Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Win For Open-Source

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 8:18:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't know why it was ever allowed anywhere in the first place.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 8:21:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Awesome, I'm not surprised. New Zealand has one of the most free market economies in the world [3rd http://www.freetheworld.com...], and this only helps!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 8:34:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yay for removing incentive for people to innovate if they aren't a huge company!
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 8:39:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 8:34:58 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yay for removing incentive for people to innovate if they aren't a huge company!

Do you realize that open-source software is a huge industry even despite the existence of patent law? And that it's often far superior to patented software because it's allowed to freely evolve based on the changes created by the public? Open-source is the reason Linux is better than windows or anything else.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 8:44:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 8:39:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/9/2013 8:34:58 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yay for removing incentive for people to innovate if they aren't a huge company!

Do you realize that open-source software is a huge industry even despite the existence of patent law? And that it's often far superior to patented software because it's allowed to freely evolve based on the changes created by the public? Open-source is the reason Linux is better than windows or anything else.

+1

Patent law can create barriers to entry for innovation since it increases the cost of using ideas to improve your ideas.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 8:45:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 8:34:58 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yay for removing incentive for people to innovate if they aren't a huge company!

Even if we set aside the problems of interpersonal utility comparisons and the justice of redistribution and we plow ahead, employing standard utilitarian measurement techniques, it is not at all clear that IP laws lead to any change"either an increase or a decrease"in overall wealth. It is debatable whether copyrights and patents really are necessary to encourage the production of creative works and inventions, or that the incremental gains in innovation out"weigh the immense costs of an IP system. Econometric studies do not conclusively show net gains in wealth. Perhaps there would even be more innovation if there were no patent laws; maybe more money for research and development (R&D) would be available if it were not being spent on patents and lawsuits. It is possible that companies would have an even greater incentive to innovate if they could not rely on a near twenty-year monopoly.

There are undoubtedly costs of the patent system. As noted, pat"ents can be obtained only for "practical" applic ations of ideas, but not for more abstract or theoretical ideas. This skews resources away from theoretical R&D.44 It is not clear that society is better off with relatively more practical invention and relatively less theoretical research and development. Additionally, many inventions are pat"ented for defensive reasons, resulting in patent la wyers" salaries and patent office fees. This large overhead would be unnecessary if there were no patents. In the absence of patent laws, for example, compa"nies would not spend money obtaining or defending against such ridiculous patents as those in the Appendix. It simply has not been shown that IP leads to net gains in wealth. But should not those who advocate the use of force against others" property have to satisfy a burden of proof?

We must remember that when we advocate certain rights and laws, and inquire into their legitimacy, we are inquiring into the le"gitimacy and ethics of the use of force. To ask whether a law should be enacted or exist is to ask: is it proper to use force against certain people in certain circumstances? It is no wonder that this question is not really addressed by analysis of wealth maximization. Utilitarian analysis is thoroughly confused and bankrupt: talk about increasing the size of the pie is methodologically flawed; there is no clear evi"dence that the pie increases with IP rights. Further, pie growth does not justify the use of force against the otherwise legitimate property of others. For these reasons, utilitarian IP defenses are unpersuasive [http://mises.org...].
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 8:49:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The incentive to invent, adapt and and improve is the benefit itself that inventing, adapting and improving brings.

If you want to make up new incentives ontop of everything that's already there, why not go the full mile? Lets create extra incentive to be smart, to be hard working, to be involved in your community. Just keep adding em'.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 8:54:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 8:34:58 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yay for removing incentive for people to innovate if they aren't a huge company!

Because being able to patent a method to make a cursor blink doesn't remove incentives to innovate at all.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 9:55:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let us say that Pfizer created a new pharmaceutical drug to cure cancer.

With patents, it would gain huge profits, not really a huge dispute.

With no patents whatsoever, though Pfizer would initially benefit from profits, competing firms could copy the drug and resell it under a different name.

1) Are we just supposed to see the aforementioned result as necessary in the marketplace? And wouldn't it have large negative impacts on innovation? Because I need to see legitimate studies that indicate that patents *only marginally*, not *significantly* impact aggregate innovation, to be influenced.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 9:58:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 9:55:35 PM, Contra wrote:
Let us say that Pfizer created a new pharmaceutical drug to cure cancer.

With patents, it would gain huge profits, not really a huge dispute.

With no patents whatsoever, though Pfizer would initially benefit from profits, competing firms could copy the drug and resell it under a different name.

1) Are we just supposed to see the aforementioned result as necessary in the marketplace? And wouldn't it have large negative impacts on innovation? Because I need to see legitimate studies that indicate that patents *only marginally*, not *significantly* impact aggregate innovation, to be influenced.

Pharma companies aren't these magical drug producing factories. Drugs are produced via researchers, and if you were to take researches and place them into a public lab or something of the sort, they would do the exact same work (they aren't exactly the type of people who are motivated by personal profit). The drugs themselves would still be developed by the researchers if pharma companies didn't exist- the only problem might be the logistics of getting the drugs to the public, but I can't imagine that to be an extremely challenging issue.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 9:59:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 9:55:35 PM, Contra wrote:
Let us say that Pfizer created a new pharmaceutical drug to cure cancer.

