Software Now Un-Patentable In New Zealand 221
A few weeks ago New Zealand Software decided to grant software patents. But now
"Despite what appears to be a big-budget lobbying effort by the pro-patent fraternity, Hon Simon Power announced today that he wouldn't be modifying the proposed Patents Bill hence software will be un-patentable once the Bill passes into law.
This is significant. As we've previously pointed out software patents aren't black and white, and there are certainly pros and cons. However on balance, we believe they represent a far greater risk to smaller NZ-based software providers than opportunity, and there are many cases where they have significantly stifled innovation.
We believe it's near impossible for software to be developed without breaching some of the hundreds of thousands of software patents awarded around the world, hence many software companies in New Zealand, creating outstanding and innovative software, live a constant risk that their entire business will be wound up overnight due to litigious action by a patent holder.
This has led to many a 'patent troll' company, primarily in the US. These are non-software companies who exist only to buy up old patents with the sole intention of suing innovative software companies for apparent breach of these patents. The effects of this have been chilling."
Huzzah! (Score:3, Insightful)
There should be some ramifications to the ACTA kerfuffle, which is always welcome IMO.
Re:Huzzah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile in the US, the way has been paved for business method patents. Yay progress!
While I definitely think there are legitimate software patents, the decision to have none at all is probably better than the current insanity in the US.
Patents should be for truly innovative things, and no, adding "on a computer" to something that has already been invented is not innovative. Apparently our patent clerks cannot tell the difference when it comes to software.
Re:Huzzah! (Score:4, Informative)
"Meanwhile"? Unless you've got a very broad definition of that word, I think I have to disagree. Business method patents came in with State Street [wikipedia.org] back in '98. And while this year's SC decision in Bilski [wikipedia.org] didn't go as far as many (including me) might have hoped, it did actually cut back quite a bit on what's patentable. See, for example, this Groklaw article [groklaw.net] on a post-Bilsk software patent rejection.
I think a better statement might be, "meanwhile, in the US, the way for business method patents has been only partially blocked."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really, the SC simply upheld the specific rejection of Bilski, but struck down the broader machine-test portion, which was the key in eliminating business method patents.
In other words, Bilski originally said business methods were un-patentable, because all patents must this test. The SC said that the Bilski test isn't the only test.
Thus, business method patents are still potentially valid, even though the specific patent in Bilski is not.
If that's not paving the way for business method patents, I don't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bilski as a whole greatly improved matters in the US. It's true that the SC didn't go quite as far as the lower court, but the lower court decision wasn't binding on other districts, while the SC decision is. Even East Texas. Anyway, the net result was still a major improvement. And the test (machine-or-transformation) wasn't rejected; it was simply stated to be not-necessarily-sufficient by itself. But the bar for any candidate patent that fails the machine-or-transformation test is much, much higher t
Re:Huzzah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently our patent clerks cannot tell the difference when it comes to software
I was working as such a patent clerk (with focus on software) in Europe.
While it is easy to accept every software patent application (as in US) or reject all of them (as apparently now in New Zealand), it is very hard to find objective criteria to separate obvious things from truly innovative stuff.
The basic problem is, that in Software, there are usually very little unforeseen obstacles to overcome, when a concept is turned into actual code.
Lets say, state of the art is, that software A can do X, and software B can do Y.
Now somebody invents a software C that can do both, X and Y. Is this innovative? Usually not.
If we apply this example to the physical world, the situation is entirely different. A submarine can dive, and an aircraft can fly. Inventing a "machine" that can do both, would require a lot of innovation.
Now, a patentable idea has to be technically feasible. In the case of software, there is not much justification required, as every expert in the field knows, that it is in principle possible to combine X and Y. On the other hand, in the physical world, it requires much more than just an "idea" of a flying submarine to have a patentable innovation.
Therefore, it is very easy to apply for a patent for a software, that is unknown in the state of the art, while technically and economically feasible. In the physical world, this is much harder to achieve.
