Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand Bans Software Patents
Nerdfest writes with news that New Zealand has, after going back and forth a couple of times, finally banned software patents. From the article: "New Zealand has finally passed a new Patents Bill that will effectively outlaw software patents after five years of debate, delay, and intense lobbying from multinational software vendors. Aptly-named Commerce Minister Craig Foss welcomed the modernization of patents law, saying it marked a 'significant step towards driving innovation in New Zealand'. An IITP poll of members at the time showed 94% of those with a view were in favor of banning software patents."
article title, and summary for that matter, are not exactly accurate. here's why (in great detail). http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/new-zealand-parliament-adopts-uk.html
So they've disallowed software patents, but allowed more extensive spying. Dammit New Zealand, you need to pick one.
Though, I will say that any company looking to develop software for a domestic market will be happy about this -- you likely can't export because the patents would be in place most everywhere else.
I'm sure right now there's an entire branch of the US government planning regime change, since the US has pinned their hopes to copyright and patents. It is, however, nice to see other countries saying "what's in it for us?"
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This is really important because it's the first time that a country has explicitly banned software patents, with knowledge of what it's doing.
Other jurisdictions have legislation which says software can't be patentable, like the European Patent Convention, but because it was written before software patents became a problem there are debates about the intention of the text.
Thanks to New Zealand, we'll have an example of a developed economy banning software patents, so there will be proof that it doesn't make an economy collapse etc.
More background here:
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Patents_Bill_235
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/New_Zealand
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Since there is no such thing as a "software patent" in law, it's important to understand what has been changed, and to be clear about what could or should be changed. Here's the key wording of the new law. It's not patentable if:
"A claim in a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such if the actual contribution made by the alleged invention lies solely in it being a computer program."
In other words, if it's not a new invention, just an old invention with "on a computer" added to the end, it's not patentable. That is, if it's not a new invention if made of wood, it's still not new when made of silicon (or magnetic tracks).
I'm about as big a defender of "software patents" as you'll find on Slashdot and that to me is obviously right to me. If it's not new, it's not new.
Putting it on a computer doesn't make it new. Duh and yay for them for explicitly stating what should be obvious.
What they didn't change, and really can't as a practical matter, is they did not declare that a new invention magically becomes "not new" if it uses a computer.
If I invent a way to resurrect dinosaurs ala Jurassic Park, and they key invention for doing so is a gene sequencing computer program, that's a new invention.
The fact that I use software for it neither makes it new nor makes it "not new".
If you knew who Florian Mueller was, you would never quote him on anything.
I made it less clear than it could be by quoting too much from the clear. This law says it's not patentable if:
"if the actual contribution made by the alleged invention lies *solely* in it being a computer program."
So in other words, for any alleged invention, take out the words "software" and "computer" from the description.
Does it still sound like a new invention? If so, it's patentable. If not, it's not. It's either new or not, and it doesn't matter whether it's
made of smashed wood or powdered iron.
(Note that both "physical" machines and software machines can be made of either. My mom created some of her software by punching cards made of wood pulp, much as a carpenter would work wood to build some new invention. I created my first software by manipulating bits of iron to form machines.)
You're looking at the 2010 version. The version that passed replaces that line with saying that it;s not patentable if the only thing new about it is "on a computer".
As passed, new inventions are new inventions - whether computers are involved or not.
> "It isn't a new invention if it is just software -- it must be part of a greater whole, such as an embedded device."
I see how to you got that idea, but read more carefully. What the examples are intended to show is that:
a) assume the washing machine has no new mechanics, so the washing machine is not patentable.
b) putting a computer program into the washing machine ALSO isn't patentable. That's the point of the law.
c) the computer chip may contain a program which IS a new invention and that program may be patentable.
d) it's patentable not BECAUSE it's a program, it's patentable because it's a new invention - being software is irrelevant
For crying out loud, they did indeed ban software patents, and if you don't believe me you can read all about it in that bastion of liberal OSS-using freethinkers, Forbes. Here's the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2013/05/08/new-zealand-government-announces-that-software-will-no-longer-be-patentable/ The critical part of the law is not the subsection everyone is arguing over, but what comes before it, which seems to me unequivocal about what is no longer allowed:
"(1) A computer program is not an invention and not a manner of manufacture for the purposes of this Act."
This guy Florian Mueller who may or may not be a corporate shill has got everyone confused by focusing on the legal subtleties of a subsection, but the fact remains that computer programs by themselves are no longer patentable, because the law states they are not considered to be inventions! Don't believe the FUD.