New Zealand bans some software patents • Hacker News Board

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#101

Post by foobarbazqux » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:48 PM UTC

a-priori wrote: post #97

foobarbazqux wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have a natural right to profit from my ideas, isn't it reasonable that I might want a legal right?

In a state of nature, there is no such thing as a "legal right", or law of any kind other than might-makes-right.

But legal rights are synonymous with might-makes-right. A natural or human right is something we would like to have but cannot guarantee until it is made into law. I am just asking whether laws about intellectual property correlate to natural rights in the same way that laws about physical property do, since the original claim was that they are 100% fabricated.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#102

Post by lostlogin » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:49 PM UTC

aidos wrote: post #16

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.

Don't be. This is the same country in which the PM thinks it's ok to literally walk out of a Q&A session with the press regarding a widely disputed bill that's being rushed into law.

Rushed into law is normal now. I must see the statement Passed Under Urgency most weeks. This is what happens when you give a banker the reins (reigns?).

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#103

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:50 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #93

baddox wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 righ…

I would call that a state; why is it not a state?

[deleted]

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#104

Post by marcosdumay » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:51 PM UTC

logn wrote: post #34

Are there any good articles about how people in countries which allow software patents can benefit from this New Zealand body of law, such as incorporating as a New Zealand company and avoiding US jurisdiction for patent lawsuits?

If you want to sell your software to US people (who doesn't?), you'll have to deal with software patents, whatever local laws say.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#105

Post by lostlogin » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:51 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #13

Country wide spying efforts, but no software patents issues. You win some you lose some I guess.

I cc the odd email to the prime minister and add a line saying that I've done this to save him asking to see it. His time is valuable.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#106

Post by marcosdumay » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:54 PM UTC

consider_this wrote: post #50

If an idea is truly novel and valuable to the marketplace no patent is needed because the novelty itself provides ample time for you to 'recover' your investment. Either no patents or very short patents[<=12 months for anything] is a basic requirement for a progressive society.

The problem is that you can neither get a patent granted nor sue somebody in 12 months.

We need faster governments.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#107

Post by baddox » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:56 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #94

baddox wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think we went through this before. What was your definition of government again? A man and a woman alone together in a forest and the man has the shotgun?

No, that was never my definition of government.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#108

Post by baddox » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:56 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #93

baddox wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 righ…

I would call that a state; why is it not a state?

To clarify: you call territorialism in the animal kingdom a state?

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#109

Post by foobarbazqux » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:57 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #107

foobarbazqux wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we went through this before. What was your definition of government again? A man and a woman alone together in a forest and the man has the shotgun?

No, that was never my definition of government.

No really, what is it? Does it have something to do with a certain number of people and an inequality among them?

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#110

Post by please_advise » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 6:57 PM UTC

Here is a question for the lawyers out there (which I am not): would it be possible to conceive a legal framework somewhat similar in spirit to the GPL, but with the goal of making any patent relying on it free of charge, ie. such that a patent delivered under those terms would be free of use, but also impose the same terms to any patent building up on its content?