So long as the patent describes the implementation of the idea sufficiently well for someone to be able to re-implement the idea the disclosure is adequate.

    4. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am against software patents because I think software patents all cover algorithms which are fundamentally unpatentable material.

      The farce that software patents must include an implementation component, that is a computer is transparently baloney. Computers are a general purpose computing device for which there are no known algorithmic limits. It is like saying that an algorithm is patentable because it can be executed on a general purpose mathematical universe. It is not a fundamental distinction.

    5. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Software is copyrighted, why does it need to be patented as well? How many redundant ways do we need to protect it?

      The copyright protects against stealing. And is all the protection ideas need or should have. (and even that it is probably too much)

      Patenting prevents others from doing the same thing a different way. EG: like allowing only Ford to make cars because he patented round wheels. Bad patent, well ALL software patents are BAD patents in the same vein.

    6. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > However, in the case of software patents, the inventor discloses nothing, hides the source code, and keeps the binary protected by copyright. So the deal is completely one-sided. That is what's wrong with software patents.

      If that were true, software patents could be invalidated by any competent patent lawyer because they simply do not satisfy the statutory requirement for disclosure of the best known means of practicing the invention.

      Boy, wouldn't that be nice. Can I join you in your fantasy land?

      One Click

      I see no source code, data structures, implementation details.. All I see is a garbled executive "flow chart" and a dozen claims covering every interface imaginable. If you create a system that interprets the solitary sound of someone farting in your general direction as a sale, then you're infringing.

    7. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm against patents because everyone is simply working by the old unproven hypothesis that patents are beneficial to society. I'm a scientist, so Prove It! In order to prove whether patents are beneficial or not we must run the experiment: Abolish them and see what happens. We didn't always have software patents, or patents at all (Ugg isn't cited as the "inventor" of fire), so we have a data point that lends credence to the idea that we don't actually need the artificial scarcity that patents and copyright create. The fashion and automotive industries also lack copyright and design patents, yet remain innovative in design, which furthers my argument for abolishing patents. No one has conclusive proof that patents are beneficial to society. Additionally, things have changed so drastically since patents and copyright were created that we need to abolish them now more than ever to see if the dawning of the Information Age has made them obsolete ideas or not.

      A writer can say: Nope, not going to write this book unless I'll get paid for doing it. A software engineer can say: Nope, not going to create software unless I get paid for doing it. A musician can say: Nope, I just need to get paid when I do work, like everyone else -- Hey, guess what? Musicians already do get most of their pay via working (concerts) and merchandise, not via selling artificially scarce copies. Software engineers already get paid to make software whether or not the patent lawyer comes around and asks them: "Did you create anything this month that might be patentable?" No software engineer is searching the patent database for solutions they can implement and license -- We all just do the job. In fact, I've been instructed on a few jobs to Never access the PTO database from the office -- Treble damages if you have prior knowledge. Technology companies only benefit by patents via weaponizing them, this hurts competition. Furthermore, If it's possible to accidently stumble across a patent, then it's damn obvious by definition.

      So, This person is actually against ALL patents, including software patents. I find the idea that software can be an original invention to be ridiculous because the first time someone accidentally infringes a patent via "independent invention" they're prohibited from using it while someone else is allowed to use the idea. That means you're awarding the research of one inventor and Punishing all the other researchers that come across the idea later. Why do you think the FIRST person to think of something should be the ONLY person to benefit from their own work? Software patents are by and large OBVIOUS, otherwise we wouldn't be stumbling across them. The non obvious ones aren't needed since no one accidentally implements them. WE EXPLICITLY TRY NOT TO LOOK AT THEM! THE PATENTS ARE WORTHLESS!

    8. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by mpe · · Score: 2

      My problem with practically every software patent I've ever heard is they are patents on "ideas" not implementations.

      You also have those of the form "Do X with a computer". Does it really make sense to consider using a general purpose machine to do something which is already well understood as any kind of "innovation"? (Especially if X was previously performed by a special purpose machine.)

    9. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by fa2k · · Score: 1

      The audio/video compression patents are quite technical and detailed. I have to admit, though, that it's very satisfying to live in a country without SW patents and just ignore them. Yeah "might be illegal, what ever", now play me some MP3s! I suspect that they aren't encouraging that much innovation anyway, as so many companies benefit from high quality video delivery in other ways than licensing fees.

    10. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by pantaril · · Score: 1

      I think most people who are against software patents are actually against stupid patents, "design" patents, and not against the idea that software could be an original invention that entitles its creator to protection.

      I don't think so. Most people i know, who are against software patents (including me), are actualy against the idea that you should be able to patent some piece of code for many years in a field which is developing so dynamicaly, that years of monopoly on some invetion will clearly hinder the technological progress.

    11. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by Kirth · · Score: 1

      It's not a bookshelf, it's a Moby Dick Support Device: https://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/the-moby-dick-support-device/

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    12. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      All I see is a garbled executive "flow chart"

      IIRC, the USPTO refuses to accept source code and insists on flow charts, which I agree is quite stupid.

      (My info on this might be wrong, so corrections or confirmations are both welcome.)

    13. Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The Churchâ"Turing thesis states that any function that is algorithmically computable can be computed by a Turing machine.

      In other words if you have an algorithm for it, it will run on a computer.

  9. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Typical Obamanaut response. Fact! Obama hates business. Fact! No business will hire with a business-hater-in-chief in charge. Fact! The economy will BOOM without government meddling and interference. Fact! Unregulated markets are the signpost of American success and they've never gotten us lost before. The sign says so. Fact! Romney and Ryan understand the power of unregulated markets and trickle-down economics and how that brand of non-interventionous government built this country into the success it is for 100s of years!!!!

    I'm sure the hater-in-chief appreciates you towing the line. The master would approve.

    Romney/Ryan and RANDism 2012!!!!

  10. Re:Good! by dan828 · · Score: 2

    To be any more obvious he'd have to slap you with a wet fish with "bad satire" written on it in permanent marker.

  11. Re:Maori Dance by linatux · · Score: 1

    Bad for tourism - only the Poms would keep coming.

  12. Re:Good! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No. If it's satire, it's very good satire, because it's nearly indistinguishable from many comments I've seen on /. and elsewhere that I'm quite sure were entirely sincere.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  13. Re:Good! by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

    Yep. Just like trademarks and property rights.

  14. Evil by fa2k · · Score: 2

    Nice to see that Microsoft hasn't given up on being evil, it seemed like they were letting Apple win for a while.

  15. So democracy is out then? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    What does logic have to do with a democracy? If the voters vote to have to sky painted pink by a majority of 1, then so be it. THAT IS DEMOCRACY, THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Not just the will of logical people. THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. ABSOLUTE AND WITHOUT RESERVATION.

    And yes, Godwin be damned, this means that if the majority votes for the gas chambers to be opened, you are an enemy of democracy for refusing to do so. Only a fool believes democracy to be a guarantee of freedom, liberty or human rights.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  16. Gosh by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Kiwis are not corrupt, just naïve and often a bit stupid. It's too small and too far away to maintain a critical mass of intellect.

    So is my penis! It looks like a small hairy flightless bird too.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  17. How it went down by Legion303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Nice country you got here, New Zealand (*knocks framed picture off desk*). Oops, sorry about that. Accidents happen from time to time, if you catch my drift. Say, I hear you're drafting some new patent law. Why don't my boys here go over it with you to check for grammar and the like?"

  18. NZ's big problem by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    They are a bitch to corporate interests, it's really too bad.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel