Forum rules
This General Forum is for general discussions from daily chitchat to more serious discussions among Somalinet Forums members. Please do not use it as your Personal Message center (PM). If you want to contact a particular person or a group of people, please use the PM feature. If you want to contact the moderators, pls PM them. If you insist leaving a public message for the mods or other members, it will be deleted.
This shit was too interesting. Anyway, it isn't as big as it might seem. A bit of clarification. Copyright laws have not been touched as well.
Particularly worthy of note:
It seems there will be some leeway for computer programs directly tied to improved hardware. The bill includes the example of a better washing machine. Even if the improvements are implemented with a computer program, "the actual contribution is a new and improved way of operating a washing machine that gets clothes cleaner and uses less electricity," so a patent could be awarded.
and
the new law will only apply to new patent applications, so existing software patents will continue to stand in New Zealand.
It really isn't a big deal, mate. it is actually a good thing because patents are really bad. I started shitting myself because I was confusing patents with copyright laws. Patents for softwares are detrimental to the whole industry and any further development. There's a crucial difference between software copyright and software patents. All creative works (music, books, software etc) are automatically protected by copyright and that won't change because of this ruling. You can't legally copy a piece of software any more than you can legally copy a song or a film. A patent is very different to copyright. A patent is granted to the inventor of a method of fulfilling a practical task, giving them a temporary monopoly on the right to use that invention. Patents have to be applied for (copyright is automatic) and are only granted in specific circumstances. A patent can only be granted to an invention that is novel, non-obvious and applicable to industry.
Software exists in a strange grey area, because nobody is exactly sure what kind of thing software is. It's a peculiar sort of philosophical question with very big implications. A song or a poem isn't patentable, because it fulfils no practical purpose, but it is entitled to copyright protection. A new method for making boiled sweets or a new kind of mousetrap is patentable, but a factual description of that method wouldn't necessarily be protected by copyright. A mathematical equation is neither patentable nor subject to copyright, because mathematical ideas are regarded as laws of nature that are discovered rather than invented. Nobody has really decided whether software is a creative work, an industrial process, applied mathematics or all of the above.
Broadly speaking, software isn't patentable in the UK. EU law specifically states that programs for computers are not patentable. Some systems that include a software element might be patentable, but the software method itself isn't.
Other jurisdictions (most notably the USA) grant patents quite freely for software, which has had extremely negative effects on the software industry. Patents have been granted for a lot of very obvious "inventions". A company called Eolas sued Microsoft and won damages of $521m, because they held a patent on browser plugins. Patents have been granted for progress bars, double clicking, browser tabs, pinch-to-zoom and all sorts of other commonplace things, many of which have been enforced. Early versions of Android didn't feature pinch-to-zoom because Apple held a patent on it, which was later invalidated in court.
The software industry deals with patents by using something called a "patent covenant", which is basically the patent equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction. Large technology companies apply for as many patents as they possibly can, with no intention of ever using those patents. They use their portfolio patents as protection against being sued by other technology companies, so that if they are sued for infringement of a patent, they can quickly counter-sue in retaliation. To avoid these sorts of legal squabbles, they sign agreements with other large technology companies, agreeing to use their patents as a common pool. This obviously leaves small technology companies without many patents in a very vulnerable position, which is why they tend to be bought up by larger companies.
This situation created a very strange sort of company, known colloquially as a "patent troll". These companies don't make anything or provide any service, they just hoard patents and sue people. Because they don't actually make any products, they can't infringe anyone else's patents and so don't fear being sued in retaliation. They run what amounts to a legal protection racket - pay up or we'll sue you. The biggest patent troll going is a company called Intellectual Ventures, who have made over $5.5bn from license agreements and lawsuits.
Software patents are a bad thing. They don't provide any real benefit software developers, but they massively encumber innovation. The only people making any real money out of software patents are lawyers. Software in New Zealand will still be protected by copyright, but developers won't have to worry that some trivial little feature of their software might land them in court.
gurey25 wrote:patents are politically-created monopolies inconsistent with its free-market principles
The vast majority of western countries refused to respect foriegn patents and freely stole all technology they could get their hands on despite political pressure.
Only after they reached developed stage and their technology matured did they create patent laws.
I am talking about Switzerland and Netherlands, 1907 and 1912 respectivley.
The swedes till the 20's and the fins the 1950's.
Japan had no respect for patents on intellectual property till 1945, the same with the soviets.
The chinese are behaving the same way and will in the future start using intellecual property right to protect areas that it has a lead in like wind turbines and solar cells from upstarts that want to do what it did to german technology.
Lamgoodle wrote:Intellectual and other property rights protection is essential for economic growth/development/competition. That is why the west is richer than the rest.
This is the orthodox line repeated in your textbooks and forced fed to students, it is completely 100% different to historical experience
you were fed propaganda my friend.
Bad Samaritans.
Lamagoodle read Ha Joon Changs work it will open your eyes to western hypocrasy and historical amnesia as well as theirneo liberal economics bullshit.
I appreciate the input, but no way did I think this had to do with copyright laws regarding movies and music. I didn't start running a dozen torrent apps when I came across this story. That would've been interesting.
Major difference between what just happened in NZ and what has already happened in the EU is the fact only one is legally binding in national courts. How enforceable are EU software laws in UK courts?
I think you're greatly underestimating the importance of this ban. Really, this is history.
That would've been interesting.