New Zealand softens software patent ban
Amendment welcomed by vendors, laywers
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
New Zealand has passed legislation which partially forbids the granting of software patents – but has come under trenchant criticism by the NZ Open Source Society for abandoning local developers.
Originally, the country’s new Patent Bill (which passed parliament on August 29) had been expected to ban software patents outright. That intention stands: a patent application for a computer program won’t be granted. However, New Zealand’s commerce minister Crag Foss amended the bill so that software “as such” can’t be patented, but inventions that include software can be.
For example, an office suite isn’t eligible for a patent, but a patent for an embedded system would cover the software inside as well as the hardware.
NZOSS says the revision throws local developers “under a bus”, because it creates a “legal loophole” which has “made a mockery [of] European Union patent legislation’s intent to block software patents”.
According to National Business Review the change has been welcomed by patent lawyers – not necessarily a good sign – as holding out against the free software movement because FOSS “robs inventors of the incentive to innovate and create new material if others can simply free-ride on that investment”.
Fairfax notes that one of New Zealand’s most important international brands, whitegoods manufacturer Fisher and Pykel, is as much an embedded software company as a hardware supplier, and would have been presumably concerned at the mooted ban on all software in patents.
However, there’s no particular record of Fisher and Pykel lobbying the New Zealand government – unlike Microsoft, IBM and the industry association NZICT, whose confabs with the Ministry of Economic Development are documented here.
It’s likely that the USTR, which this year criticized New Zealand for departing “from patent eligibility standards in other developed countries” will be sharpening its rhetoric next year. ®
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
COMMENTS
According to National Business Review the change has been welcomed by patent lawyers – not necessarily a good sign – as holding out against the free software movement because FOSS “robs inventors of the incentive to innovate and create new material if others can simply free-ride on that investment”.
What a crock of shit. Of course, I guess you'd expect that level of drivel from patent lawyers when welcoming a change that will give them more work (or at least reduce the level by which it's diminished).
What they meant was
"robs inventors our rich clients of the incentive to innovatepatent opportunities and create new material if others can simply free-ride on that investment reduces the amount of work they'll be paying us to do"
Re: Software patents are inevitable
It needs protection *from* being patented.
Otherwise instead of innovation, we'll end up with people spending ages trying to write wacky and obscure ways to perform simple tasks because the simple and obvious way to do it has been patented (probably by a patent troll that no longer bothers to develop anything themselves because it's easier to arse around filing patents all day and suing everyone else).
@AC 23:47GMT - Re: Software patents are inevitable
Software == algorithms == mathematics. Math is not patentable so don't try your logic on us.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
What you need to know about cloud backup
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
