It's official: Software will be unpatentable in NZ

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
107,581
Reaction score
10,221
Location
District 9
http://www.nzcs.org.nz/news/blog.php?/archives/97-.html

Despite what appears to be a big-budget lobbying effort by the pro-patent fraternity, Hon Simon Power announced today that he wouldn't be modifying the proposed Patents Bill hence software will be unpatentable once the Bill passes into law.

This is significant. As we've previously pointed out software patents aren't black and white, and there are certainly pros and cons. However on balance, we believe they represent a far greater risk to smaller NZ-based software providers than opportunity, and there are many cases where they have significantly stifled innovation.

We believe it's near impossible for software to be developed without breaching some of the hundreds of thousands of software patents awarded around the world, hence many software companies in New Zealand, creating outstanding and innovative software, live a constant risk that their entire business will be wound up overnight due to litigious action by a patent holder.

This has led to many a "patent troll" company, primarily in the US. These are non-software companies who exist only to buy up old patents with the sole intention of suing innovative software companies for apparent breach of these patents. The effects of this have been chilling.

Make no mistake, the intellectual property contained in software should be protected. However Copyright provides significant protection, as per other similar activities. The very nature of software should preclude it from patentability in our view.

The case against software patents has been laid out well by companies such as Orion Healthcare and Jade Corporation, probably the two largest software exporters in New Zealand by far.

Orion's Ian McCrae recently stated:

Obvious things are getting patented. You might see a logical enhancement to your software, but you can’t do it because someone else has a patent. It gets in the way of innovation.

If an inventor has a really original and outstanding idea, then a patent might be merited. But, in general, software patents are counter-productive and are often used obstructively.

We are a software company. Our best protection is to innovate and innovate fast.


Jade sent me this note in support of NZCS's position on software patents:

Jade Software Corporation does not support patents related to software.

Reflecting this position we withdrew from applying for patents a number of years ago.

We believe the patent process is onerous, not suited to the software industry, and challenges our investment in innovation.


As I understand it, Orion and Jade together represent around 50% of New Zealand's software exports, so the fact that they have come out so strongly against is significant.

There's a good reason these companies and most other NZ-based software companies don't support software patents. The risk they pose to genuine, innovative and hard working New Zealand software companies is simply too great.

We believe this is a win for innovative New Zealand software companies who will now have a reduced, albeit still present, risk when creating innovative software.

Interestingly, the Bilski case, a major case looking at patentability of business processes and by extension software patents, was settled in the US in the last week or so as well. At first this seemed to not have dealt with the issue or settled the case of whether business processes or especially software should be patentable in the US, however there are some interesting developments since that may mean this isn't the case after all.

For instance, according to Groklaw, the first of a huge backlog of software patent applications in the US system has been rejected due to Bilski, with the ruling that "The unpatentability of abstract ideas was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos". On the face of it, this would appear to have the effect of canning pure software patents in the US, which is massively significant.

It will be interesting to see how this one develops.

The matter isn't over yet in New Zealand, of course. The next issue will be in ensuring that the guidelines to be developed protecting embedded systems (ie non-abstract inventions with a software component) are strong enough to remove the possibility of software patents by stealth, and NZCS will maintain a very close watching brief on this.

All in all, however, we believe this is great news for software innovation in New Zealand.

Wow... very interesting! I wonder what will come of this. Wish it was world wide! :D
 
Without property rights, no other rights could exist.

I stongly disagree, I don't think that We'd have a windows/adobe/office... to pirate if there was not somebody paying for their development.

Even so, it's just ethically wrong to steal from another persons hard work like that.

I would not disagree with the general public downloading pirated goods (they are out there, and if im not going to take them, somebody else will), however i will disagree with the seeders and that they should rather stop or put an end to piracy, kind of make it as hard as possible (better licensing schemes) and to block the p2p networks from transferring software that should be purchased legally.

