Software will not be patentable in New Zealand • Hacker News Board

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#71

Post by zmmmmm » Thu, May 09, 2013, 10:04 AM UTC

stephen_g wrote: post #63

zmmmmm wrote: post #46

It would be very cool if a major software house set up or moved their development shop to NZ so as to be free to develop and test their products in a patent-free environment. Sort of like we have tax havens ... software development havens? It would be even cooler if a few different countries did this and set up a sort of, software patent-free economic zone.

The problem is that any company that sells to people in the US can have their product banned from import if it is found to infringe on patents there.

It could create a whole new architecture for software - just the patented parts hosted remotely in software-patent-free zones while the rest is brought local to the customer. At least for the types of products where that works.

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#72

Post by ultimoo » Thu, May 09, 2013, 10:13 AM UTC

We recently covered patents and basic copyright law in a technical writing class. What my professors taught me was that 'patent is a contract between society and inventors to encourage progress'. And it seems fair on certain levels.

I am a huge proponent of FOSS, I respect Stallman, I've read his book and I think patent trolls are dicks. However, is it a good idea to make software not patentable? Will we as a community fail to innovate then?

Disclaimer: I only skimmed over the OP

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#73

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, May 09, 2013, 10:43 AM UTC

zmmmmm wrote: post #46

It would be very cool if a major software house set up or moved their development shop to NZ so as to be free to develop and test their products in a patent-free environment. Sort of like we have tax havens ... software development havens? It would be even cooler if a few different countries did this and set up a sort of, software patent-free economic zone.

>so as to be free to develop and test their products in a patent-free environment //

You're free to used patented inventions for development and testing - you can't use them commercially. So giving away the resulting product (which I think would include external testing by anyone considered part of 'the public').

The whole deal with patents is [supposed to be] to stimulate innovation - the sufficient disclosure parts of patents applications are for the express purpose of making duplication of the invention possible within the relevant art.

You're supposed to develop and test with patented inventions.

The problem of course comes when R&D of a product pauses and you have to start negotiating licensing and such in order to bring a product to market.

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#74

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, May 09, 2013, 10:46 AM UTC

zmmmmm wrote: post #71

stephen_g wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that any company that sells to people in the US can have their product banned from import if it is found to infringe on patents there.

It could create a whole new architecture for software - just the patented parts hosted remotely in software-patent-free zones while the rest is brought local to the customer. At least for the types of products where that works.

>while the rest is brought local to the customer //

Sounds like contributory infringement to me. Why not just host the entire thing distally and access via VPN?

The answer lies in where a product is considered to be sold. If you're targeting customers in the USA say then it doesn't matter where your server is you're still considered to be selling in the USA.

YMMV and I'm afraid I don't have any caselaw handy to cite on this.

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#75

Post by oelmekki » Thu, May 09, 2013, 10:50 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #69

oelmekki wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly honorable to want to give rights to animals and it wouldn't be a "wtf" moment if they declared they wanted animal rights (or chimpanzee rights in that case) based on current human right. But granting human right to chimpanzees is not saying animals have the same rights than humans. It's saying chimpanzees are humans. We can debate on how apes are different (if at all) with humans, but we should not for…

I guess the discussion starts from "human rights" because there is no established "animal rights" anywhere in the first place. I'm not saying I agree that they should have human rights. I dont think "rights" is the right word to begin with, but "compassion towards other species" would be a good place to start with, and reflecting about how "moral / ethical" it is to inflict pain willingly on other species. Because if…

> Because if "pain" and "emotions" are felt pretty much in the same way by animals and humans (for which there is more and more evidence on that as we learn how the brain works), why would it be moral to inflict pain to animals but amoral to inflict pain on human beings ?

Without being an antispecist, I surely agree with that. It would have been indeed a great thing to start with writing some kind of animal rights chart, or even a global "life rights", that would include human rights (and which would probably leads to questions like "how much is it ok to takes from nature" or "when taking animal life for food, how to do it respectfully"). But I don't think that's what this government had in mind.

I may be wrong, of course, but it seems to me they had more anthropological considerations about apes than considerations about animal suffering, or else, they would have proposed some kind of general animal law.

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#76

Post by SeanDav » Thu, May 09, 2013, 10:51 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #69

oelmekki wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly honorable to want to give rights to animals and it wouldn't be a "wtf" moment if they declared they wanted animal rights (or chimpanzee rights in that case) based on current human right. But granting human right to chimpanzees is not saying animals have the same rights than humans. It's saying chimpanzees are humans. We can debate on how apes are different (if at all) with humans, but we should not for…

I guess the discussion starts from "human rights" because there is no established "animal rights" anywhere in the first place. I'm not saying I agree that they should have human rights. I dont think "rights" is the right word to begin with, but "compassion towards other species" would be a good place to start with, and reflecting about how "moral / ethical" it is to inflict pain willingly on other species. Because if…

Certainly agree with you here.

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#77

Post by eyko » Thu, May 09, 2013, 11:15 AM UTC

ultimoo wrote: post #72

We recently covered patents and basic copyright law in a technical writing class. What my professors taught me was that 'patent is a contract between society and inventors to encourage progress'. And it seems fair on certain levels. I am a huge proponent of FOSS, I respect Stallman, I've read his book and I think patent trolls are dicks. However, is it a good idea to make software not patentable ? Will we as a commun…

Take it to the extreme: say IBM patented the `operating system software`, for example. Would Microsoft and/or Apple have come to exist as projects out of a basement or dorm? Say someone patented a media player that could hold a library in the cloud and could stream it to the user via a network / internet... would Spotify, Rdio, or any other competitors exist today?

Software patents are suffocating innovators, rather than inspiring them.

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#78

Post by sigzero » Thu, May 09, 2013, 11:34 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #70

SeanDav wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, over-reaction, much? Look, I could go on and make several well reasoned arguments about how animals are not human but clearly it would be wasted on you. Just a quick question, but once you have given Chimps human rights and said Chimps go on and kill and eat other apes/monkeys, as they commonly do in the wild - would you have them up for murder and cannibalism charges with appropriate punishments?

OK, maybe I took your comment the wrong way. Sorry about that. The way you wrote your comment gave me the impression that you were saying animals are not worthy of compassion, but if that's not the case then it's all good.

Compassion...sure. Human rights? No.

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#79

Post by sigzero » Thu, May 09, 2013, 11:37 AM UTC

ajuc wrote: post #68

SeanDav wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NZ makes some great laws (this is one of them) but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Sorry I brought that one up but is one of those laws that has always just made me say - "What the fuuuuuc....."

And what's wrong with that?

They are not human. I agree there should be some for of animal rights for them...but they are not human so they do not get "human rights".

Re: Software will not be patentable in New Zealand

#80

Post by jbri » Thu, May 09, 2013, 11:42 AM UTC

ultimoo wrote: post #72

We recently covered patents and basic copyright law in a technical writing class. What my professors taught me was that 'patent is a contract between society and inventors to encourage progress'. And it seems fair on certain levels. I am a huge proponent of FOSS, I respect Stallman, I've read his book and I think patent trolls are dicks. However, is it a good idea to make software not patentable ? Will we as a commun…

The problem is that the vast amount of computer software doesn't contain an inventive step. The vast majority of software development is taking existing, well-understood techniques and solutions, and applying them to an equally-well-understood problem. Implementation, rather than innovation.

The parts of software development that are genuinely inventive (and thus could be considered worthy of patent protection) are either already held to be not patentable (mathematical algorithms, development practices), or are far better served by copyright and trademark law than by patents (design). Patents serve little-to-no-purpose in protecting legitimate invention in software.