The problem is not, that the patent offices only have incompetent examiners. Rather, the definition of "patentable innovation" is not suitable for software.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I disagree with most of your post. I'll sum up how the preliminary software patent test should work (only to show what is definitely not patentable) here:
If you can take an idea for a piece of software to any software engineer and say "Here, program this for me" and they can program it for you, it isn't an innovative enough idea for a patent. If you take it to an engineer and they say "How the hell am I supposed to do that?" then you have something special. After you get the patent, that same engineer sh
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. The parent was specifically referring to the current state of software patents in the U.S., and patents such as Amazon's 1-click patent have everything to do with incompetent examiners, and nothing to do with the difficulty of finding a suitable definition of patentability. The 1-click patent may just be the most egregious and/or the most often
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because software is design. It's code that tells the machine what to do, not the actual machine doing the job.
Software's covered by copyrights. You can't patent it just like you can't patent a story or a color scheme.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You should take a look on the case on Blinsk, recently decided by your supreme court. Some time is needed to see how far that will affect software patents, but the tide has clearly changed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huzzah! (Score:5, Funny)
There are pros and cons. (Score:5, Funny)
Sure. The pros oppose software patents, the cons support them.
New Zealand is looking to be a better (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it's full of giant gorillas and lesbian warriors.
I don't need my ego shoved in a drawer every day like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Better than the other way around.
Now watch the New Zealand Software Industry boom! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the New Zealand government manages to get the bill enacted without bowing to pressure from foreign patent trolls, then New Zealand will be a safe habour for genuine software firms wanting to get on with developing software. If the New Zealand Software Industry now booms, hopefully other regulators will take note.
Historians will look back and see patent trolling as one of those mad schemes of the first decade of the 21st Century, alongside subprime mortgages, leveraged investment vehicles and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubt you'll see large companies spring up, since exporting software would still require the software to respect laws in the the countries that the software was sold in.
That being said, for someone that likes to work on computers and write programs, retiring to somewhere that guarantees that you will not be living in fear of being sued for accidentally publishing something that someone has a patent on would be nice.
Heck, doesn't matter if you actually did step on someone's patent or not. As a retiree I don
Software Patents are anti-competitive (Score:4, Interesting)
exporting software would still require the software to respect laws in the the countries that the software was sold in.
I have long thought about this. I live in the EU, and the software patents are not valid (but they sometimes grant them anyway). I would make an unfair competition law to prevent foreign governments using their patent systems to stymie EU-based software firms.
The way it would work is as follows, an EU firm creates a program and sells or gives it away in the US (or other country with nonsense software patent systems). A US company sues for patent infringement damages in US court. The EU company pays but takes the receipt back to the EU.
The EU software firm then hands the receipt to the European Commission who then sues the US company under my new unfair-competition law. The European Commission recovers the damages back and hands them back to the EU software firm. The European Commission charges punitive damages above the initial amount which it pockets itself to cover its own costs (or even make a profit).
The European Commission could make the process so easy that the EU-based software firm just carries on with making software and competing on the merits of the software.
Re: (Score:2)
Age is one factor. It primarily depends how much money you have which decides whether you'll be a net drain on the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that is a real threat. The solution of course is to bin the WTO, and all the crazy US laws it dumps on everyone (software patents, anti-filesharing, private health care, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the layout catastrophe. Apparently Slashdot FAILs at <ul>s inside <li>s inside <ul>s, which is should accept, according to HTML (any version).
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot fails at an amazing list* of basic HTML capabilities. We're used to it.
At least we don't have to suffer from page-widening [wikipedia.org] any more.
------------------
*Which I can't include in this post, since proper handling of <ol> and <ul> is among that list, as you've described.
Re: (Score:2)
QT licence (Score:4, Insightful)
remember the clause in the Q Public Licence that says "if you want to initiate legal procedings, you have to do it in a Norwegian court", well I have an amendment for the other OSS licences :)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I understand, generally it is possible for a court to apply foreign laws, particular in these quasi-contractual licenses. In more technical terms, the choice of law and where jurisdiction lies are different issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_laws [wikipedia.org]
IANAL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may say so.
More precisely my point is that specifying the country in which proceedings must take place does not necessarily imply the laws of that country being applied.
