New Zealand U-Turns, Will Grant Software Patents 94
ciaran_o_riordan writes "Due to lobbying by a group called NZICT, New Zealand's parliament is now set to let go of its proposal to ban software patents. Patent attorney Steven Lundberg announced the details in a blog entry. This was quickly deleted, but not before it got stored in Google's cache. Here we can read that 'Hon Simon Power has asked MED [Ministry of Economic Development] to work with the Parliamentary Counsel's Office to redraft the section along the lines of the European Patent Convention.' Which is exactly the opposite of March's announcement that 'computer software should be excluded from patent protection as software patents can stifle innovation and competition, and can be granted for trivial or existing techniques.' The background to this case gives every reason to be hopeful, if computer users in New Zealand get active again."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Wales! And North East Scotland where I currently reside. Now if ewe'll excuse me..
So what (Score:2)
This will have as much effect as Switzerland banning whaling.
Switzerland HAS banned whaling (Score:3, Informative)
And the world-wide actions against whaling ARE having an effect. Japan is "fighting" it tooth and nail but if you look closer it is more a case of saving face while slowly giving in then outright resistance. The number of whales is on the increase while whaling might soon be going down even further.
So your point is completly and utterly wrong.
Remember that even the longest journey starts with a single step. Your kind never ever gets anything done ever because you are unable to accept that you need to set
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Banning is one thing, but enforcement is another. I take it you think the Swiss navy are doing a good job?
Re: (Score:2)
Mailing out Patent Absurdity (Score:3, Informative)
Someone's suggested mailing copies of Patent Absurdity [patentabsurdity.com] to patent policy setters in NZ. They've started building a list here:
Add as many names as you can think of - and we'll need something to indicate why this person is relevant and address. A name on its own is useful, but if that person is to receive a copy, someone will have to dig up an address.
Citation needed? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want to sound overly sceptical, but the evidence for this is a blog post that the blog's author has since deleted, right? Would it kill someone to email the blog's author and ask why it was deleted? Could it be that it's inaccurate in some material way? I'm not arguing that the post's deletion is a demonstration of inaccuracy, but it raises an eyebrow.
Re:Citation needed? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome, thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks heaps for that information. I am involved with a software company in NZ so this affects me directly.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with NZICT. (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the key issues with NZICT is that they claim to represent the New Zealand IT community, and yet in reality their membership is governed by commercial size - and of course, all the large outfits with precious few exceptions are the local chapters of the multinational giants (Microsoft, HP, et al).
So what this situation illustrates is
a) The Select Committee process is a joke (as it appears if you have sufficient clout, you can ignore it and go straight to the minister)
and
b) NZICT are shooting a good portion of New Zealand's home grown ICT industry in the foot, and pretending that it's for the good of the industry at large.
By and large the Patent world provides leverage for large firms with large patent portfolios and the budget to play in the legal marketplace. It hurts smaller firms who don't have the capital for prolonged legal battles. The arguments 'for' Patents are not entirely without merit (imho) but the arguments 'against' outweigh them by a mile - unless there's profit to be lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the smaller members of the group need to be reminded of how the larger members of the group benefit more than them, to the possibility of putting them out of business;
-`Patents artificially sque the economies of scale. The eventual conclusion is removal of all but the top company.`
Re: (Score:2)
[Spanish accent]Kew? [/]
IBM's role in New Zealand lobbying questioned (Score:3, Interesting)
Simon Phipps, former chief open source executive of Sun Microsystems, has just asked IBM's open source VP Bob Sutor via Twitter [twitter.com] (with a reference to this very slashdot story) to clarify IBM's role in lobbying for software patents in New Zealand. It will be interesting to see Bob Sutor's response, should there ever be one.
When it comes to patents, IBM stands for International Bullying Machines [blogspot.com]...
Re: (Score:1)
> One of the key issues with NZICT is that they claim to represent the New Zealand IT community, and yet in reality their membership is governed by commercial size
They make no such claim:
"Formed in December 2008 the NZICT Group is an industry association made up of over 80 leading New Zealand ICT companies" - http://ict.org.nz/ [ict.org.nz]
By definition, an industry association is governed by commercial size.
