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

New Zealand bans some software patents

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 230 posts

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#71

Post by jlgreco »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #70
jlgreco wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most normal well adjusted people, I don't steal and I expect and find that those around me do the same. The reason my coworkers haven't stolen the keyboard off my desk when I go to get coffee isn't the government, it is just because they have some base-level respect for me. Clearly the concept of property, at least as it exists in my office, is not an artifact of some governing body. It exists despite that; it e…

That's a good point. The last time I was reading about this I found out that some anarchists (pacifists, maybe) refer to this idea as "possession", to distinguish it from property. It's not "your" keyboard (in this case it probably belongs to the company), but you're using it right now, so it would be indecent to take it away from you.

Hmm, sounds about right. I haven't read much anarchist literature at all, but that meshes pretty nicely with what I know of anarcho-syndicalists.

Either way, I think it stems from the same basic human desire, probably hardwired, to not have things taken and to have some basic loyalty or respect to members of your 'tribe'. (After all, governments are made of people and those people must have thought the concept of 'property' was a good idea for some reason.)

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#72

Post by cromwellian »

Software patents are an abomination. I could stomach copyright on software, because at least one is still permitted independent implementation and expression. I can't copy your code, but I can rewrite it.

Software patents on the other hand put a fence around ideas themselves. You can't draw a cursor using XOR by implementing it yourself, period, for 20 years.

The patent system is deeply broken, and it doesn't even stop big players anyway. Really, Apple successfully sued Samsung, did it stop Samsung from taking over half the market? Does $1 billion in fines really matter or Apple or Samsung over the long term? By the time these cases are settled, it has already played out in the consumer marketplace anyway. You can't defeat consumer success with patent attacks. Microsoft's Android revenue shakedown won't replace the death of Windows if it happens, and it won't make Windows Phone/Surface RT a winner.

It's a game only lawyers, IP trolls, or paid industry shills love.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#73

Post by devx »

16s wrote: post #15
devx wrote: post #6

Wow. Despite all the lobbying, apparently democracy still works in some countries.

As more and more people write code and become technically literate, I think we'll see lots of this sort of thing. Once the majority of normal people "get it" then it's all down hill for those trying to control ideas.

The fact that it took them 2 years to do it with VP8...Both VP8 and Hangouts were launched a long time ago.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#74

Post by humanrebar »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #61
humanrebar wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While intellectual property is almost entirely a legal creation, government is not necessary for property to exist. Indeed, John Locke considered property to be a natural right along with life and liberty.

Sorry, if it's you in the forest with a shotgun defending your property in a libertarian utopia, you're the government.

The inability to enforce rights in nature is independent of the existence of those rights. You might need a shotgun to defend your life in a "libertarian utopia", but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to it.

In fact, your hypothetical correctly assumes that people need to protect their stuff. This need is evidence of self interest. The fact that there are universal norms that allow the use of force to protect things is evidence of a right to property.

In other words, a victim of theft is rightfully angry. This lets us conclude that he has a right to be free of theft. This indicates a right to property.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#75

Post by kvb »

venus wrote: post #55
kvb wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. Let's stipulate that he is an Oracle puppet. Why would that incentivize him to lie about what the bill actually covers? Regardless of his incentives, is he wrong that not all software patents would be prevented under this bill? Disclosure: I'm a Microsoft employee, so I probably have some devious motives, too.

Do you know what a heuristic is? Basically, being an Oracle puppet is an extremely negative heuristic for being a useful voice on anything related to software IP. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to ignore any and all opinions of said puppet. And FWIW, being a Microsoft employee defending an Oracle stooge doesn't play all that well either. Isn't this all common sense?

I can certainly see how being an Oracle puppet would make it hard to trust his coverage of the Oracle/Google spat. I don't see how it affects his take on the contents of the NZ bill, particularly since the text of the bill is available and no one has countered his assertions!

Also, I'm not "defending" him. I don't know if he is or is not a shill, and I don't care. But he made verifiable statements about the content of the bill. All I want to know is, are his statements wrong?

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#76

Post by foobarbazqux »

humanrebar wrote: post #74
foobarbazqux wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, if it's you in the forest with a shotgun defending your property in a libertarian utopia, you're the government.

The inability to enforce rights in nature is independent of the existence of those rights. You might need a shotgun to defend your life in a "libertarian utopia", but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to it. In fact, your hypothetical correctly assumes that people need to protect their stuff. This need is evidence of self interest. The fact that there are universal norms that allow the use of force to protect…

There's a difference between legal rights and natural / human rights. The latter are ideals, the former are what are brought into existence by the application of force.

Intellectual property corresponds (somewhat poorly) to the natural right of being allowed to profit from your ideas.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#77

Post by foobarbazqux »

troyastorino wrote: post #68
foobarbazqux wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Every legal concept is entirely the government's creation, including both physical and intellectual property, so I'm not sure it's worth quibbling about that part.

Legal concepts that are derivative from the natural right to liberty, e.g. freedom of speech, are protected by the government, but that is not the same as them being created by the government. An individual certainly has liberty, and thus freedom of speech, in the context of a state of nature. He does not, however, have a guarantee that an organization with a monopoly on the use of force, i.e. a government, will prot…

Do you have the freedom to profit from your ideas in the state of nature?

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#78

Post by FOSSpatents »

btilly wrote: post #63
FOSSpatents wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@btilly My articles on how the lawsuit was going weren't "inaccurate". The district judge ruled against the copyrightability of the declaring code Oracle asserted, and that decision is on appeal. The parties have completed their briefing, numerous amici curiae ("friends of the court") have made submissions, and the appeals court will hold a hearing in a matter of months.

The inaccuracies started with your claim to be an "independent" analyst when you were actually a paid shill, and only got worse from there. You are right that there is an appeal - there always is. But consider that the judge the first time around ruled nothing like you claimed would happen. On anything. Why should we expect the appeal to be different?

@btilly In district court, the jury identified copyright infringement, was hung on fair use (which means that this would have to be determined by a new jury if the relevant code is found copyrightable), and the judge overruled the jury to the effect that the court additionally ruled that certain test files I had published in January 2011 were indeed infringed. The key thing that was missing was copyrightability. You're right that the appeals court might affirm the district judge's ruling, but we'll know in early 2014 what comes out of this. The decision at the appeals court will be made by a panel of three judges, which is quite different from a decision made by just one person.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#79

Post by foobarbazqux »

jlgreco wrote: post #71
foobarbazqux wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. The last time I was reading about this I found out that some anarchists (pacifists, maybe) refer to this idea as "possession", to distinguish it from property. It's not "your" keyboard (in this case it probably belongs to the company), but you're using it right now, so it would be indecent to take it away from you.

Hmm, sounds about right. I haven't read much anarchist literature at all, but that meshes pretty nicely with what I know of anarcho-syndicalists. Either way, I think it stems from the same basic human desire, probably hardwired, to not have things taken and to have some basic loyalty or respect to members of your 'tribe'. (After all, governments are made of people and those people must have thought the concept of 'pr…

So the reason I brought up physical property is because if that's not a complete fiction then it's bizarre for intellectual property to be a complete fiction. Governments don't create things out of whole cloth, the laws always correspond to something, even if they do it badly.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#80

Post by baddox »

humanrebar wrote: post #60
foobarbazqux wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Every legal concept is entirely the government's creation, including both physical and intellectual property, so I'm not sure it's worth quibbling about that part.

While intellectual property is almost entirely a legal creation, government is not necessary for property to exist. Indeed, John Locke considered property to be a natural right along with life and liberty.

And, empirically, property existed long before governments.
Post reply on HN