Did you get the distinction between a patent and copyright? Two completely different things.
 
phenom said:
Without property rights, no other rights could exist.
How so? I don't see how rights like say right to a fair trial need to be linked to property rights.

phenom said:
I stongly disagree, I don't think that We'd have a windows/adobe/office
We've got linux & open office. Those might be slightly less complex (esp OO), but they are not that far off the mark. They lack the polish of Win/Office but from a technical perspective they are pretty close. And thats with like 1% prevalence. Think of what it could have been had everyone embraced the open mindset & junked patents for software.

phenom said:
Really?

And how does it differ to the developer?
The one means "You can't make software similar like mine" the other means "You can't copy & paste my code". The first slows innovation & advances the second protects developers.
 
Software can be copyrighted - this is perfectly acceptable.

Software patents are really doff. Imagine some patent troll obtains the patent for copying and pasting, and now everybody's infringing on said troll's patent. (replace copy and paste with some general software function, like opening a file, sending characters via serial port etc).

Software patents only exist for one reason - to prevent the competition from programming something better, and to keep your piece of [-]crud[/-]poorly written software for as long as possible in the market.
 
Innovation - when somebody improves on a 20Gb piece of software, makes it three times faster, cuts the size down to 500Mb and it does the same job better, quicker and more reliably.
 
Patents are abused by the software industry. They are supposed to be for non-obvious and novel inventions. Amazon's One-Click is anything but (a simple extension of a shopping cart), as is for example "Delivering messages over a wireless medium", when both the wireless technology and email existed before you thought of your novel idea. This also means I MAY NOT write my own H.264 decoder software, from scratch, using the available standard, unless I pay a licensing body fees for it.

The result of this was the issue with HTML5 and video. Of the big browsers makers, Google and Apple was supporting H.264, while Mozilla and Opera wanted Ogg Vorbis. Ogg Vorbis does have patents surrounding it, while H.264 does. Since Mozilla and Opera would have had to pay a fee for every browser downloaded, they could not afford to implement it. And therefore HTML5 was standardized without video. Had this not happened, it would have benefited the web industry as a whole, as it would have shown a way away from Flash and Silverlight (both proprietary). Google is now working on VP8, so we will see where this effort leads.
 
It is because of property rights that a fair trail is needed.
Yes you stated that above already. I'm asking why.

Really, 1% of the OS market?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

Even so, really how much did he not borrow from other corporations to get where it is? They're mostly a bunch of lechers.
Its open-source...if there were anything "borrowed" in there Microsoft would be all over them with their lawyer army.

lecher - from Middle English lechour < Old French lecheor (“‘glutton, sensualist, libertine’”) < lecher (“‘to lick, live in gluttony or sensuality’”).

And really what would the point of a copyright be when all the millions of other companies out there could simply clone the same thing too
We might end up with a bunch of software companies creating choice & competition based on merit & not legal threats. God forbid.

Nobody would want to create something new again.
Good companies exist through innovation & being one step ahead not some artificial legal construct. Mercedes introduced ABS. Everyone copied it. Now Mercedes is introducing infrared displays. One step ahead & in the process giving us 2 new techs.

really? well that's your subjective(not objective) opinion, which is not relevant to a formal debate.
Formal huh? Then let me formally point out that "subjective opinion" is tautology.
 
Phenom, read up on the differences between patents and copyrights before you assume that disallowing software patents makes rampant piracy legal.
 
Without property rights, no other rights could exist.

I stongly disagree, I don't think that We'd have a windows/adobe/office... to pirate if there was not somebody paying for their development.

Even so, it's just ethically wrong to steal from another persons hard work like that.

I would not disagree with the general public downloading pirated goods (they are out there, and if im not going to take them, somebody else will), however i will disagree with the seeders and that they should rather stop or put an end to piracy, kind of make it as hard as possible (better licensing schemes) and to block the p2p networks from transferring software that should be purchased legally.

I think you are misunderstanding the situation here. It does not mean that anyone can copy entire works of software without any repercussion. There will still be copyright law. It just gives the freedom to new developers to create new unique works of software without the fear of treading on other very obvious ideas which some other jerk has patented.
 
Good! Software patents are BS
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X