Re: (Score:1)
Pussyfoot around the wording all you like; "New Zealand ICT" is pretty descriptive all on its own. By their very name, they claim to be 'representative' when they're most clearly not.
Re: (Score:1)
What idiocy. If I claim to be representative of men, you'd complain that I'm not including the views of women.
Slashdotter's confused - as usual (Score:1)
Once again people who have never even read a software patten comment
on the patten process, and presume to know everything.
A "software" patent usually does not mention the word "software"
anywhere within it. There is no way to tell if the patent is
purely about software or not - at least not from a legal perspective.
What makes a patent admissible is if it has particular application
and contains a novel inventive step.
So even the most outright ban on all software within patents would
change little really. Moreove
Re: (Score:1)
What makes a patent admissible is if it has particular application
and contains a novel inventive step.
AND contains a clearly defined implementation. That part is important or you get idea patents.
Re: (Score:1)
yes, this is aleady part the patent process.
it is called the "preferred embodiment".
-paul
Re: (Score:1)
> Where novelty is widely interpreted by
So what do you propose?
When you get down the the practical reality of writing patent
legislation, there isn't terminology that you can propose
that can do any better than the current legislation.
If you think I am wrong, please read actual patent legislation
and propose your changes. Perhaps *you* are the closet legal
genious that is going to change the world.
-paul
Re: (Score:2)
Easy - here's a patent law that will have no adverse effects, and (studies have repeatedly shown) will in fact have major benefits on the economy of any country that uses it. In fact, the only adverse effect whatsoever is that it will subject the nation in question to significant international pressure, but it's likely success suggests this is a short term problem as the countries this pressure comes from will be unable to deny it's success to their own citizens in the long term - and be forced to adopt it
Re: (Score:1)
You mouth off, but all you can say is that patent law must be
scrapped.
Scrapping patent law is under the catagory of ridiculous theoretical
stuff that is just not going to happen. Sort of in the same league
as moving the earth further from the sun in order to reduce global
warming.
This strips you of any credibility you may have had. Not the least
because you believe such studies - without having read them.
-paul
Re: (Score:2)
You mouth off, but all you can say is that slavery laws must be
scrapped.
Scrapping slavery law is under the catagory of ridiculous theoretical
stuff that is just not going to happen. Sort of in the same league
as moving the earth further from the sun in order to reduce global
warming.
This strips you of any credibility you may have had. Not the least
because you believe such studies - without having read them.
-paul
----------
You mouth off, but all you can say is that appartheid law must be
scrapped.
Scrapping appart
Re: (Score:1)
Your point is non-sensical.
Right NOW, outside of your dream world, the patent system is intrinsic
to the functioning large segments of our economy. And you clearly
have no idea how this patent system works because you have never taken
the time to read a real patent in your life.
-paul
Re: (Score:2)
Man you make a lot of assumptions. Not so long ago the HORSE was intrinsic to how large sections of the economy work. The same can be said of all three my examples.
Monarchism was once intrinsic to how much of the economy worked. Slavery even moreso - in fact the sectors it was most intrinsic to was, at that stage, by far the most important parts of it (agriculture in particular).
So your argument is a strawman. Things that are intrinsic to the economy is by no means unchangeable because the economy is a huma
Re: (Score:1)
The world of pure theory based on scant pieces of info is a fun place to visit.
In your case, these are the small pieces of info you happen to have run into while traveling in the dark.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you're posts are getting more worthless with each reply. You've now dropped any pretense of sensible argument and simply resorted to plain good old fashioned ad hominem.
Ever post I've made in this thread has PROVEN your "pure theory" idea to be the utter bullshit it is with multiple constant examples showing how systems that were once intrinsic were dismantled when they were no longer useful. Moreover I made the very crucial claim that if ANY system EVER became IMPOSSIBLE to dismantle even when it did
Re: (Score:1)
In the say way I am sure you can show a verbal parallel between
any two items of subject matter.
This doesn't mean the parallel is useful or applicable.
