I suspect it’s rare in politics. It shouldn’t be. But I want to thank Simon Power for upholding the integrity of the political process and keeping to his word.
No doubt we’ll disagree fiercely on other issues in the future.
The nuts and bolts was about Power sticking to his statements around supporting the Commerce Select Committee recommendation to exclude software from being patentable.
The context was a review of the Patents Act 1953.
The bigger picture issue is about the future of New Zealand’s local software industry and encouraging innovation.
Here’s what Simon Power said yesterday
Here’s what Labour said
Here’s what the local industry representatives said
And a bit more here
It’s important. For lots of reasons that are too technical to write here. But also because we need strong, sustainable industries in New Zealand. We need to nurture those industries. Software is an important NZ industry.
Even if you don’t fully understand the issue, I hope you understand that political parties can work together and respect each other’s views. In our national interest.
Pity it couldn’t happen more.
PS: Maybe Steven Joyce might read this and have a bit of a think
It does annoy me that this is seen as a great success rather than just the process happening the way that it should be happening. Has it become that rare that it’s seen as a victory when it actually happens?
Okay, so I’m being a tad sarcastic. Still, silly politicking happening there.
If we can’t patent software then someone else can poach our ideas and patent them in their own country!
Spud, for the first time as a reader of this blog, I agree with you.
Spud and Falafulu Fisi –
Your patent status in NZ has no relevance on your patent status in other jurisdictions.
Kiwi companies can still patent software in countries idiotic enough to allow them (yes, US, I’m talking to you). That’s your choice.
In NZ, however, thankfully the rest of us don’t need to be disadvantaged because a few can’t see the forest for the trees.
D avid – what if we can’t patent here (so strange) and then someone poaches it to overseas and patents it there and then we can’t get a patent there or have to pay over there for using our own idea?
Spud, you have that problem already. Patents are specific to each location. NZ patents are worthless in the USA or EU.
That’s why companies with bucket loads of cash sitting around in their offices, file patents overseas first.
If you want to get into the patent war, expect to spend bucklet loads of money on lawyers, and spending a lot of time filling out paperwork.
And at the end, you might just, if you’re lucky, get something that says you have a patent.
Thanks for the advice, I need moola
Spud: The problem with software patents is that a corporation can patent commonly used code which forces other companies to pay expensive royalties to use or modify that code. Even if that certain code was not created by the company that patented it.
Kudos to you Clare and to Power for keeping his word.
That’s criminal
That would be criminal… if it weren’t completely false.
Maybe you could explain what you mean Scott
zvarri said…
The problem with software patents is that a corporation can patent commonly used code which forces other companies to pay expensive royalties to use or modify that code.
Ok, show me an example?
@Scott and @Falafulu – consider this: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/F68C4D35A4AE5DD5CC257038000F4A24
That’s just one example – I’m reasonably confident that this is typical, however. Note that MS submitted a largely identical patent in other jurisdictions and (as one would hope) was denied on the grounds of prior art… but they then tried it here. Cheeky some might say, unethical, I say. And it would’ve been granted in NZ had it not been for the NZOSS’ chance discovery of the application and subsequent challenge. The process for vetting software patents appears badly broken (because, if you know anything about software, why in heck would you work for IPONZ rather than… writing sofware?!).
David Lane,
That example you linked to is exactly the type of patent application that I am opposed to. Did you read carefully my comment on that issue to Don Christie on a similar thread here at RedAlert last month? See, I can pick up that you didn’t follow my argument.
There is none of the anti-software patent crowd here (both readers/lurkers) that can point out to me that they have invented something. I am pro-protection of invention (R&D type), but against generic application & patent trolling, exactly as the one Microsoft claim that you linked to above.
You do seem not to know much about invention of software codes at all. Your example above (Microsoft) is a non-invention, which we all agree that it should have been thrown out. But if you or anyone else here from the open source community can point me out to a single invention (i.e., something entirely new) that you (or your company) have achieved in the past, then I am happy that you lot understand the issue of protections? But if none of you can point me out to a single invention you have made, then I think I am flogging a dead horse here, since you lot have already made up your mind about the issue long time ago, before this comes up against here.
Go on; tell us a line or two about those inventions of yours that you think were not worth protecting? I got a hunch that you come up with nothing. Would that surprise me? No, since I knew it from the start that your opposition to software patent was not about protection the genuine claims (new inventions that costs money to produce) but about you not being able to develop certain applications since patent-trollers prevent you from doing so.
See, you lot made a convincing case for your politicians to fall for your persuasive talk about innovations that are being hindered by software patents which is misleading. Innovations come from high-level R&D first and foremost, and if you disagree then point me out that think it is real innovations?
@Scott and @Falafulu – The US patent system is broken and out of control. It stifles innovation, clogs courts, enriches lawyers and patent trolls and harms those it was designed to help.
Examples?
Man sues E-bay for $3.8B – hello
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20010471-93.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Patent troll sues RIM (Blackberry), which settles to get him off its back, now troll sues everyone:
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/smartphone-patent-suits-challenge-big-makers/
Microsoft standover tactics on small companies (scaring their clients) by pretending it holds Linux patents:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/
Troll banks on long shot:
http://www.techeye.net/business/apple-ibm-adobe-citrix-others-sued-over-software-patent
Patent troll sets up shop:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-01/billion-dollar-lawyer-quits-firm-buys-patents-to-troll-for-license-fees.html
Come on guys, Google “patent troll” and see how the Americans have broken their own industry.
It’s reassuring to see the Nats and Labour agree on this because it is great for NZ software developers.
“Maybe you could explain what you mean Scott”
Patent law provides that for an invention to be patentable it must be novel. So a person shouldn’t be able to get protection for something that already exists. If a person does manage to get a patent for something where pror art exists, the patent can be invalidated, and anyone the patentee attempts to sue will have a defence to an infringement claim.
Sure, bad patents sometimes get through. That’s the nature of the patent system. There’s nothing unique about software patents in that respect.
Nor is there anything unique in the field of law about someone threatening someone else on the basis of rights that arguably don’t exist or aren’t valid.
BTW I don’t really wan’t to join the debate on whether software should or shouldn’t be patentable (since the decision’s been made), but I did want to clarify this point.
@Falafulu Fisi – actually, I did read your argument in the thread with Don… it’s not that I didn’t understand it – I just didn’t agree with it.
Regarding whether or not I’ve invented something in software… uh, duh. That’s the whole point.
I believe that, by definition, no one invents anything in software. The same way you can’t invent a mathematical relationship. Or, if I write a song, I didn’t invent the melody. I didn’t “invent” the sound of my voice.
The law (and people in general) agree(s). Similarly a book. It can be new and unique, but it’s not an invention. Software is the same, in my opinion. Did you make your beliefs on “invention” in software known to the Select Committee? If you did, looks like the Select Committee didn’t buy it. If you didn’t, too bad, eh.