Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand Draft Patent Law Rewritten After Microsoft Meeting
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."
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.
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"
Actually, patents and copyright are a form of government regulation.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
"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?"