One important caveat (Score:5, Informative)
Hopefully other countries will follow (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't matter if the USA doesn't do the same if every other country follows this change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe he meant to say "as long as everybody else bans software patents, it won't matter if the US keeps them" which would be the entire opposite of your interpretation. Though I understand why you read it that way, the GP's post could've been phrased better.
I for one welcome our new Kiwi overloards. (Score:2)
NZ is becoming a new magnet for film making and now software houses have a huge incentive to move there. THIS is how you build an economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Immigration (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone know what the immigration laws are for NZ? I'm real tired of having to worry about getting sued for the software I work on.
Any other issues with NZ law? They aren't trying to filter the internet or anything are they?
Re:Immigration (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly yes. Its not a strict as Australia but it is there. The ISP has to volunteer to join the scheme. Needless to say, I was on the phone to ask. And I actually enjoy getting sales calls from the big ISP's. "No, I will not join your service, as you have subscribed to the Internet Filter mandate".
Fortunately the small ISPs regularly score best in consumer surveys for service and performance..
Huge outbreak of common sense (Score:2)
This isn't over at all (Score:5, Informative)
The most important point is that this isn't over. The Bill isn't even written yet, nor are the patent office guidelines. Background info:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I didn't forget to write the link text, the first link whould have been:
That's a general page of background for the situation, more important than the other three links :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Hence it's important to thank Mr Powers
Re: (Score:2)
> The most important point is that it'll *never* be over
That's true, but there's a legislative process in progress now in New Zealand. That process will end one day. We grab the opportunity now or we lose it.
Migration time... (Score:2)
So... (Score:2)
So companies in NZ will be producing algorithms that in the rest of the world would be patentable, but will just let anyone use them for any purpose with no regard or no compensation?
It may become a haven for patent trollops!
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has never read the Bob Asprin "Myth" books, eh?
Holy Crap! (Score:2)
Im somewhat torn abuot this whole subject (Score:2)
One should be able to protect yourself if you create something new. True, the entire patent sturcture has been abused, but there needs to be something. ( and i don't think copyright is it either )
Re: (Score:2)
If you *create* something you, you can.
The problem is the definition - at the moment people are patenting things as basic as how to sort a list of windows and stupid things like that. They are not "inventions", and it's hard to "invent" anything on a computer that is purely software. Machines that rely on computers to do a certain task are still patentable worldwide, but just saying "I take these bits and do this to them" isn't an invention and isn't patentable in New Zealand now. It won't be too long (o
Let's Harmonize (Score:3, Insightful)
If this happens for real, the rest of the world should harmonize [google.com] to NZ standards. Right politicians and lawyers, harmonization is important, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
If this happens for real, the rest of the world should harmonize [google.com] to NZ standards. Right politicians and lawyers, harmonization is important, isn't it?
It is harmonized... New Zealand is following both European and US patent law, and allowing software embedded in a device to be patentable. "Embedded in a device" sounds a lot like the "tied to a specific machine" language from Bilski, huh?
I'm a little disappointed (Score:3, Interesting)
but not at all surprised that the argument against software patents in NZ didn't came down to "they're bad, often abused, and stifle competition" but instead to "they're bad for New Zealand".
It's a principled stand, where the principle is "what's good for us is good."
Nations, like people, are guided by "enlightened self-interest", I guess. (As a citizen of the USA, I'll admit to being quite familiar with the concept.)
Re: (Score:2)
As one of the primary authors of the submissions to the NZ Government proposing an exclusion for software patents I had to use multiple arguments. Those arguments included that they are abused by multinational companies, that the stifle competition, and that we should not change our law to suit the interests of these mutltinationals.
You will note that the US is currently trying to push US style intellectual property legislation onto other countries because it is in the interest of the US multinationals. Not
NZ case law (Score:2)
Small global effect (Score:2)
The global effect of a single country rejecting software patents is much less than, say, the effect of allowing decryption and reverse engineering tools a la DVDCSS.
New Zealand authors and users will be safe from lawsuits, but users who download and use code in countries where the patents apply remain vulnerable to lawsuits, despite not being the authors.
