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."

Comments

This is why regulations rarely work.

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:Good!

[Githaron]

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

So who does the government represent?

[karit]

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?

Re:So who does the government represent?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So who does the government represent?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What's wrong with software patents exactly?

[the eric conspiracy]

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.