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

191–200 of 230 posts

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#191

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#192

Post by smnrchrds »

thomaslangston wrote: post #165
euroclydon wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not a software company.

He was referring to "Even in the realm of hardware, did RAMBUS really need patent protection?". There are definitely exceptions in hardware business.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#193

Post by Filligree »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #182
nitrogen wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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." As a first pass at a definition, anything you could do in the absence of any other people stopping you from doing it could be considered a "natural right." That's not superstitious or handwavy, and I didn't have to belittle…

Do I have a natural right to hurt somebody weaker than me?

That would seem to be implied.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#194

Post by otikik »

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?

I would argue that advancement in software is too damn important for the humanity as a whole to be hindered by the preferences of that person. Software will ultimately change us. Shape us.

I think that software will advance more rapidly without patents than with them, even if that means having less immediate financial benefit for the individuals involved in the discoveries.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#195

Post by Bjoern »

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 don't think the original patent idea was bad, only the recent years mutated it into an abomination.

A long time ago this model made sense. Inventors would invent and would be protected to benefit exclusively for a very short period of time (e.g. one year). After the grace period, it would be a free for all again, and people would move on.

Having patent durations of >1 year is obviously ridiculous, particularly 100+years protections etc.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#196

Post by rayiner »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #181
rayiner wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

From what I can tell, the idea of natural rights is really popular with people who are into anarcho-capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights#Conte... > Contemporary political philosophies continuing the liberal tradition of natural rights include libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and Objectivism, and include amongst their canon the works of authors such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, A…

My problem with "natural rights" is that they're a way to take one set of arbitrary priorities and elevate them to some sort of law of nature, without having to justify them on utilitarian grounds. You have a right to property but not a right to education. Why? Because the former is a "natural right." Its no different from resorting to "because the Bible says so." Its also used to undermine democratic consensus in the same way as resorting to theology. Oh, everyone thinks there is a right to education? Wrong! Because the Bible says so... Err... Because its not a natural right, just some creation of government.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#197

Post by mbesto »

Steko wrote: post #134
venus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So wait Matt Cutts being paid by Google makes him a puppet and we shouldn't take him to be a useful voice on anything related to search?

Matt Cutts is an employee of Google and clearly speaks on behalf of Google's search team. Not sure what your point is?

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#199

Post by betterunix »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #171
betterunix wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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" I am not following your logic here. The notion of physical property predates written records and codes of law, even if it has been approached differently by different cultures. The notion of intellectual property is a far more recent development that has nowhere…

The intellectual property laws are protections around concepts that existed previously. IP refers to trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and copyright. Trademarks protect brands and go back a very long way; primitives would use them to distinguish themselves from each other, farmers would mark sheep, etc. Patents are really protections on inventions. Inventions also go back a long way, although they were previously t…

What you are saying basically ignores the history of copyright law. Copyright was created not because society placed a high value on creative expression, but because of a desire by the government of England to censor printed material. Modern copyright was created when that system was abolished, not because of the plight of artists but because of the lobbying effort of publishers, who sought to restore the monopoly on printing they had enjoyed under the censorship system.

Re: New Zealand bans some software patents

#200

Post by SEMW »

Zigurd wrote: post #163
dublinben wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

"Inalienable" is quite an idealistic and American word in this context. Nevertheless, the US federal constitution is written with some assumptions, and a "sense," That is, it is addressed to the government, from the people and the states, which predate the existence federal government, and which can undo the federal government through a constitutional convention. The ninth and tenth Amendments spell out the assumptio…

> The "property" part appears ... is a tendentious word added later, like "pro-life."

Don't be silly. The word "property" in "intellectual property" is used in its legal sense: a particular and well-defined set of characteristics that a bundle of rights can have (such as being transferable to other entities, and binding the world).

The definition comes from common law, and certainly predates your country's constitution.[1] By the legal definition, modern implementations of patents, copyright, and trademarks are very definitely property rights (in the UK and USA anyway).[2]

Whether they should be is a different question, but at the moment, they are. E.g. in my country, the relevant Act begins with "Copyright is a property right" - that isn't trying push a point of view, it's defining it as a property right. To use a programming analogy, it's telling you that Copyright inherits from the class IntangibleProperty (which itself inherits from Property), which gives it a bunch of preexisting attributes and methods.

[1] Which isn't to say that copyright etc. was a property right back in 17whatever - especially as, back then, choses in action were generally untransferable - only that "property right" was defined back then.

[2] Well, mostly: in some countries (IIRC not the US), writing a work that qualifies for copyright also gives you a few non-proprietary rights, called 'moral rights'. If you're being picky you could argue these aren't technically "IP" rights, but they're usually included under the IP banner for convenience.

(IANAL)

Post reply on HN