With patents, it would gain huge profits, not really a huge dispute.

With no patents whatsoever, though Pfizer would initially benefit from profits, competing firms could copy the drug and resell it under a different name.

1) Are we just supposed to see the aforementioned result as necessary in the marketplace? And wouldn't it have large negative impacts on innovation? Because I need to see legitimate studies that indicate that patents *only marginally*, not *significantly* impact aggregate innovation, to be influenced.

I think pharmaceutical companies should have patents since the amount of R&D investment for drugs do require a lot of resources in capital and human work, while the cost in copying a drug are relatively low in comparison.

However, the evidence for the need for software patents is pretty poor considering how successful open-source software is.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 10:02:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 8:11:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
New Zealand no longer allows patents for software.

http://www.zdnet.com...

I honestly have mixed feelings for this. I love free and open source software like WordPress, MyBB, and SMF but as a developer, I don't mind paying for things that are worth it (i.e., paying for software that would cost $500 if it is good).
I don't know enough about this bill. Does this prohibit companies from selling software like Joomla, Drupal, or WordPress?
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 10:12:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 9:58:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/9/2013 9:55:35 PM, Contra wrote:
Let us say that Pfizer created a new pharmaceutical drug to cure cancer.

With patents, it would gain huge profits, not really a huge dispute.

With no patents whatsoever, though Pfizer would initially benefit from profits, competing firms could copy the drug and resell it under a different name.

1) Are we just supposed to see the aforementioned result as necessary in the marketplace? And wouldn't it have large negative impacts on innovation? Because I need to see legitimate studies that indicate that patents *only marginally*, not *significantly* impact aggregate innovation, to be influenced.

Pharma companies aren't these magical drug producing factories. Drugs are produced via researchers, and if you were to take researches and place them into a public lab or something of the sort, they would do the exact same work (they aren't exactly the type of people who are motivated by personal profit). The drugs themselves would still be developed by the researchers if pharma companies didn't exist- the only problem might be the logistics of getting the drugs to the public, but I can't imagine that to be an extremely challenging issue.

As darkkermit noted, you neglect to mention the financing of this research. A pharma firm would provide the investment need to develop modern medicine, it is not spontaneous.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 10:13:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 9:58:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/9/2013 9:55:35 PM, Contra wrote:
Let us say that Pfizer created a new pharmaceutical drug to cure cancer.

With patents, it would gain huge profits, not really a huge dispute.

With no patents whatsoever, though Pfizer would initially benefit from profits, competing firms could copy the drug and resell it under a different name.

1) Are we just supposed to see the aforementioned result as necessary in the marketplace? And wouldn't it have large negative impacts on innovation? Because I need to see legitimate studies that indicate that patents *only marginally*, not *significantly* impact aggregate innovation, to be influenced.

Pharma companies aren't these magical drug producing factories. Drugs are produced via researchers, and if you were to take researches and place them into a public lab or something of the sort, they would do the exact same work (they aren't exactly the type of people who are motivated by personal profit). The drugs themselves would still be developed by the researchers if pharma companies didn't exist- the only problem might be the logistics of getting the drugs to the public, but I can't imagine that to be an extremely challenging issue.

You still run into the problem of having the government run the program.

And while the researchers might not be profit motivated, the corporate executives sure are and could probably think of ways to make the process more efficient then the government, especially when conserving labor is an issue.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 10:28:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Should be noted that this applies for treating software as patents. Software can still be considered copyrightable:

"On balance, it is in New Zealand's best interests for software to continue to be covered through the provisions of Copyright, in the same way movies and books are, rather than through the patent system, which has significant problems,"
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 10:32:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 10:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Should be noted that this applies for treating software as patents. Software can still be considered copyrightable:

"On balance, it is in New Zealand's best interests for software to continue to be covered through the provisions of Copyright, in the same way movies and books are, rather than through the patent system, which has significant problems,"

I don't understand the distinction made?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 10:32:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 10:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Should be noted that this applies for treating software as patents. Software can still be considered copyrightable:

"On balance, it is in New Zealand's best interests for software to continue to be covered through the provisions of Copyright, in the same way movies and books are, rather than through the patent system, which has significant problems,"

OHHH. Mk then.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 10:37:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 10:32:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Should be noted that this applies for treating software as patents. Software can still be considered copyrightable:

"On balance, it is in New Zealand's best interests for software to continue to be covered through the provisions of Copyright, in the same way movies and books are, rather than through the patent system, which has significant problems,"

I don't understand the distinction made?

Let's take for example, the website DDO. DDO can be considered copyrighted, so
that you just can't just make a website that looks exactly like DDO, and claim it as your own and have that be your website.

