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

121–130 of 230 posts

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#121

Post by jlgreco »

jusben1369 wrote: post #115
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…

"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." - Do you really believe that? If someone wanted your keyboard their thought process - if conscious - probably follows the following: "If I take that and get caught then I'll likely be fired. So it's not worth me putting my monthly salary of $5000…

> Do you really believe that?

Yes, I do. It is how I think, and I think well enough of my coworkers that I believe they think the same. I wouldn't assume that they don't think that way without evidence of it, since that is a vile thing to assume.

Are there some people without this respect who are held in line merely by the law, or fear of losing their job? Sure, of course there are some people like that. The fact remains that a notion of property/possession exists for the rest of the population; for the people who are not defective in such a way.

Not everybody would steal from those around them if they thought they could get away with it. To be perfectly honest, I am rather suspicious of anyone who assumes that everybody would steal if given the chance.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#122

Post by betterunix »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #114
betterunix wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need a society for a government to make any sense. One person defending their property is neither a society nor a government. Until you have the minimum viable population for our species (i.e. the smallest group of humans that can avoid extinction) you cannot really have a society.

So Adam and Eve then?

Actually it takes more than one man and one woman for humanity to avoid extinction with a reasonable degree of success:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

Of course, that number depends on things like the environment (a favorable environment will mean a smaller number) and the genetics of the "first" generation. I seriously doubt that the number could be as small as two for any species even under the most ideal circumstances.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#123

Post by humanrebar »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #76
humanrebar wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree with your definitions. Rights, though abstract, are real. This is why atrocities outside the reach of law (murder in international water, war crimes, genocide) are clearly wrong.

Laws are nothing but codified decisions from government. Sometimes they define the specifics of how natural rights are balanced against each other. However, laws sometimes violate rights, such as the now-repealed Jim Crow laws in the American South. Furthermore, the term "legal rights" can also be a misnomer for government-guaranteed privileges such as the "right" to government-provided benefits or (in my opinion) intellectual property "rights".

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#124

Post by Zigurd »

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.

The point is that intellectual property is property in the same way that quarks have "color." It is a relatively novel legal concept compared to physical property. In the US constitution it is completely distinct from other rights: You are assumed to just have rights. Not among the assumed rights are patents and copyright, which are a government granted monopoly.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#125

Post by betterunix »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #76
humanrebar wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no natural right to profit from your ideas. Your ability to even try to profit from your ideas is substantially dependent on external factors in your life -- your position in society, your ancestry, the availability of capital and your ability to acquire it, etc.

Do not confuse the right to think with the right to profit from your ideas. You do have a natural right to think about whatever you want, as well as a natural right to communicate your thoughts to others.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#126

Post by humanrebar »

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?

Whether your property is stolen or not, it ought to be yours. The enforcement of a right is not necessary for a right to exist.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#127

Post by betterunix »

dangrossman wrote: post #120
nh wrote: post #38

US has banned 'software patents' long time ago. However, you can still patent a software being performed by a processor or computer, which then becomes 'hardware'. NZ has now caught up with US. It is not what you think it is.

Merely being performed by a computer does not make software patentable in NZ under this new law. The inventive step has to involve the hardware to be eligible. They did just make a broad swath of software inventions non-patentable.

I suspect that people will start writing their patent claims like this:

"A method of representing numbers as binary strings in the registers of a CPU, and manipulating those registers such that the output is the representation of the sum of the input numbers."

That is what happened in America when we "banned" math^H^H^H^Hsoftware patents. Software itself is not patentable, but the use of a machine to execute specific software is. So the NZ equivalent of "on a computer" will be "manipulating CPU registers" or some similar nonsense.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#128

Post by betterunix »

jusben1369 wrote: post #115
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…

"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." - Do you really believe that? If someone wanted your keyboard their thought process - if conscious - probably follows the following: "If I take that and get caught then I'll likely be fired. So it's not worth me putting my monthly salary of $5000…

"If someone wanted your keyboard their thought process - if conscious - probably follows the following: "If I take that and get caught then I'll likely be fired. So it's not worth me putting my monthly salary of $5000 at risk for a $50 keyboard" Well what if you do get caught?"

That is a depressing but thankfully unrealistic view of how people behave. In my office there are no specific rules about taking keyboards, monitors, or even computers off each other's desk. Once a year the department takes an inventory of the equipment to make sure it is still in the building, and once in the past five years an email was sent out to remind everyone not to take monitors home with them.

The reason nobody takes things from each other here is respect and courtesy. There are only about 100 of us in this building, making us a small enough group that we can trust each other. When things are truly stolen -- taken out of the building, rather than just moved between desks -- emails are sent out asking if anyone knows what happened. It is almost always the case that an outsider came in and grabbed something valuable, and that almost never happens.

Obviously this is not something that scales past a hundred or so people, but the point is that in small, trusting groups there is no real need for iron-clad rules or harsh punishments. People can and do behave respectfully and courteously.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#129

Post by foobarbazqux »

humanrebar wrote: post #123
foobarbazqux wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree with your definitions. Rights, though abstract, are real. This is why atrocities outside the reach of law (murder in international water, war crimes, genocide) are clearly wrong. Laws are nothing but codified decisions from government. Sometimes they define the specifics of how natural rights are balanced against each other. However, laws sometimes violate rights, such as the now-repealed Jim Crow laws in…

The difference legal and natural rights corresponds to the difference between laws and morals. That's all I mean. Natural rights are real things in as much as morals are real things.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#130

Post by foobarbazqux »

humanrebar wrote: post #126
foobarbazqux wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you have ownership without protection?

Whether your property is stolen or not, it ought to be yours. The enforcement of a right is not necessary for a right to exist.

Enforcement is necessary for a natural right to be a legal right.
Post reply on HN