approval. A software is just like a math formula or expression. Can a math formula be patentable?
Software will not be patentable in New Zealand
61–70 of 128 posts
Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
NZ makes some great laws (this is one of them) but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Sorry I brought that one up but is one of those laws that has always just made me say - "What the fuuuuuc....."
Sure, we all know since Descartes that animals are robot-like objects, have no feelings and no emotion and should be treated as such. So, let's make sure the Law does not take in account any of the discoveries related to emotion and pain in animals, and let's keep business as usual and feel good about it. Sums up your position ?
Wow, over-reaction, much? Look, I could go on and make several well reasoned arguments about how animals are not human but clearly it would be wasted on you.
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?
Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand
#63It would be very cool if a major software house set up or moved their development shop to NZ so as to be free to develop and test their products in a patent-free environment. Sort of like we have tax havens ... software development havens? It would be even cooler if a few different countries did this and set up a sort of, software patent-free economic zone.
The problem is that any company that sells to people in the US can have their product banned from import if it is found to infringe on patents there.
Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
NZ makes some great laws (this is one of them) but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Sorry I brought that one up but is one of those laws that has always just made me say - "What the fuuuuuc....."
Great Ape personhood, or at least granting them the right to not have cruel tests done, has been done by several other nations not just New Zealand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood 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 treat…
I don't agree with the label, I do agree with the principle.
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.
Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand
#65The UK and Europe have similar restrictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_K...
Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
NZ makes some great laws (this is one of them) but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Sorry I brought that one up but is one of those laws that has always just made me say - "What the fuuuuuc....."
Sure, we all know since Descartes that animals are robot-like objects, have no feelings and no emotion and should be treated as such. So, let's make sure the Law does not take in account any of the discoveries related to emotion and pain in animals, and let's keep business as usual and feel good about it. Sums up your position ?
It's certainly honorable to want to give rights to animals and it wouldn't be a "wtf" moment if they declared they wanted animal rights (or chimpanzee rights in that case) based on current human right.
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.
Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even in its nastiness it is sensible in its own right - $25 cost for the copyright holder to send a notice. The notice can also be challenged by the accused infringer.
Well, also you can't get another notice within 28 days. 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).
I think everyone forgot about the 3 strikes law here.
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.
Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm continuously amazed by all of the major political parties here in New Zealand who keep using logic and facts instead of merely political stances. Our process of making laws is open, listens to the people as well as lobbyists, and yet allows room for policy differences.
NZ makes some great laws (this is one of them) but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Sorry I brought that one up but is one of those laws that has always just made me say - "What the fuuuuuc....."
And what's wrong with that?
Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, we all know since Descartes that animals are robot-like objects, have no feelings and no emotion and should be treated as such. So, let's make sure the Law does not take in account any of the discoveries related to emotion and pain in animals, and let's keep business as usual and feel good about it. Sums up your position ?
It's certainly honorable to want to give rights to animals and it wouldn't be a "wtf" moment if they declared they wanted animal rights (or chimpanzee rights in that case) based on current human right. 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 for…
I guess the discussion starts from "human rights" because there is no established "animal rights" anywhere in the first place. I'm not saying I agree that they should have human rights.
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 ?
Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, we all know since Descartes that animals are robot-like objects, have no feelings and no emotion and should be treated as such. So, let's make sure the Law does not take in account any of the discoveries related to emotion and pain in animals, and let's keep business as usual and feel good about it. Sums up your position ?
Wow, over-reaction, much? Look, I could go on and make several well reasoned arguments about how animals are not human but clearly it would be wasted on you. 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?
OK, maybe I took your comment the wrong way. Sorry about that. The way you wrote your comment gave me the impression that you were saying animals are not worthy of compassion, but if that's not the case then it's all good.