Software will not be patentable in New Zealand
nzherald.co.nz
nzherald.co.nz
If anyone is going to support Free and Open Source Software, it's going to be a guy named Foss.
The government asked its citizens their thoughts "a recent poll of more than 1000 Kiwi IT professionals found 94 per cent wanted to see software patents gone." -- As overwhelming as 94% is, I wonder the motivations of the last 6%.
The U.S. is in software patents so deep, the only way I can see it changing is watching other countries move faster without the drain on innovation and the need to pay lawyers when you code.
Sorry I brought that one up but is one of those laws that has always just made me say - "What the fuuuuuc....."
I can't remember the exact wording but one provision was about how they couldn't be exported unless it was in their best interests. E.g. you can't sell them a circus overseas in which they would likely receive cruel treatment.
So it's not about calling them people, it's about giving them some rights because they have sentience.
Many animals show signs of sentience and even if they don't, they should not be allowed to undergo cruel testing. To try to only apply this to great apes shows a lack of understanding of the issues involved. It is often human nature to be guilty of anthropomorphizing.
The intentions are noble, but the focus is too narrow and the label is quite frankly, ridiculous.
While other animals have sentience too this is about the thin edge of the wedge, and what's achievable in politics. You go for the creatures that are nearest to human and then increase it as is appropriate. It's important to establish precedent and not to go too far at once or else the first step will fail and politicians won't touch it again for a long time. I see it more as practical political expediency rather than a lack of understanding of how non-apes may be sentient too.
Sums up your position ?
Just a quick question, but once you have given Chimps human rights and said Chimps go on and kill and eat other apes/monkeys, as they commonly do in the wild - would you have them up for murder and cannibalism charges with appropriate punishments?
But granting human right to chimpanzees is not saying animals have the same rights than humans. It's saying chimpanzees are humans. We can debate on how apes are different (if at all) with humans, but we should not forget that what NZ government was basically saying is that they're not different.
I dont think "rights" is the right word to begin with, but "compassion towards other species" would be a good place to start with, and reflecting about how "moral / ethical" it is to inflict pain willingly on other species.
Because if "pain" and "emotions" are felt pretty much in the same way by animals and humans (for which there is more and more evidence on that as we learn how the brain works), why would it be moral to inflict pain to animals but amoral to inflict pain on human beings ?
Without being an antispecist, I surely agree with that. It would have been indeed a great thing to start with writing some kind of animal rights chart, or even a global "life rights", that would include human rights (and which would probably leads to questions like "how much is it ok to takes from nature" or "when taking animal life for food, how to do it respectfully"). But I don't think that's what this government had in mind.
I may be wrong, of course, but it seems to me they had more anthropological considerations about apes than considerations about animal suffering, or else, they would have proposed some kind of general animal law.
Hilariously, everyone replying to you has missed the point.
NZ has so many things fundamentally right they actually have time and money to debate and discuss giving more thought to the treatment of animals.
Meanwhile, America is stuck bickering about basic healthcare, gay rights, gun control, abortion and education for HUMANS.
At least these are just the government covering it's own ass, rather than out and out corruption.
The result is that governments have used urgency as a way to pass major and controversial laws without full consultation or debate. Examples include 'three strikes' (http://boingboing.net/2011/04/15/new-zealands-3-strik.html), the 'Hobbit Act' (http://www.3news.co.nz/Hobbit-bill-becomes-law/tabid/419/art...) and the GCSB (spy) bill (http://parliamenttoday.co.nz/2013/05/house-goes-into-urgency...). Whether you agree or disagree on the merits of the bills, I do think it's fair to say that all deserved more debate and consultation than they got.
And I'd argue that all of these examples were driven by lobbying (from the media industry, the Hobbit producers and the espionage agencies). Our process of making laws is generally healthy and open, but it does have dangerous blind spots.
Countries ridden with welfare are not doing TOO well currently. Most countries in Europe, US, Japan. All deep to their neck in public debt, always at the verge of bankruptcy. This can't be good for anyone in the end, poor included.
We also get to walk around our cities without constant fear of violent robbery by the extreme poor. Nice huh?
ANd thanks for the cliche that poor = robber/criminal, I am sure many honest poor people appreciate your point of view.
"Canada’s federal debt grew steadily between 5% and 10% per year until 1975. For the next 12 years it grew on average over 20% per year. It surpassed $100 billion in 1981, $200 billion in 1985, $300 billion in 1988, $400 billion in 1992, and $500 billion in 1994. It peaked at $563 billion in 1997. The debt then declined to $458 billion by 2008. With the recession, the federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09 and is expected to grow by $55.9 billion in 2009-10. November 2012 Canadian debt surpassed the $600 billion mark"
Canada certainly look like Maple Red in this map of worldwide public debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dette_publique2011.jpg
You better check your sources before commenting. Or maybe you are one of those to think that federal debt is not an issue and that you never need to pay it back. You are in for a big surprise.
How about Mother Theresa? How about the Red Cross? About about the religious associations who live on donations only?