You are too lazy to spend the time understanding what the patent
system is really about because your own pre-conceived opinions
excite you too much.
People like you - who have intense opinions about things they
know little about - are amongst the biggest problem makers.
It called "filling in the gabs in one's knowledge with
generalizations."
Please realise that thoug
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe you have the slightest evidence by which to measure what I may or may not know about the patent system. All your post did now was to describe weak analogies - but an analogy is only weak if you are not aware of it's limitations or assume that where there are crucial differences, the behavior of A must be similar to that of B.
There is no problem in using an analogy to show how the things that are SIMILIAR between A and B can help you successfully predict how B will behave.
What I did was show
Re: (Score:1)
> I don't believe you have the slightest evidence [...]
We can discuss further after you admit you have never
read a single patent in full.
-paul
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I admit something that isn't true ?
Why yes, I HAVE in fact read multiple patents in full.
In fact, this is going to shock you, I OWN four different patents. On mechanical inventions not software.
See I didn't ALWAYS believe patents were bad. That knowledge came with increased study. The fact that this would cost me the (not insignificant) monetary value of my four inventions as ideas is to me, of no consequence. In fact, I believe I will ultimately be able to capitalize and monetize my patented inve
Re: (Score:1)
Then can I please have your four patent numbers.
Software patents are legal in South Africa as they are anywhere else,
both with and without the patent reforms advocated by "slashdotters".
You just need add to the prologue of the patent text "a generic computer
comprising of CPU and volatile storage..." and then it is no longer a
"software patent".
It is only PURE software patents that are excluded by anti-software
legislation. It so happens that there are almost no PURE software
patents anywhere because lawyers ar
Re: (Score:2)
>Then can I please have your four patent numbers.
You're going to do a patent search in the South African patent office (which does not have an online search facility b.t.w) just to try and prove me ignorant of patents ? And I'm supposed to be so indignant that I call your bluff or if I don't then you win ?
*yawn*...
Oh... and you still haven't told me what this has to do with anything I said ? I never discussed the structure of the patent system so even if you were right here... SO WHAT ? You never answere
Re: (Score:1)
> No. They are NOT. In fact the law specifically PROHIBITS them.
No it does not. It specifically prohibits PURE software patents.
Once again you show you have never read the actual paragraphs in
law, but are prepared to rant about it none-the-less.
> so how on earth [...]
Once again you make it clear that you have never read a patent
in your life - at least not a "software" patent. Once again
you take your little knowledge (of mechanical patents) and
generalize it into things you know nothing about.
It is pre
Re: (Score:2)
So we're back to calling my claims "theoretical", "insane", "stupid' etc. without giving the slightest backing to your argument.
Why did I pay a lawyer (well I didn't pay much, it helps to have a couple in the family) ... duh, because having it written by a lawyer means I could ensure that it wouldn't be easy to just work-around by using a minor modification. It also meant that in the event of a complaint, it had a much smaller chance of being struck down.
You know what though... while people like Andrew Rens
Re: (Score:1)
Have you ever found out anything for yourself in your life
instead of just quoting selected second hand statements of
other people?
-paul
Re:Slashdotter's confused - as usual (Score:5, Informative)
The reason software patents are described as funny kinds of machines is to get around the disgust with which most people feel when maths and logic are turned into private possessions by force of lobbying.
However, no matter how bizarre the patent language, and no matter whether or not the patent is granted or not, the final decision lies with a judge who determines whether or not the patent applies to a product being imported or sold. At this stage it is extremely simple to distinguish what is "software" from what is not. If you can download it and run it, it's software. So take for example a media player accused of infringing MP3 patents. If I can download and run a new codec, that is software.
Now, who decides whether or not software is patentable? Clearly this clique of US firms trying to control the NZ market are cheating by referring to "Europe", since the same clique hacked the EPC over so many years, fighting EU civil society for years as it then tried to make that hack into EU-wide law.
What they are now doing in Europe is to try to create a separate non-EU patent court that will decide on what is patentable, and what is not. Where judges are chosen by the patent industry. Which works for its clients, i.e. patent holders. I.e. Big pharma, big software, and big telco will be, indirectly but still in a controlled fashion, choosing the judges, and deciding on the outcome of patent arguments.
