|
Authored by eamacnaghten on Aug 28, 2013 19:39:18 GMT
If you have not seen this already....www.zdnet.com/new-zealand-bans-software-patents-7000019955/Not being an expert, I do not know how many "loopholes" there exist here to let software patents in though, but I would be surprised if there were none. Maybe I am just a bit cynical on this subject.
|
|
|
Authored by ukjayb on Aug 28, 2013 20:57:38 GMT
“The patents system doesn’t work for software because it is almost impossible for genuine technology companies to create new software without breaching some of the hundreds of thousands of software patents that exist, often for very obvious work,” Matthews said.
Somebody gets it !!!
|
|
foulis
Veteran Member
Posts: 30
|
Authored by foulis on Aug 28, 2013 21:56:48 GMT
Way to go NZ. Awwh, geesh, just imagine PJ's post.
|
|
|
Authored by tiger99 on Aug 29, 2013 10:57:35 GMT
I like this bit:
Matthews said it was a breakthrough day "where old law met modern technology and came out on the side of New Zealand's software innovators".
Software innovators really do win when software is not patentable. It follows that those who lose are not innovators. Now just who could that be? Well, those opposing the ban, for a start. Quite possibly one whose only real innovations were a new form of illegal monopoly (business method) and the BSOD. Then there is the other one who regarded rectangles with rounded corners (admittedly nothing to do with software) as being innovative.
|
|
Anon Groklaw Poster
Guest
|
Authored by Anon Groklaw Poster on Aug 30, 2013 17:53:45 GMT
Didn't PJ talk about this a while back? IIRC, she seemed focused on the words "as such" and seemed to think that this was all the opening lawyers needed to get software patents through. NZ included "as such" in their definition, so is this a shallow victory?
|
|