In your little world everything comes from the government, as well as your ideology it seems.
And your argument that charities and government-funded welfare are mutually exclusive is just plain bizarre. In any case, let us know how Somalia works out for you.
I suspect we may well share some sentiments, but you're coming off as needlessly argumentative. Yeah, sometimes I do too :p
The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press. The Lancet and the British Medical Journal reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that precluded the use of many elements of modern medical care, such as systematic diagnosis. Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care as "haphazard", as volunteers without medical knowledge had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors. He observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa)
As a Canadian, I think I strongly prefer our government-provided healthcare to the Mother Theresa version.
Parent was pointing out that a reasonable government welfare program does a lot less to foster resentment than a free market "fend for yourself" approach.
> I am sure many honest poor people appreciate your point of view.
Honest people still have to eat. Poor people don't (usually) choose to be poor, and if you force them into a corner with no other alternative, they will either
a) Die
or
b) Resort to crime or some other undesirable activity to prevent themselves from dying.
But I wouldn't put all the nordic countries in the same basket. Last I know Sweden is not doing too well compared to Finland.
I don't know the answer, but maybe you do: what percentage of the population is considered "on welfare" for those countries that are striving, versus those that aren't?
I don't know if that's the case, but if so, it just might be related to Sweden having shitloads of more Somalis than Finland.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#Australia (Everyone gets money for nothing, forever)
'But from another perspective, Finland’s performance looks disappointing. An alternative destination from Helsinki on one of those monster cruise ships is due west to Stockholm. Unlike Finland, Sweden chose not to join the euro. Until the crisis, that made little difference. Both countries did well; if anything Finland’s performance was stronger. But over the past five years their fortunes have diverged to the detriment of Finland.'
At least most of said countries have smaller debt-to-GDP ratio than US.
@ 2:00 it speaks volumes about US politics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T...)
Alas it's not a case of nominative determinism.
Lawyers have a lot of money. Those laws aren't going to change until the role of money in politics changes. I wouldn't hold my breath.
People in corporate take pride in IP. The number of patents a team has applied for is a measure of its success.
As a proponent of foss, I believe software patents hinder development, because it makes the work I do difficult.
But people working in 'corporate' IT see it as a reward for their work.
I am sure many of them celebrated the recent World IP day and made plans to apply for more patents.
Can you provide some examples?
It would be even cooler if a few different countries did this and set up a sort of, software patent-free economic zone.
Sounds like contributory infringement to me. Why not just host the entire thing distally and access via VPN?
The answer lies in where a product is considered to be sold. If you're targeting customers in the USA say then it doesn't matter where your server is you're still considered to be selling in the USA.
YMMV and I'm afraid I don't have any caselaw handy to cite on this.
Inducing someone to infringe a patent valid in the US by importing (downloading) your product into the US is itself an infringement of the patent under 35 USC 271 (b). Even with the banner, plaintiff / prosecution lawyers could argue that you were inducing infringement - otherwise, why use a banner and not one of the widely available IP geolocation databases for an IP based block? Why, for example, sell to credit cards issued by US banks? Obviously, if you put more effective technical measures in place, but people from the US are, say, using a non-US proxy and paying by BitCoin, it might be easier to defend.
If someone in NZ breaks US law, there is then a question of whether they can face any consequences for it if they never leave NZ. Patents law has both a civil and a criminal aspect to it.
Under NZ civil law, the New Zealand courts can enforce civil judgements made against a New Zealand resident person, but only if the matter doesn't relate to taxes, and the person was either physically in the jurisdiction that made the judgement on the day the suit was filed, or the person takes any action in the foreign lawsuit other than arguing lack of jurisdiction.
New Zealanders can be extradited to face criminal charges abroad, but subject to the following test: "if the conduct of the person constituting the offence in relation to the extradition country, or equivalent conduct, had occurred within the jurisdiction of New Zealand at the relevant time it would, if proved, have constituted an offence punishable under the law of New Zealand for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for not less than 12 months or any more severe penalty". That doesn't necessarily stop long and protracted proceedings - Kim Dotcom was probably protected by the safe harbour provisions under New Zealand copyright law.
Even if someone is safe from civil enforcement of a foreign judgement or criminal extradition, the US might still have power over them. For example, if they have assets in the US, they might not be safe. How do people pay to download the software - if it involves a payment system with US operations, like Visa or Mastercard, they might still be able to shut it down or garnish customer payments. Selling only by BitCoin might seriously hurt conversion rates.
You're free to used patented inventions for development and testing - you can't use them commercially. So giving away the resulting product (which I think would include external testing by anyone considered part of 'the public').
The whole deal with patents is [supposed to be] to stimulate innovation - the sufficient disclosure parts of patents applications are for the express purpose of making duplication of the invention possible within the relevant art.
You're supposed to develop and test with patented inventions.
The problem of course comes when R&D of a product pauses and you have to start negotiating licensing and such in order to bring a product to market.
As a kiwi in Europe I can say that this will affect any future decision on where I'll base my business.
