New Zealand bans some software patents • Hacker News Board

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#141

Post by orclev » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 8:56 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #131

betterunix wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I believe that creative expression should be valued by society, i.e. I believe that people have a natural / human right to rewarded for this kind of work. But sure, I don't believe in absolute natural rights, much as I don't believe in absolute morals. Put more simply, I believe that authorship is a natural right, just like ownership. You might ask, why should the idea be mine just because I got to first? And I would…

It is impossible to own an idea. You might be given a monopoly on the application of that idea, but by merely speaking or documenting the idea you distribute it to any that hear or read it and therefore can no longer truly said to own or control it. It's the difference between data, and matter. One is copied infinitely without destruction or consumption (although it can be "lost" in entropy) and can travel at the speed of light. The other is a unique instance subject to the laws governing all matter and capable of being destroyed. In fact it's impossible to truly copy or distribute a physcial object, you can at best create a new arrangement of matter that mirrors some existing matter.

This is why property is a concept solely reserved for physical objects, not to information. They are fundamentally different categories of things. You cannot own an idea any more than you can own a frequency (regulation of the broadcasting of certain frequencies of RF waves should not be confused with "owning" the waves themselves).

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#142

Post by dublinben » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 9:10 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #132

Zigurd wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with you about patent and copyrights, but I think it's important that people view essential rights like property rights and freedom of speech as being truly inalienable -- that individuals have them as long as right and wrong exist.

>property rights and freedom of speech as being truly inalienable

That's a simply preposterous belief though, and we should treat it as such. Many people have their rights to property and speech infringed on a regular basis. There isn't even a consensus on what those rights entail, as is clear any time 'hate speech' is brought up.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#143

Post by joe_the_user » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 9:13 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #72

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 st…

I agree.

But to take note of the stakes here, banning software patents fully would eventually end patents as such. The problem for the patents in general is that nearly all machine methods are going toward a general purpose machine, a computer, telling a robot what to do. So all innovations here are going to eventually be expressed as software (even if they involve innovations chemical reactions or factory automation).

I think it will be better ending this system but there are a lot of companies whose intellectual capital is tied up in patents and these will fight hard to postpone this end.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#144

Post by res0nat0r » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 9:14 PM UTC

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?

HN is turning into a conspiracy paranoia breeding ground these days. Who cares who he works for, is the information he's presenting sound? Also dismissing it as unsound just because you disagree with his possible motives doesn't make him a "liar" or a "shill", it is just laziness on your part to try and dismiss him out of hand or trying to verify the evidence presented on your own.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#145

Post by TylerE » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 9:45 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #72

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 st…

I disagree with this sort of extremism. What should not be patentable are basic "way of doing business" patents.

On the other hand, if someone slaves away for years and develops a truly new and unique compression technique, I don't see why that shouldn't be patentable. How is that any different from, say, a steel foundry developing a new unique alloy?

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#146

Post by rayiner » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 9:58 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #72

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 st…

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

I think it's a major problem when something like 60% of all IP litigation is over software patents, a relatively obscure area of the law until recently, but I disagree with this statement. I worked for two entrepreneurs who founded real R&D companies and considered patents to be a basic protection that allowed them to operate a small R&D company independently of a massive manufacturing company. These guys couldn't be further from the description of "lawyer" or "IP troll" or "paid industry shill." They're PhD's who have spent their entire careers inventing.

If you characterize everyone who relies on the existing patent system as a "lawyer" or "troll" or "industry shill" you'll make no progress in achieving the reforms of the system that need to happen. You cannot figure out how to solve a problem while understanding only one side of the issue.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#147

Post by betterunix » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 10:00 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #131

betterunix wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I believe that creative expression should be valued by society, i.e. I believe that people have a natural / human right to rewarded for this kind of work. But sure, I don't believe in absolute natural rights, much as I don't believe in absolute morals. Put more simply, I believe that authorship is a natural right, just like ownership. You might ask, why should the idea be mine just because I got to first? And I would…

"You might ask, why should the idea be mine just because I got to first? And I would answer, why should the tree be yours just because you got to it first?"

The difference is this: share your tree with me, and there will be only one tree. Share your ideas with me and we can both think about them, utilize them, and benefit from them. This idea is self-evident; just as I am communicating it to anyone who reads this post, it was communicated to me by someone else:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12....

It is true that creative expression should be valued and that people should be encouraged to be creative. I would add that society should set up a system where creative workers can derive an income from their work and that such a system will be vital as more and more things are automated. Property rights are orthogonal to this. I happen to be a creative worker, but there is no need for me or anyone else to "own" the products of my work; my research group's salaries are paid with grant money, because the government wants to encourage the work we do, and we want our work to reach as many eyes as possible.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#148

Post by humanrebar » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 10:02 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #142

humanrebar wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you about patent and copyrights, but I think it's important that people view essential rights like property rights and freedom of speech as being truly inalienable -- that individuals have them as long as right and wrong exist.

>property rights and freedom of speech as being truly inalienable That's a simply preposterous belief though, and we should treat it as such. Many people have their rights to property and speech infringed on a regular basis. There isn't even a consensus on what those rights entail, as is clear any time 'hate speech' is brought up.

The work "inalienable" implies that it's outside the moral authority of culture, society, and government to remove those rights. It doesn't imply that those rights can never be infringed. That is, violating those rights is immoral, not impossible.

In fact, the consensus that rights are infringed proves they exist. This is a correct example of the often misused phrase, "the exception that proves the rule".

But you are right that the specifics of weighing rights against each other are tricky. That's where cultures, governments, and legal systems come in. To be clear, those human organizations do not create inalienable rights, but they are responsible for enforcing them. And a failure to do so would be a moral failure, not an impossibility.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#149

Post by rayiner » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 10:05 PM UTC

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…

I can't believe that there are so many people in a scientific, technical, industry like the software industry that believe in something as facially superstitious and handwavy as "natural rights."

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#150

Post by cromwellian » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #146

cromwellian wrote: post #72

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 st…

> It's a game only lawyers, IP trolls, or paid industry shills love. I think it's a major problem when something like 60% of all IP litigation is over software patents, a relatively obscure area of the law until recently, but I disagree with this statement. I worked for two entrepreneurs who founded real R&D companies and considered patents to be a basic protection that allowed them to operate a small R&D company ind…

"R&D company" that ships no produces seems a bizarre concept to me. If you're doing pure research and you don't want to manufacture anything, then outsource it, or partner with someone who can and sign them to an iron-clad contract protecting a trade secret.

I'm be curious if anyone can even name any "pure R&D" software companies that don't ship products, yet created meaningful advancements. Even in the realm of hardware, did RAMBUS really need patent protection?