That doesn't seem to be the right article (Score:4, Informative)
"Despite what appears to be a big-budget lobbying effort by the pro-patent fraternity, Hon Simon Power announced today that he wouldn't be modifying the proposed Patents Bill hence software will be un-patentable once the Bill passes into law.
Follow the link in the summary and you get:
It's official: Software will be unpatentable in NZ
Despite what appears to be a big-budget lobbying effort by the pro-patent fraternity, Hon Simon Power announced today [beehive.govt.nz] that he wouldn't be modifying the proposed Patents Bill hence software will be unpatentable once the Bill passes into law.
And follow that link, and you get:
Simon Power 15 JULY, 2010 Minister announces way forward for software patents Commerce Minister Simon Power has instructed the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) to develop guidelines to allow inventions that contain embedded software to be patented.
So, seems to be the opposite of what the summary claims.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's a misinterpretation to say "allow inventions that contain embedded software to be patented" means "software patents are allowed".
The way I'm reading this, it means that if a larger invention happens to include some embedded software, that larger invention is patentable. So, if you invent a really cool electromechanical device (robot overlord), it doesn't become impossible to patent the mechanics just because they need some control software to work.
Which is pretty reasonable, IMHO. Patents were created back when inventions were primarily mechanical; since the hardest part about mechanical design is the initial concept. Unlike software, where million dollar ideas are a dime a dozen, and the real difficult is implementation. ( I speak from experience; I work in mechatronics, where design is a combination of software, electrical, and mechanical).
As long as the embedded software isn't patentable in and of itself, I see nothing wrong with this.
Contrary to what Slashdot may believe, though, that's the current state of the law both in Europe and the US. Software alone is unpatentable, but if it's tied to (or embedded in) a machine, it's patentable subject matter. So, a system claim with a processor and memory and the processor executing various software modules is patentable, because it's not the software that's being claimed, but the system with embedded software. Similarly, a method claim performing the software steps that has each performed "by
Re: (Score:2)
Software alone is unpatentable
Yeah, that's why video codecs et. al., simple algorithms with no specific hardware involved and that can be done by hand, aren't patentable. Not.
You know that. Why are you dishonestly trying to pretend otherwise? People like you really need to start thinking deeply about what a patent is for a change instead of parroting legal dogma.
The patent system is based on very shaky, superficial and inconsistent foundations. The PTO doesn't even have a objective basis for what a disti
Re: (Score:2)
Software alone is unpatentable
Yeah, that's why video codecs et. al., simple algorithms with no specific hardware involved and that can be done by hand, aren't patentable. Not.
You know that. Why are you dishonestly trying to pretend otherwise?
You know, name calling doesn't really support your argument, particularly when you haven't actually made one. And no, "not" is not an argument.
People like you
Really? Really?
really need to start thinking deeply about what a patent is for a change instead of parroting legal dogma.
You mean like the deep analysis of policy I did in my previous post that doesn't parrot any legal dogma, but instead gets to the heart of the constitutional and social issues involved? You're right. I think more people should start thinking deeply about it like I do.
The patent system is based on very shaky, superficial and inconsistent foundations.
That's a harsh thing to call our Constitution.
The PTO doesn't even have a objective basis for what a distinct idea is, the fundamental basis for a patent system.
Yes, they do. It's called 35 USC 102 and
Yay New Zealand! (Score:2)
Re:If you live and work in NZ, great (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people do not like to let that pass. It could be a Whoosh, or it could be a humorless "even if they aren't there, the US had previously shipped WMDs to Iraq, then invaded them because they possessed WMDs" comment. You have to a
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you check you will find that many of those laws have been removed or weakened. This is now much less of an issue...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It could help/protect open source software since they only make source available. Now they don't have to worry about breaking the law (in NZ) in doing so. Will this lead to the U.S. blocking NZ sites?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is what I was curious about.
How does this affect open source companies that are based in NZ, but distribute globally?
