New Zealand bans some software patents • Hacker News Board

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#81

Post by mkingston » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:07 PM UTC

klaut wrote: post #2

I am really impressed lately with New Zealand (it started with this MP speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfSGOK5jC9I ). Finally a country that is trying to correct the nonsense that are software patents.

Kiwi here. As another commenter mentioned, don't be. Overall, I think things are going downhill. The New Zealand Law Society recently reported to the UN Human Rights Council indicating that we've passed a number of laws recently that are in breach of human rights.

- We've very recently passed an odious bill to legitimise spying on NZ citizens.

- We've recently passed a bill that cannot cannot be challenged in court. (IANAL, don't ask me how this can be the case).

- We've recently passed a bill (copyright infringement) that presumes guilt.

The report identifies more: http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/685...

In 2010 many New Zealanders staged a huge protest against mining conservation land (owned by the government, accessible to everyone). The government stood down. Yesterday I discovered permits for mining exploration have been granted on conservation land. Technically, this is land that was not under explicit discussion in 2010, but it unquestionably violates the spirit of the protests. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...

We're one of the few western democracies that hasn't banned or restricted shark finning. We'd rather have an estimated NZD 6m/yr (IIRC). We'll have a few million dollars instead of an entire species (Maui's dolphin).

Another shameful example of our PM in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmF5b_t3PjA

That's all I can think of for now. Sorry to burst your NZ bubble.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#82

Post by a-priori » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:11 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #77

troyastorino wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Assuming we're talking about the Hobbesian "state of nature" then yes, of course you do have that freedom. Along with every other freedom.

But you only have a right to profit insofar as you can keep others from exercising their freedom to steal your ideas (or anything else).

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#83

Post by foobarbazqux » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:13 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #80

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.

And, empirically, property existed long before governments.

How can you have ownership without protection?

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#84

Post by baddox » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:14 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #77

troyastorino wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do you have the freedom to use violence to prevent others from profiting from your ideas?

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#85

Post by mkingston » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:14 PM UTC

devx wrote: post #6

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

I wouldn't go that far (see my rant about NZ above).

I'll be interested to see more analysis on this bill, or how it's interpreted in court.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#86

Post by jlgreco » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:17 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #79

jlgreco wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I don't think it is a complete fiction either. Just for starters, something as simple as plagiarism is reviled with the law rarely being involved. We don't need the law to tell us that plagiarism is unacceptable.

What I do think is a fiction is trying to apply concepts meant for physical goods to ideas. Concepts like "theft", or being able to transfer ownership. It strikes me as the political/legal equivalent of what programmers do when they try to add a bit too much abstraction.

They saw a little bit of duplicated code about "ownership" and mistakenly though that the two concepts were probably related and rather interchangeable. As a result things become kludged with nothing working as well as it would if the concepts were left separate. Basically it is a botched attempt at optimizing for complexity.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#87

Post by foobarbazqux » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:18 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #84

foobarbazqux wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you have the freedom to use violence to prevent others from profiting from your ideas?

You have the freedom to use violence prevent anything you bloody well like.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#88

Post by baddox » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:24 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #83

baddox wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, empirically, property existed long before governments.

How can you have ownership without protection?

People can and do protect what they believe to be their property. Families and tribes can and do protect the territory they believe to belong to their members.

I like David Friedman's description of property rights not primarily as moral or legal constructs, but as mutually recognized commitment strategies which discourage trespasses. He points out that territorialism in the animal kingdom is similar to property rights (obviously without the existence of a state). Animals mark their territory (e.g. with urine), and other animals tend to respect those boundaries, because there is mutual understanding that the territory holder will fight a trespasser to the death if necessary, and the damage to the trespasser (even a stronger trespasser) will most likely not be worth it. Perhaps the territory holder would be better off just retreating, but what makes it "property" is the near certainty that he won't retreat.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Order_without_the_sta...

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#89

Post by bostonpete » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:24 PM UTC

venus wrote: post #48

anon1385 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In fact, I'd go so far as to question why he chose today to register an account on hacker news. He has actually commented here with a different account in the past: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=FlorianMueller Your personal attacks really don't have any relevance to the legal questions at hand. Trying to muddy the discussion with irrelevant speculation about people's motives is totally unnecessary when the le…

> Trying to muddy the discussion with irrelevant speculation about people's motives is totally unnecessary In an ideal world, where we all had an infinite amount of time to research any and all items of controversy in their entirity, I would agree with you. In this hyper-specialized world, where we basically look to others to do the research and summarize for us, motives are extremely relevant and it is the height of…

Everyone has motives and biases but it's not fair to attack someone in this forum just because you happen to know their motives and biases. I don't see your contact info or bio listed in your profile -- how are we to trust your motives without knowing more about you?

We should discuss ideas on their merits rather than trying to psychoanalyze or dig up dirt on the commenter.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#90

Post by baddox » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:25 PM UTC

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.

You're free to define "government" in such a way, but that's not a very useful definition in a discussion about what role the "government" should play.