That is until the US comes in with their bullying tactics and buy our PM with 5 minutes of facetime with Obama.
Respect for New Zealand for embracing the change!
Oh wait...
I can't speak for my company, but I personally feel that the whole software patent system is ridiculous, and I'm pleased that the local situation isn't going to go down that road.
At least, not until we get railroaded by the 'Trans Pacific Partnership'(TPP) Treaty, or its newer cousins, whenever they show up.
In the mean time, I would assume that we would be unable to sell something that violated an US patent, in the US, but wouldn't be liable for sales of that might violate a US patent in NZ, unless there is some other bi-lateral (or unilateral) treaty covering the situation that I am not aware of.
I guess there's one way to find out. But it seems like the better plan is to fight to eliminate software patents everywhere instead of pretending the internet is going to respect every nation's borders or vice versa.
"Patent laws in the UK and throughout Europe specify a non-exhaustive list of excluded things that are not regarded as inventions to the extent that a patent application relates to the excluded thing as such. This list includes programs for computers.
Despite this, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) regularly grants patents to inventions that are partly or wholly implemented in software"
The patent situation is definitely better in UK and Europe than in US, but actual enforcement is key. The problem is using ambiguity of English to justify the software as having a "technical effect" and patentable by that metric. At which point saying that software isn't patentable is at best misleading since you could argue that all software has a "technical effect".
About the only thing the "technical effect" limitation prevents is business method patents.
There's always another bill someone's trying to force on us :/
I am a huge proponent of FOSS, I respect Stallman, I've read his book and I think patent trolls are dicks. However, is it a good idea to make software not patentable? Will we as a community fail to innovate then?
Disclaimer: I only skimmed over the OP
Software patents are suffocating innovators, rather than inspiring them.
And people did patent "media player with music in the cloud", or more accurately, various aspects thereof. Spotify famously got sued over a patent on a specific way to do DRM for streaming music, for example, when they entered the US. They just licensed it and moved on. The streaming music industry is growing all the time, despite tons of patents in the field.
Conversely, if you think weak patent rights means unbounded innovation, I haven't seen any particularly impressive tech originating in China or India.
Things are patented left and right in the US, and always have been, and I don't see innovation here slowing down any. And it would not be surprising if people understood the realities of patents instead of believing what tech media tells them (insert reference to pg's "Submarine" essay here).
Exactly why I started my sentence with _take it to the extreme_.
Innovation in the US may not have slowed down (I would argue that it has, although I'm not in the US), but it has definitely become quite expensive. In my opinion, that's a barrier for independent software developers.
The parts of software development that are genuinely inventive (and thus could be considered worthy of patent protection) are either already held to be not patentable (mathematical algorithms, development practices), or are far better served by copyright and trademark law than by patents (design). Patents serve little-to-no-purpose in protecting legitimate invention in software.
So a genuinely inventive idea can be independent created over and over again. A email sorting algorithm could had firstly been made in then 1950, again in the 1970, 3 times in the 1990, and then claimed in a patent in the 2000. Even if source code was public, a patent examiner would have to compare and understand billions of line of codes to even try to grasp what is genuinely inventive, and was has already been done before.
Examining software patents is an unsolvable problem. Society can either have them an accept that any review is a token effort at best, and a rubber stamp in the common case, or they can avoid the whole mess by not allowing those kinds of patents.
The question is not whether not to patent but whether patentability is appropriate.
In respect to software patents, which is little more than mathematics and a form of art, that has been shown to be wholly inappropriate.
This is an awesome patent:
http://www.google.ca/patents/US5255452
This is what patents are supposed to be about: a magician revealing his tricks. Without patent law, the public may have never known how Michael Jackson did the Smooth Criminal leaning trick. He would have taken the secret to his grave.
This is a ridiculously stupid patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/US5963916
Do you get what this patent is saying? It's saying "click on a button in a browser, and it plays music!" Here is a detailed analysis of it:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.html
The problem is the vast majority of software patents are of this kind. They are not revealing any secrets. They're just making life difficult for everyone else. This is what needs to be abolished.
Yes, because there was no innovation until patent protection came to be. Do you seriously think we would have invented and shared the secret of making fire over 10,000 years ago without patents to protect the original inventors? Or the wheel or the steam engine or telescopes? LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_...
I'd rather it didn't exist though.
And if I recall correctly, you have to get three notices within 9 months.
So basically if you manage to spend less than 1/3rd of your time "On Notice" you should be sweet as.
DISCLAIMER: IANAL
EDIT: Actually, fence-post error. The correct figure is ~2/9ths, as penalties trigger on the receipt of the third notice (so we can't count its period).
None of the big ISP's enforce it AT ALL.
I've heard a couple of small ISP's kick a couple of people off back when it was first introduced but since then there's been nothing.
Considering most of my friends here all torrent everything off The Pirate Bay (They don't use private trackers :p), I don't think I've heard of a single person I know get in trouble.
Telecom NZ would see that enforcing that law as a cost to them (they are pretty anal about spending money on things other than marketing), so they would probably not do anything until the government takes them to court.