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

151–160 of 230 posts

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#151

Post by kaonashi »

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…

There are no legal rights in the state of nature. There is no liberty in the state of nature. These things don't exist as features of the land, they're concepts created by humans to curtail specific types of human behavior.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#153

Post by kaonashi »

baddox wrote: post #133
foobarbazqux wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, why not? Humans are animals, after all.

I would prefer a more specific definition that would match more closely to people's intuition about what is and isn't a state, and also allows for discussion about what the state should and shouldn't do. If we define "state" as to include animals protecting their territory, I don't see how the term will be very useful in any discussion.

I think it's a specific rejection of the notion that there ever existed a time before governments. Governments existed, in some form, the moment particles started interacting.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#154

Post by saraid216 »

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.

There is a concept called stewardship, too. "I have a responsibility to this piece of property. I have a moral duty to safeguard, cultivate, and appropriate utilize this property. I expect that it will be passed on to another for usage at some point for some reason, and in recognition of that future steward, I will do my best to forward it in the best condition possible."

I don't feel like I'm doing the concept justice, but hopefully I'm conveying the gist well enough to distinguish from "ownership" and "possession".

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#155

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#156

Post by skybrian »

TylerE wrote: post #145
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?

What's the difference between that and a mathematician slaving away for years to solve a hard problem? And yet, we don't grant patents on math.

One person's time isn't that big an investment (relatively speaking) and funding is available.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#158

Post by mkingston »

mkingston wrote: post #81
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.…

Upon re-reading my comment, I should probably clarify: the government backed down on mining conservation land.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#159

Post by mkingston »

lostlogin wrote: post #102
aidos wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?).

Did you ever do that thing in primary school where you put one finger in each corner of your mouth and say "My Dad's a national banker"? If you didn't, I acknowledge that it's weird, but it was funny when I was eight.

Anyway, back to the point! We can now do the same and say "John Key's a National banker".

Not that I dislike the National Party in general. Just the current National Party.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#160

Post by euroclydon »

cromwellian wrote: post #150
rayiner wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hard…

ARM Holdings. From Wikipedia:

Unlike other microprocessor corporations such as AMD, Intel, Freescale (formerly Motorola) and Renesas (formerly Hitachi and Mitsubishi Electric),[28] ARM only licenses its technology as intellectual property (IP), rather than manufacturing its own CPUs.

Post reply on HN