It seems relatively cheap to buy lawmakers.
The real issue here is simply democracy, and who makes the laws, and how.
Re: (Score:1)
Why? Because you don't understand the patent system
and have invented a conspiracy.
Please go read actual software patents in the google
patent search before you mouth off about a non-issue.
-paul
Re: (Score:1)
> maths and logic are turned into private possessions
well, when has this actually happened? You presume this
effect is in play because everyone else on slashdot is
alway ranting about it, but do you have actual examples?
Otherwise you are like a hairdresser complaining about a
conspiracy to stop scientists from producing perpetual
motion.
> At this stage it is extremely simple to distinguish what is "software
Your logic is amiss here. Whether or not a patent has been
violated has nothing to do with the form
Re: (Score:2)
The IP system in the US was set up with three (and a half) categories. Trademarks are identified ways products are marketed. They are perpetual, but must be actively defended or are lost. They exist to prevent fraud by deliberate confusion
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for this long essay explaining what should be obvious to anyone
who engages in this discussion. You needn't have waisted your time.
You think because you have read about the different types of IP that
you are now an expert. Have you ever APPLIED for a patent or trademark
yourself? No, you have not.
Have you ever looked through the patent or trademark archives and actually
read real patents IN FULL to understand how patent law works in practice?
Also no.
You say "people" are doing this and that. Says who? Say
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You don't know that they aren't.
Look, just like there are incompetant programmers that write bad
code there are incompetant lawyers that badly prosecute or defend
a case, and there are judges who don't get things right either.
You don't know what happened in these individual cases until
you have studied the court records in detail. Furtunately
judgments are usually available online so you can read these
in full. Why don't you select an example of your choosing
and study it?
Anti-patent news media will select the mo
Re: (Score:2)
But what I said is internally inconsistent. The law doesn't allow for it. So if the courts are treating it as I say, then how do they reconcile their findings with the fact that the law doesn't allow for the patenting or copyright of "discovered" items when such items have been both copyrighted and patented.
This has now become a forum of people who have collectively agreed to NOT understand the patent system and support each other in a voice of a non-cause. It's a total
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
exactly right
Re: (Score:1)
I have been a C developer for 15 years.
I know the difference between software and hardware.
But YOU on the other hand do not know anything about patent
law. Patent law, and patents themselves, are like algorithms
that cannot distinguish between between software and
hardware the same way as a computer algorithm doesn't
know whether it is the real AbbeyRoad writing this,
or someone who stole AbbeyRoad's password.
Of course Patent law is a lot easier to understand
than software. So I am sure if you are good at
writing
Re: (Score:2)
The process is patentable. The machine is patentable. But the logic behind it is not. They want to patent the initial though, the logic, and the result. And that's not what patents are for.
Re: (Score:1)
"They"??
how do you know this?
In actual fact a patent has to apply to a specific utility to be
accepted. Please go read some real patents on google so that you
know what you are talking about.
-paul
Software patents are very confusing to me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You live in the USA, where the constitution actually does NOT mention patents at all.
But in patent law in general, there is no real distinction beteen algorithms
and mathematics. Patent law in fact does NOT restrict someone from patenting
pure mathematics. This is just what people on slashdot say who do not
understand patent law and have never read a patent in their lives.
What patent law actually says is that an invention that does not have a specific
PHYSICAL utility cannot be patented. This prevents someone f
Re: (Score:1)
What makes a patent admissible is if it has particular application and contains a novel inventive step.
Yet many patents are admitted where there is prior art (thus the inventive step is not 'novel') and where the step and application are painfully obvious to anyone with a degree of understanding in the relevant field. The patent system needs to be overhauled, currently it is not serving the purpose which it was created for.
Re: (Score:1)
> Yet many patents are admitted where there is prior art
oh? give me an example of one?
You say this just because OTHER PEOPLE are always citing examples -
Yet if you actually read through software patents you will find
each and every patent is legitimate with very few exceptions.
