Online petition set up to combat change to Patents Bill
Subscribe now for $100 (23 issues) and save more than 37% off the cover price!
Get the latest news from Computerworld delivered via email.
Sign up now
Opponents of a late change to the Patents Bill have launched an online petition seeking to garner support for an amendment.
The petition, available at the newly created website No Software Patents in NZ, was launched yesterday. It has the endorsement of the Institute of Information Technology Professionals, InternetNZ, NZ Open Source Society and NZ Rise.
The petition seeks to change clause 10A(2) of the Bill, which was introduced in a Supplmentary Order Paper last week by Commerce Minister Craig Foss. The Bill is expected to have its second reading when Parliament sits next week. Foss has said the government will not refer the new clause back to a select committee for consideration.
“In 2010, a Select Committee unanimously recommended that software be excluded from patentability. Clause 10A(1) of the Patents Bill will achieve this,” a message on the website reads.
“Unfortunately, the Government has decided to add clause 10A(2) at the last minute. While intended to preserve the availability of patents for inventions containing embedded software, this clause actually undermines the intended exclusion of software patents.”
The petition seeks to change the contentious clasue to "preserve the exclusion of software patents, but still preserve patents for inventions containing embedded software”.
The petition has attracted over 130 signatories from owners of technology companies such as Ponoko co-founder Dave ten Have, lobbyist Paul Brislen who is “just representing me” and academic Dr Mariusz Nowostawski from Otago University, who writes: “I am a software designer, architect and developer. I am involved in multiple startup companies, and make my living from making software. I am strongly against software patents in any form, as they inhibit innovation and prohibit small indie companies and developers to innovate.”
How is this not corruption?
Posted by Anonymous at 16:53:09 on September 5, 2012
In the US this sort of thing can happen with the corporate in question donating MILLIONS of dollars to the politician and I have seen people defend this practice as part of "free speech" or "democratic right" or other such bull.
But I agree. This is blatant corruption by MY definition of the word. Corporates have NO PLACE in influencing politics - certainly not at the expense of the will of the people.
There are many, many excellent reasons for this.
Posted by Anon at 13:48:10 on September 6, 2012
Another trend that has become apparent in the USA is the use of ambiguity, words which don't mean what you think they mean, the impression the writer doesn't actually have any idea as to what they are patenting, and explanations from the patent holder as to what the patent covers that seem contrary to the wording of the patent.
A patent is supposed to be a way of telling everyone what you invented so they don't infringe on your property, but if you have a patent that no one can understand, words that have different meaning from what you expect, wording that suggests the patent applicant didn't know what the patent was for, and require an explanation from the patent holders legal counsel, then how is someone to know whether they have infringed upon it or not? If you can't tell if you are infringing, then you can't take steps to avoid it as well?!
If it is so important that NZ have software patents, then one would expect it also to be important applicants write the patents in an understandable manner. The current practice of not understandable patents in the US makes it pretty obvious that this isn't about protecting intellectual property, which is why we don't need it.
Posted by Anonymous at 23:20:46 on September 4, 2012
Yet these cartels trumpet that they are 'championing' the intellectual property rights of the 'little guy'.
They achieve this with the assistance of politicians elected to represent the voters, not the cartels the politicians seem to actually serve. Look at the Kim Dotcom case. Read the Law Fuel article that says the NZ taxpayer is liable for the illegal acts of govt officials.
The entire area of law regarding IP needs serious overhaul to actual protect the creative individuals who have the bright ideas, not consolidate their exploitation by corporate cartels.
Posted by Anonymous at 12:56:19 on September 4, 2012