What if the Mozilla corporation moved its operations to New Zealand? Could it then incorporate the h264 codec into Firefox & release Firefox to whoever wished to use it? Would Mozilla be beyond the reach of MPEG-LA who hold the software patents on h264? Would MPEG-LA be able to sue users of Firefox outside of of NZ (note: I don't think they would do this).
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but as far as I understand it, yes. That would make the Mozilla corp out of the reach of MPEG-LA, but MPEG-LA would still be able to sue users of the product.
international effects (Score:5, Insightful)
> this wouldn't help a NZ company if they sell outside NZ, correct?
The NZ government only has decision making power in NZ. For where they have power, they've decided to make companies safe. What NZ is doing is great and should be applauded and helped. It's up to the US government to make companies safe in the US.
On the international level, this sends two messages to other countries: 1. Countries aren't obliged to do what the US says regarding patent policy; 2. Abolition of software patents is a reasonable choice for developed countries.
These messages contribute to saner patent policy in other countries in the future, even in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
On the international level, this sends two messages to other countries: 1. Countries aren't obliged to do what the US says regarding patent policy; 2. Abolition of software patents is a reasonable choice for developed countries.
These messages contribute to saner patent policy in other countries in the future, even in the US.
Uh, maybe you didn't follow the link in the article to the official statement, but they're making NZ law the same as current US patent law, and allowing software patents. The article is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't help, but wouldn't hurt either. If a corporation has (or intends to have) business in a country where software patents are permited, it must apply for the patents there, even if it holds pantents at home. Making software not patenteable in one country changes nothing at all.
Please let us know these "worthy" patents. (Score:2, Insightful)
Please let us know these "worthy" patents.
Compression is application of maths (not patentable). In any case, without compression, digital effects on movies would be impossible. Sales of movies would be still on VHS or Laserdisk. No digital theatres to get us away from our Home Theatres. Therefore IN THE INTERESTS OF MAKING MONEY, the entertainment industry would have invested in digital compression.
Just like the BBC did: http://diracvideo.org/about-dirac/
Because the BBC had a need and that need was cheaper
Re:Not all patents should be disallowed (Score:5, Informative)
There are some really innovative things happening all the time in software and they take money and time to research.
Same for Mathematics yet they're unpatentable *and* uncopyrightable. Yet innovation goes on.
Re: (Score:2)
Same for Mathematics yet they're unpatentable *and* uncopyrightable. Yet innovation goes on.
Mathematical principles are facts that are discovered, they are not analogous to software
You mean aside from the fact that all software is, provably, mathematics?
(Actually, there are exceptions in the case of hardware/software combinations, like motion control, but the point is that those aren't pure software. Pure software is always purely mathematical.)
Re: (Score:2)
Most engineering is physics.
Re:Not all patents should be disallowed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But, it doesn't stop you from solving the same problem in a different way.
Come back to us when you can define "different" objectively. Until then you're just handwaving.
Two shades of the color orange could be the same or different. The PTO can't even objectively decide that. Whether two ideas are the same or different is a far more complex and infinitely dimensional concept.
---
Every new patent is a new law; another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess having computer scientists spending their days finding new (usually suboptimal) algorithms for already solved problems to skirt the dozens of software patents any given project will likely infringe, rather than doing meaningful new work is an innovative concept, but it's certainly not a productive one.
No, it's both innovative and productive. Maybe your background is programming rather than engineering, but in general, you want to have several different solutions for any problem. One may be optimal in some situations, others may be better elsewhere. But if someone said, "pfff, we already have a solution, let's not investigate any others," we'd be stuck with a one-size-barely-fits-all answer.
If you live your life by "include" statements, then innovating may seem unproductive, but then, if you're constantl
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess having computer scientists spending their days finding new (usually suboptimal) algorithms for already solved problems to skirt the dozens of software patents any given project will likely infringe, rather than doing meaningful new work is an innovative concept, but it's certainly not a productive one.
No, it's both innovative and productive.
If there is a reason for doing something in another way, engineers (and many programmers) will do so by themselves. It's their nature.
Maybe your background is programming rather than engineering, but in general, you want to have several different solutions for any problem. One may be optimal in some situations, others may be better elsewhere. But if someone said, "pfff, we already have a solution, let's not investigate any others," we'd be stuck with a one-size-barely-fits-all answer.
