Not so fast. Spin doctoring is no substitute for substance.<p>As Caesar used to say, "fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt" (people are ready to believe what they want to be the case).<p>The fact of the matter is that New Zealand has passed a law with some restrictive language, but this is far from abolition. Broad swaths of software patents can still be granted.<p>Here's my more detailed take on it:
<a href="http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/new-zealand-parliament-adopts-uk.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/new-zealand-parliament-ad...</a><p>And this is what a publication read by patent lawyers says:
<a href="http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=96d4aeaf-dedf-4ab8-a1f6-f28e2ea1ba0d" rel="nofollow">http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=96d4aeaf-dedf...</a>
Software patents are an abomination. I could stomach copyright on software, because at least one is still permitted independent implementation and expression. I can't copy your code, but I can rewrite it.<p>Software patents on the other hand put a fence around ideas themselves. You can't draw a cursor using XOR by implementing it yourself, period, for 20 years.<p>The patent system is deeply broken, and it doesn't even stop big players anyway. Really, Apple successfully sued Samsung, did it stop Samsung from taking over half the market? Does $1 billion in fines really matter or Apple or Samsung over the long term? By the time these cases are settled, it has already played out in the consumer marketplace anyway. You can't defeat consumer success with patent attacks. Microsoft's Android revenue shakedown won't replace the death of Windows if it happens, and it won't make Windows Phone/Surface RT a winner.<p>It's a game only lawyers, IP trolls, or paid industry shills love.
As Orwell wrote, "the English language ... becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."<p>Considering that patents are entirely a government creation, "ban" or "outlaw" does not apply, for such language treats patents as something apart from the state. Perhaps "stops issuing" would be more accurate, but it's not clear from the article whether that's actually the case.
Very roughly - if the innovation to be patented (ie the software) is used to improve the operation of the hardware then it is patentable. So buffering code in a HDD chip is presumably patentable (-ed). However if its a new way to display email - probably not. Not a clear win, and apparently similar to UK case law.<p>(Cribbing off FOSSPatents links)
US has banned 'software patents' long time ago. However, you can still patent a software being performed by a processor or computer, which then becomes 'hardware'. NZ has now caught up with US. It is not what you think it is.
I am really impressed lately with New Zealand (it started with this MP speech <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfSGOK5jC9I" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfSGOK5jC9I</a>).<p>Finally a country that is trying to correct the nonsense that are software patents.
Good news. NZ is already in the top-5 economically free countries while still maintaining a respectable social safety. And a couple SaaS heavyweights. Plus, no snakes.<p><a href="http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking" rel="nofollow">http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking</a>
The real test of this will be if software companies flood to New Zealand to tinker to their hearts content without fear of litigation...
or if they flee NZ for fear of invalidating any patents they could have brought on their upcoming software.<p>I'd like to be able to say it will be the former, but I bet corporate lawyers will be pushing for the latter (if only out of a sense of self-preservation).
Many countries have "banned" software patents. "EU patents" have also "banned" software patents, but they pass thousands of them every year.
If an idea is truly novel and valuable to the marketplace no patent is needed because the novelty itself provides ample time for you to 'recover' your investment.<p>Either no patents or very short patents[<=12 months for anything] is a basic requirement for a progressive society.
Are there any good articles about how people in countries which allow software patents can benefit from this New Zealand body of law, such as incorporating as a New Zealand company and avoiding US jurisdiction for patent lawsuits?
Here is a question for the lawyers out there (which I am not): would it be possible to conceive a legal framework somewhat similar in spirit to the GPL, but with the goal of making any patent relying on it free of charge, ie. such that a patent delivered under those terms would be free of use, but also impose the same terms to any patent building up on its content?
I'm glad this happened. For things like copyright, I thought there were international conventions - countries that were lax were hounded by others diplomatically. Is this not the case for patents?