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."

31 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. 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 fredprado · · Score: 2

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

    3. 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...

    4. 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.

  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 erroneus · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  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 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.

  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 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
    5. Re:So who does the government represent? by linatux · · Score: 2

      Pretty sure he's dead

    6. 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.

  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: 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.

    6. 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!

    7. 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: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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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?"