History has proven it does not go that way in practice.
If you live your life by "include" statements, then innovating may seem unproductive, but then, if you're constantly copying other people's code, why shouldn't you pay them royalties?
If you copy code, you have to live by the copyright license (which may mandate paying royalties, releasing your source code, or anything else).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess having computer scientists spending their days finding new (usually suboptimal) algorithms for already solved problems to skirt the dozens of software patents any given project will likely infringe, rather than doing meaningful new work is an innovative concept, but it's certainly not a productive one.
No, it's both innovative and productive.
If there is a reason for doing something in another way, engineers (and many programmers) will do so by themselves. It's their nature.
You should probably talk to the grandparent, then. He thinks that it's unproductive to do something a different way.
Maybe your background is programming rather than engineering, but in general, you want to have several different solutions for any problem. One may be optimal in some situations, others may be better elsewhere. But if someone said, "pfff, we already have a solution, let's not investigate any others," we'd be stuck with a one-size-barely-fits-all answer.
History has proven it does not go that way in practice.
Which part? Last I checked, lighting technology had advanced quite a bit beyond fire.
If you live your life by "include" statements, then innovating may seem unproductive, but then, if you're constantly copying other people's code, why shouldn't you pay them royalties?
If you copy code, you have to live by the copyright license (which may mandate paying royalties, releasing your source code, or anything else).
And if you say, "oh, ho, copyright only protects that exact code, so if I rewrite it myself from a flow chart, then I don't have to pay copyright royalties," then you're still not innovating, and why should we consider your actions at all valuable for advancing the state of the art?
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a reason for doing something in another way, engineers (and many programmers) will do so by themselves. It's their nature.
You should probably talk to the grandparent, then. He thinks that it's unproductive to do something a different way.
He thinks it's unproductive to be forced to program something in a different way if there's no good technical reason for it, but rather only because someone else thought of/patented it first. I agree.
Maybe your background is programming rather than engineering, but in general, you want to have several different solutions for any problem. One may be optimal in some situations, others may be better elsewhere. But if someone said, "pfff, we already have a solution, let's not investigate any others," we'd be stuck with a one-size-barely-fits-all answer.
History has proven it does not go that way in practice.
Which part?
The part that where you suggest that if people can freely imitate innovation in software that we get stuck with a "one-size-barely-fits-all answer".
And if you say, "oh, ho, copyright only protects that exact code,
Then you'd still be wrong.
then you're still not innovating, and why should we consider your actions at all valuable for advancing the state of the art?
Just like the umpteenth novel about a magician's academy can be a valuable addition to the world of literature, so can the umpteenth app t
Re: (Score:2)
He thinks it's unproductive to be forced to program something in a different way if there's no good technical reason for it, but rather only because someone else thought of/patented it first. I agree.
History has proven it does not go that way in practice.
Which part?
The part that where you suggest that if people can freely imitate innovation in software that we get stuck with a "one-size-barely-fits-all answer".
So, according to you, it's unproductive for people to come up with new code, but they won't be stuck reusing old code.
I'll wait to address this further until you pick one argument and stick with it.
And of course, your point is based on the classic fallacy that a single application would only ever use known algorithms or embody known "system and method to do X", or that it would be completely new. No single application in the world is like that.
And your point is based on the classic fallacy that if you paint a wooden wagon red or add a cupholder to it, suddenly it's completely different and you don't own that first wagon maker anything.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...because I copy code that others have explicitly given me permission to copy without paying them royalties, the same way I allow others to copy my code? If there's already a good solution to the problem you're trying to solve that you can use with an include statement, why in the world wouldn't you? How could you possibly consider it productive to needlessly duplicate someone else's work when you could be busy building something new and useful of your own?
As I said, there are reasons why include statements don't always accomplish what you need. For one, overusing them tends to lead to bloated inefficient code with lots of dependencies to break. And you say "duplicate someone else's work", but that misses the point... if you're innovating, you're not duplicating someone else's work at all. You're coming up with a new solution.
