Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You are the one arguing for a special case, not me.
Not at all. All inventions are potentially patentable if they meet certain criteria, regardless of their field of technology. You are saying that there should be an exception for software. That means you're the one who wants software treated differently to other forms of innovation.
What you are using is a "lawyerly trick" to try and patent what should not be patentable.
Ah yes, it always comes back to the tricky lawyers.
Doesn't this almost always happen when people start talking copyright in these parts? Which is why I am now exiting this particular debate. Don, I respect your opinion and advocacy on this issue, but I just wanted to present an alternative view. I've said what I wanted to say.
-
Ignoring trademark, since it's aimed entirely differently, and software, since that's a ground of significant contention, which new inventions get multiple grounds of protection? Plant species? Not last I knew. Mechanical devices? Nope. Circuit boards? Nope. Embedded systems? Arguably, though the copyright protection is pretty minimal and there's recognition of that in the new Bill.
A large number of inventions are capable of different types of protection. Take a new type of reclining chair for example. You might be able to get patent protection for the mechanism that allows it to recline. The design of the chair itself may be protectable under the Designs Act. If someone copied the chair (at least in NZ) they would probably also be infringing copyright. The packaging the chair comes in may also be subject to either patent or design protection, and there may be copyright in the labelling. (And I have ignored trade marks, as you suggested)
You are assuming that copyright and patents protect the same thing when it comes to software. They don't, as I've explained. It's the same for other areas of innovation. Different IP rights protect different features of a product or invention. In that respect software is not unique.
-
I realise this threadjack has gone on too long, so I'll keep it brief and call it a day.
Software did not have patents until very recently and it would be unique to have dual protection.
Software patents have been around since the 1970s. They're not that new.
There is not always dual protection for software. Copyright and patents cover different aspects of software. And dual protection is not at all unique. Most new inventions involve more than one form of IP.
Perhaps then you could do us the favour of background research and reading
Thanks for the advice. I've read plenty on the topic - on both sides of the debate.
-
As a matter of interest, do you know if other industries use patent tit-for-tat in disputes like large software companies seem to?
Large corporates will often play games when confronted with potential patent litigation - irrespective of the field.
Maybe that the lifetime of software is so brief that patents are ridiculously too long to be of anything other than inhibitive use? Or how about that software is a literary work,and thus should not be burdened by the restrictions on independent development that apply to patents?
The Copyright Act uses the term "computer program" rather than software, when describing what is a "literary work". If software was nothing more than source code, then indeed it would be absurd to seek patent protection for it, just as it would be absurd if I tried to patent this blog comment.
But copyright law does not generally protect an algorithm or a software's functionality. A piece of code may have a limited lifespan, but the inventiveness behind it may be more enduring. That's where patents come in.
That you've had clients who filed patent applications (successfully?) for software doesn't mean that software patents are not, in general, bad for the NZ software industry.
But it does show that patents aren't just for the big corporates.
it's hardly a flood of evidence.
No, but then I'm not the one arguing that the software industry should be a special case. I don't see a flood of evidence that software patents are actually harmful.
Patents work when you can assemble dozens, hundreds, thousands of patented parts into a whole, yet still point to any individual part and say "That part is under patent 123,4567, and that part is under patent 123,4568". Try doing that with software, and see how far you get.
Again, software is not a special case. it can often be extraordinarily difficult to establish whether something falls within the scope of a patent's claims, regardless of the field of technology.
-
I'm going to assume that you are in fact familiar with the case against software patents -- it's not exactly a new argument for those of us who care about such things :D
I am indeed familiar with the arguments against software patentability. I just happen to disagree with most of them. There is no reason to treat software as a special case when we afford patent protection to other types of inventions. There is nothing inherently special about the software industry.
Software is already covered by copyright, so business-process-type patents just add another layer of complexity, slowness and expense without benefitting NZ developers or worldwide consumers whatsoever.
Copyright provides only limited protection to software. The source code of the software is a literary work under the Copyright Act, but there's bugger all else you can rely on under the Copyright Act to stop infringers. Copyright is a fairly limited form of protection for any invention.
The patent system exists to reward inventors and developers for their efforts. And it's not just the big players who file patent applications in this country. A number of my smaller clients have filed patent applications for software.
Basically, with software, because the field is so large and so fast-moving, it's impossible to search exhaustively for prior art or prior patents
That argument could be applied to every other industry too.
It just happens that the groups opposed to software patentability are more vocal and better organised than other anti-patent groups.
-
Oh, and ACTA as it stands could see this wonderful development overturned
I'd be interested to hear exactly why you think ACTA threatens that development. I hadn't heard this issue raised before in relation to ACTA.
(I am also tempted to ask what is so wonderful about that particular development, but I fear a copyright flamewar would erupt)
-
McVicar's idol, Sheriff Arpaio
Would that be this guy?
A US lawman has started a programme he calls "Pedal Vision," in which inmates pedal stationary bikes to generate electricity for television sets.
The bikes are customised to turn on connected TV sets once inmates at Phoenix's Tent City Jail pedal enough to generate 12 volts of electricity. An hour of pedaling equals an hour of television.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said inmates will only be able to watch television if they choose to pedal.
He said he started the programme with female inmates because they seemed more receptive.
Arpaio said the only exercise female inmates have been getting is speed-walking around the tent yard.
He said Pedal Vision gives them a reason to get moving and a way to burn calories.
How soon before we see McReverend's press release demanding we hook prisoners up to the national grid?
-
Actually, while we're on the subject of copyright...
...
Don't worry - I wouldn't dare.
-
I'm telling you, "Gutter Black" is the way to go for so many reasons...
Given our track record in recent Rugby World Cups I'd have thought Blam Blam Blam's song "There is no depression in New Zealand was an obvious choice.
-
TThe Minerals Industry Association chief executive was on the radio tonight saying that the Government would get more than just the usual 5% royalty on mining revenues. He said they would get an additional 30% in company tax. He would have left many listeners with the impression that the government will get a 35% return on revenues.
But...
35% sounds good until you realise that of course the 30% in tax is not based on revenues, but on the company's profits. And that the companies concerned won't pay taxes for years, because they'll be able to offset the profits made against the considerable losses they will incur early on. And then there are the various deductions allowed for company expenditure under the Income Tax Act. And if the company is a foreign one the tax paid might be much less than 30% etc etc...
The claims being made by mining lobby groups about the benefits to New Zealand don't stack up. And they wonder why people don't trusts their claims about how environmentally friendly modern mining techniques are.