• New Zealand Utterly, Completely, and Totally Bans One of the Most Evil Aspects of the Legal System:
    11 replies, posted
[quote]New Zealand has finally passed a new Patents Bill that will effectively outlaw software patents after five years of debate, delay and intense lobbying from multinational software vendors. Aptly-named Commerce Minister Craig Foss welcomed the modernisation of patents law, saying it marked a "significant step towards driving innovation in New Zealand". “By clarifying the definition of what can be patented, we are giving New Zealand businesses more flexibility to adapt and improve existing inventions, while continuing to protect genuine innovations,” Foss said.[/quote] [url]http://www.zdnet.com/new-zealand-bans-software-patents-7000019955/[/url] Now if every other country would follow suit.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;41996778]Is it still illegal to take someones code, such as a program, and directly and sell it as your own though? Or would that be copyright related and not patent related?[/QUOTE] Put it this way, if software patents were in place, then it would mean that a particular idea couldn't be improved by anyone other than the person/company that invented the initial design. It's like when Apple tried to patent slide-to-unlock on smart phones, so that they could sue other manufacturers for having it.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;41996778]Is it still illegal to take someones code, such as a program, and directly and sell it as your own though? Or would that be copyright related and not patent related?[/QUOTE] Patents are distinct from copyright. Patents protect [i]ideas[/i], for example patenting a certain encryption algorithm Copyright protects specific [i]implementations[/i]. In NZ, you couldn't patent the algorithm itself, but if you were to implement the algorithm in your language of choice, your specific code is covered under copyright.
So it basically means instead of having 1 patented function that stops further improvement and development of the idea, instead anyone can make that same function but each instance is copyrighted to whomever implemented it in whatever form?
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;41996825]Put it this way, if software patents were in place, then it would mean that a particular idea couldn't be improved by anyone other than the person/company that invented the initial design. It's like when Apple tried to patent slide-to-unlock on smart phones, so that they could sue other manufacturers for having it.[/QUOTE] Essentially the bane of the first world's technological progress, IMO. Imagine all of the innovation we would have had in the last 10 years if not for the absurd copyright and patent lawsuits and the threat thereof stymieing progress in every way imaginable.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;41997948]Stallman must be partying now somewhere to this song [video=youtube;1BH7poMtPVU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BH7poMtPVU[/video] [editline]28th August 2013[/editline] Nope, skeptical as always [IMG]http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2013/35/1377711936-untitled.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Richard Stallman would be a pretty sad figure if it wasn't clear that he just [B]doesn't give a fuck[/B] about what [I]everyone[/I] else thinks about him. That makes him radical, in a bit crazy way.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;41997933]Essentially the bane of the first world's technological progress, IMO. Imagine all of the innovation we would have had in the last 10 years if not for the absurd copyright and patent lawsuits and the threat thereof stymieing progress in every way imaginable.[/QUOTE] It is truly heresy that the march of progress is afflicted by such restrictive patents. In fact, someone should invent a compact knee-breaking machine that breaks the knees of those who endorse restrictive patents on concepts, then permit others to make their own versions and brands of knee-breakers in their own way, though the inventor's own particular brand of knee-breaker would be their property unless they choose to sell it on.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41997992]Richard Stallman would be a pretty sad figure if it wasn't clear that he just [B]doesn't give a fuck[/B] about what [I]everyone[/I] else thinks about him. That makes him radical, in a bit crazy way.[/QUOTE] Like picking his foot and eating the dead skin during a live talk
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;41998023]He'd get way more positive attention if he wasn't so orthodox and extremist, even though he is right in a lot of points[/QUOTE] He can be incredibly pragmatic, but he doesn't let that affect his overall goals.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.