If a problem has been solved, the only reason you would want a different one is if it does a better job at solving that problem (or if you find it amusing to find a new solution, which is a perfectly valid reason to pursue solutions, but not of any particular benefit to society at large). You may want different solutions for subtly different problems, but if you're dealing with the same problem in either case, the optimal solution will always be optimal.
Well, that's just flat out untrue. Do you have any practical industry experience, or are you based purely in academic theory? There ar
Re: (Score:2)
Mathematical principles are facts that are discovered, they are not analogous to software.
You're claiming as "fact" something that has long been debated among mathematicians. And the general consensus seems to be that you need to be very careful with your definitions if you want to claim that anything in mathematics is "fact". The reason is simple: Facts are usually defined as statements that are true in the physical universe, and mathematics has little if anything to do with the physical universe. Math
Re: (Score:2)
I think you can appreciate that just because innovation *can* happen without patents is not necessarily evidence that they should be abolished.
The patent system is a massive interference in the citizen's business. The onus is on proponents to show that that interference is fully justified at every stage and in every technical area. The onus is not on anybody else to prove a negative.
---
Every new patent is a new law; another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because there was no innovation prior to the (fairly recent) introduction of patents to software.
Give me a break!
Re:As a software patent holder.. (Score:5, Interesting)
You can sell the software just fine without patents. It'll take time for competitors to catch up and if you're constantly improving your software, instead of sitting on your ass, then you're always going to be ahead. In fact, the competition will motivate you to continue working on your algorithms and your clients will be better off.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Overall, I think this news is a win for New Zealand. But that doesnt mean all the losers are patent trolls.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What could happen is that some company realizes that the only thing really holding them back is the competitive advantage amazon controls in it's one-click patent. If only they could implement one-click shopping they'd take the world by storm. So, they relocate to Auckland, set up shop and relaunch their website now with all the glory of one-click. When they make their first billion dollars, instead of paying $250 million in taxes to the US, now the kiwis get it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is good news for developers that want to sell locally in NZ without being afraid to be sued for creating software. Anyone that wants to sell in the US has to abide US law.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they'll issue a "special watch" or some such against New Zealand as a place without adequate protection for intellectual property.
They'll apply diplomatic and economic pressure. They'll try to hit the bottom line of NZ companies by applying tariffs or banning the import of software from there.
They will not simply accept that NZ has the right to disa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we now expect the OpenOffice New Zealand version to basically "be" microsoft office, since software patents won't work there?
Well, there's two factors here: Patents and Copyright. Patents are more general than copyright, generally speaking.
Get OpenOffice or other software too close to 'Microsoft Office' and you'll likely be treading into copyright violation zone. Copyright also lasts a lot longer than patents.
How about a linux or other OS that is 100% Windows compatible? Do you really think M$ will let this fly, once stuff like this starts hitting torrents, etc. from New Zealand?
Would be possible, not much microsoft could do without breaking compatibility in other ways. You'd still have to be careful of copyright. Political lobbying would still probably be used though.
You probably wouldn't need
Re: (Score:2)
Get OpenOffice or other software too close to 'Microsoft Office' and you'll likely be treading into copyright violation zone.
I can only speak from the point of view of the U.S., but that's completely wrong. No matter how much functionality you duplicate, unless you actually copy the code from Microsoft Office (i.e. you don't write it yourself), there is no copyright violation.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how much functionality you duplicate, unless you actually copy the code from Microsoft Office (i.e. you don't write it yourself), there is no copyright violation.
Don't have to copy code; simply copying the design too much might be enough to trigger it. The images used for copy/paste and such, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't have to copy code; simply copying the design too much might be enough to trigger it.
Not for copyright of software. Obviously you can't use anything that's trademarked, and it's possible to have design patents, though I don't know if Microsoft has any for Office.
The images used for copy/paste and such, for example.
Sure, if you extract the images, take a screenshot of them, or otherwise actually copy them. Creating your own icons that look similar can't be a copyright violation, since copyright is on a specific expression/implementation, not a general concept.
Re: (Score:2)