Now, it is not possible for a patent examiner to refuse to
admit a patent that has been correctly prosecuted. This means
that the applicant has justified the novelty, inventiveness,
and utility of the invention.
The fact that some inven
Re: (Score:1)
Any time you write code you are violating patents. To be worthy of a law suite requires a certain fair context.
-paul
I find it hard to believe you can say something like this and argue that the patent system is fine.
Re: (Score:1)
Because you don't understand it, you find it threatening.
There are many systems in our society that are not perfect, but for
which there is no better solution.
If you would like to propose BETTER legislation than we currently have,
then please do. But then you must ACTUALLY PROVIDE VIABLE LEGAL WORDING.
Don't complain and then say that SOMEONE ELSE must make the fixes using
a magic wand.
I think what you will find when you investigate this thoroughly, is that
the sort of changes that the "free software" community
Re: (Score:2)
This would be where our viewpoints differ then. I don't have the perfect solution at hand, I'm sure that a team comprised of experts in different industry areas (Taken from multiple companies that are not in cooperation) working with a lawyer or two could come up with a better system.
Your outlook seems to be this is as good as we have now so it's better than nothing. My outlook is when something has as large of an effect as the patent system do it right or we're better off without it. While I don't agr
Re: (Score:1)
> I'm sure that a team comprised of [...]
well this has already happened, and is continuing to happen.
Self-inflicted reduction of competitiveness (Score:5, Insightful)
Software patents hinder progress because they give existing slow-moving, dinossaur-like large companies the tools to kill small innovative IT companies before they outcompete them and turn into the large companies of the future.
In Software there are no basic concepts which are trully new or innovative and require patent protection - pretty much any software concept can and will be independently reinvented again and again because all professionals in the field will come up with similar solutions when trying to solve similar problems.
All software which is sufficiently complex for being non-obvious is already protected by copyright due to it's sheer size - no patents needed.
Any country that adopts Software Patents creates the conditions for the stagnation of their own Software industry - Software Patents are used by large companies to kill, while they're still young, any and all companies which might've one day turn out into something like Google.
For a country like New Zeeland, which has no large software companies, enacting Software Patents will just kill local software companies for the benefit of larger foreign ones. This is pretty much the pinacle of stupidity.
As an European I tell you New-Zeelanders: don't follow-up on the footsteps of the EU and the US - in 20 years time all new and innovative ideas will be coming up in countries where, thanks to weaker IP enforcement, the cauldron of innovation and unfettered competition continues to bubble at full strength, while places like the US and the EU will see their economies continuing stagnate and decay because the few new ideas they still manage to produce are being killed in the cradle.
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to use it anyway you want. Not attribution needed.
My ideas are free for all to take and used or discard as they see fit.
Content of Google Cache : (Score:5, Informative)
New Zealand Brings Software Patents back From Brink of Extinction
New Zealand looks like its reversing course on software patent protection. On June 9, there was a meeting between representatives of NZ Ministry of Economic Development (MED) and representatives of NZICT Group. It appears that New Zealand is likely to ultimately adopt an approach to software patents that is consistent with the EPO’s position. My thanks to Jim Hallenbeck (Schwegman) and Paik Saber (IBM) for relaying this information.
Here is the summary of the meeting provided by Brett O’Riley CEO of NZICT:
Our representative delegation met with MED in Wellington yesterday. This was to discuss the formal submission we had made to Hon Simon Power last week covering our concerns about the proposed draft legislation.
The end result of the meeting was extremely encouraging. While section 15 (3A) will not be removed (our ideal outcome), Hon Simon Power has asked MED to work with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to redraft the section along the lines of the European Patent Convention. He has informed the Commerce Select Committee that Crown Law will be undertaking some redrafting before the bill gets to its Second Reading.
While it’s obviously not the end of the journey, it was very pleasing to have a positive indication that the Government recognises there is a need to amend section 15(3A) to make sure it’s consistent with the intent of adopting European practice. While European law does restrict software patents this is positive progress, and the view of our team is that this would be a good outcome for the New Zealand ICT industry.
