Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

nzherald.co.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 128 posts

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#91

Post by narcissus »

rjd wrote: post #16
sage_joch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds suspiciously like a government that works for its people.

I found this extremely humorous (John Stewart Show on gun violence and politician motives): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T... @ 2:00 it speaks volumes about US politics ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T... )

Off topic, but thanks for that link: while I'm not going to go into the politics, those clips make me want to go back home now, just because of those scenes from Australia...

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#92

Post by narcissus »

ekianjo wrote: post #56
rimantas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nordic countries are ridden with wellfare and are doing quite OK, I'd say. The problems Greeks and others are having are not related to wellfare.

Well welfare has a threshold effect. Nordic countries have very small populations to take care of. You'll see that countries where welfare becomes an issue are usually larger ones in the dozens of millions. 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.

Is is not all relative? It's not like countries with "small populations to take care of" have massive populations to pay for that welfare.

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?

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#93

Post by jordigh »

ultimoo wrote: post #72

We recently covered patents and basic copyright law in a technical writing class. What my professors taught me was that 'patent is a contract between society and inventors to encourage progress'. And it seems fair on certain levels. 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 commun…

The point of patents isn't to encourage progress. Inventors have existed and will exist with or without patents, and we will have progress with or without patents. The point of patents is to destroy trade secrets. The contract between society and inventors is, tell us how you did it, and in exchange we promise to not compete with you for a while. The word "patent" itself means open, as in the phrase "patently false", i.e. manifestly or obviously false.

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.

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#94

Post by claudius »

Drakim wrote: post #90
ekianjo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well welfare has a threshold effect. Nordic countries have very small populations to take care of. You'll see that countries where welfare becomes an issue are usually larger ones in the dozens of millions. 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.

Couldn't one simply split countries up into smaller countries, if being a small country makes things better?

Greece is a rather small country, so are Portugal and Ireland. If anything, being small makes things worse, as it is more likely that there is less economical diversification.

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#95

Post by throwawaykf1 »

eyko wrote: post #77
ultimoo wrote: post #72

We recently covered patents and basic copyright law in a technical writing class. What my professors taught me was that 'patent is a contract between society and inventors to encourage progress'. And it seems fair on certain levels. 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 commun…

Take it to the extreme: say IBM patented the `operating system software`, for example. Would Microsoft and/or Apple have come to exist as projects out of a basement or dorm? Say someone patented a media player that could hold a library in the cloud and could stream it to the user via a network / internet... would Spotify, Rdio, or any other competitors exist today? Software patents are suffocating innovators, rather…

Misconceptions abound. You cannot patent "operating system software" because it is an abstract concept with no embodiment, like "flying car" or "hyperdrive spaceship".

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).

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#96

Post by throwawaykf1 »

polymatter wrote: post #82
wildster wrote: post #65

The UK and Europe have similar restrictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_K...

Thats misleading, since software patents are regularly granted anyway. From the article you quoted: "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…

It's not "ambiguity of English" -- all (usefulsoftware does have a technical effect. Or would you say software should be excluded from the "tech industry" and people should stop calling themselves "software engineers"? This is why it is mostly patentable in the EU.

About the only thing the "technical effect" limitation prevents is business method patents.

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#99

Post by chris_wot »

sigzero wrote: post #78
ekianjo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Compassion...sure. Human rights? No.

Why?

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#100

Post by Retric »

SeanDav wrote: post #62
ekianjo wrote: post #27

Earlier 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?

That's a straw man rights and responsibiltes are different things.
Post reply on HN