In summary, the MED confirmed earlier statements from Select Committee members and MED officials that the intent was to follow European law (even though this is not mentioned in the Commentary to the Patents Bill). The MED acknowledged that amendment is required to achieve this, and that the Minister supports finding a reasonable way forward on this point before proceeding with the Bill.
The meeting was attended by myself, as well as Peter Wren-Hilton from Pingar, Dougal Watt and Julie Motley from IBM, and Waldo Kuipers from Microsoft. There was an apology from Ed Robinson (Aptimize) though I verbally covered his concerns. From the MED, Rory McLeod (Director – Competition, Trade and Investment Branch) attended, as did Silke Radde and Warren Hassett who are responsible for overall IP policy and the Patents Bill respectively.
Rory McLeod began with an update on the Patents Bill clause 15(3A).
He described the decision of the Select Committee as being to move to a “normal patentable situation as in Europe”, that did not allow patenting of software per se.
Rory then went into some detail (partly in response to questions we had raised) about what the Select Committee intent was:
The intent had never been to ban software patents outright (and the MED would have serious concerns about that if it were proposed).
If it is patentable in the EU then it should be patentable in New Zealand.
Software should be treated like other technology, so should have a technical purpose and be an inventive step to be patentable, as in Europe.
Not just any software would be patentable, it would need to meet the above test.
Embedded or not embedded is or was not the distinction that is intended.
The signal that the Government wants to send is to follow European law and practice.
The MED also now clearly acknowledge that clause 15(3A) is not adequate to convey this intent. It was great being able to present practical examples of world leading software being developed by Pingar and Aptimize, and hear MED recognise the importance of these companies being able to seek patent protection.
The MED said they wou
Re: (Score:2)
It's getting out of hand. (Score:2)
This whole blogging thing needs to be stopped.
Fash and chaps (Score:4, Funny)
They're on holiday. Yes, I know what you're thinking - surely they can't both be away?
Re: (Score:1)
Hey! I'm at _my_ desk this morning... dunno where the other guy is. Slacker. :)
capitalism. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
alternative is heavy social democracy. in which government, as a tool, controls the country and regulates it heavily. and taxes the wealthy to the extent that they cant amass huge wealth to lobby. works well in sweden, norway, denmark etc.
but tho, there may be a new alternative - direct democracy. a democracy in which everything is communally own
Wrong question (Score:3, Interesting)
'computer software should be excluded from patent protection as software patents can stifle innovation and competition, and can be granted for trivial or existing techniques.'
In US Patent Law, and in every PCT country in the world, there are three base questions for whether something can be patented (there are more, too, but these are the important ones):
1. is the technique already known? In other words, is it already existing?
2. is the technique obvious? In other words, is it trivial?
3. does the technique comprise patentable subject matter?
These are three completely independent questions, and that's what the quote gets wrong... It answers the third question with "all computer software should be excluded from patent protection", but only as a result of the first two questions "because they can be granted for trivial or existing techniques". That's not an issue with software - that's an issue with everything. Patents shouldn't be granted for machines, engines, chemical compounds, or anything else that is either trivial (obvious) or existing (known).
The point of the third question is, should a technique that is completely unknown to man and not at all obvious still not be patentable, because it's in the field of _____? For example, in the US, we consider laws of nature to be unpatentable, even if they're completely unknown and non-trivial.
So, when you talk about whether software should be patentable - whether it's merely an "abstract mathematical algorithm" performable by a Turing machine - the question is not whether patents get granted for trivial or existing methods... but whether a non-trivial, new method should still be unpatentable, solely because it's software.
I trust that this ammendment was... (Score:2)
Don't Panic Yet (Score:2, Informative)
I'm a Kiwi, made a submission to the select committee, and have just sent an email to Simon Power suggesting he tread carefully.
Before you all get too het up, I would emphasise that this is New Zealand. We have pretty transparent politics here, even to the level of releasing MP's expense claims (aside: we just had a great little storm in a teacup because one MP booked several porn movies to his hotel bill). Another really healthy thing about our tiny country is how directly you are connected to your represe