However, if DDO patents something like "debate platform" that means you have to pay royalties for anything that is a debate platform, even if it's graphical interface is completely different.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 10:46:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 10:37:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:32:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Should be noted that this applies for treating software as patents. Software can still be considered copyrightable:

"On balance, it is in New Zealand's best interests for software to continue to be covered through the provisions of Copyright, in the same way movies and books are, rather than through the patent system, which has significant problems,"

I don't understand the distinction made?

Let's take for example, the website DDO. DDO can be considered copyrighted, so
that you just can't just make a website that looks exactly like DDO, and claim it as your own and have that be your website.

However, if DDO patents something like "debate platform" that means you have to pay royalties for anything that is a debate platform, even if it's graphical interface is completely different.

Exactly. Though, for emphasis, I'll show a real example of why software patents are stupid:
http://www.google.com...

Behold, patent number 3531796, "BLINKING CURSOR FOR CRT DISPLAY"

Now, imagine having to check every line of code for something patented. In my opinion, all software patents should fall under "something immediately obvious to an average person in that field".
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 10:55:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 10:37:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:32:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Should be noted that this applies for treating software as patents. Software can still be considered copyrightable:

"On balance, it is in New Zealand's best interests for software to continue to be covered through the provisions of Copyright, in the same way movies and books are, rather than through the patent system, which has significant problems,"

I don't understand the distinction made?

Let's take for example, the website DDO. DDO can be considered copyrighted, so
that you just can't just make a website that looks exactly like DDO, and claim it as your own and have that be your website.

However, if DDO patents something like "debate platform" that means you have to pay royalties for anything that is a debate platform, even if it's graphical interface is completely different.

But isn't the value of software really its idea, not its form? In any case, patents are a very tricky subject. There must be a balance between protecting the rights of creators and the would-be creators who are born into a world of things that are off-limits.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 11:13:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 10:55:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:37:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:32:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Should be noted that this applies for treating software as patents. Software can still be considered copyrightable:

"On balance, it is in New Zealand's best interests for software to continue to be covered through the provisions of Copyright, in the same way movies and books are, rather than through the patent system, which has significant problems,"

I don't understand the distinction made?

Let's take for example, the website DDO. DDO can be considered copyrighted, so
that you just can't just make a website that looks exactly like DDO, and claim it as your own and have that be your website.

However, if DDO patents something like "debate platform" that means you have to pay royalties for anything that is a debate platform, even if it's graphical interface is completely different.

But isn't the value of software really its idea, not its form? In any case, patents are a very tricky subject. There must be a balance between protecting the rights of creators and the would-be creators who are born into a world of things that are off-limits.

Software development is one of the few areas where perfect competition can actually work. Making things non-patentable means that businesses are FORCED to compete and provide better products, or else get crushed by competition. Software also evolves much faster, making patents a bad means of protecting it.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 11:23:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 11:13:40 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:55:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:37:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:32:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Should be noted that this applies for treating software as patents. Software can still be considered copyrightable:

"On balance, it is in New Zealand's best interests for software to continue to be covered through the provisions of Copyright, in the same way movies and books are, rather than through the patent system, which has significant problems,"

I don't understand the distinction made?

Let's take for example, the website DDO. DDO can be considered copyrighted, so
that you just can't just make a website that looks exactly like DDO, and claim it as your own and have that be your website.

However, if DDO patents something like "debate platform" that means you have to pay royalties for anything that is a debate platform, even if it's graphical interface is completely different.

But isn't the value of software really its idea, not its form? In any case, patents are a very tricky subject. There must be a balance between protecting the rights of creators and the would-be creators who are born into a world of things that are off-limits.

Software development is one of the few areas where perfect competition can actually work. Making things non-patentable means that businesses are FORCED to compete and provide better products, or else get crushed by competition. Software also evolves much faster, making patents a bad means of protecting it.

This might be a good move for New Zealand, but any potential success is rather unrealistic when you think about it. Companies based in New Zealand gain access to a plethora of software from all over the world only at the cost of other New Zealand companies possibly copying their work.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 11:25:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 11:23:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 11:13:40 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:55:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:37:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:32:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Should be noted that this applies for treating software as patents. Software can still be considered copyrightable:

"On balance, it is in New Zealand's best interests for software to continue to be covered through the provisions of Copyright, in the same way movies and books are, rather than through the patent system, which has significant problems,"

I don't understand the distinction made?

Let's take for example, the website DDO. DDO can be considered copyrighted, so
that you just can't just make a website that looks exactly like DDO, and claim it as your own and have that be your website.

However, if DDO patents something like "debate platform" that means you have to pay royalties for anything that is a debate platform, even if it's graphical interface is completely different.

But isn't the value of software really its idea, not its form? In any case, patents are a very tricky subject. There must be a balance between protecting the rights of creators and the would-be creators who are born into a world of things that are off-limits.

Software development is one of the few areas where perfect competition can actually work. Making things non-patentable means that businesses are FORCED to compete and provide better products, or else get crushed by competition. Software also evolves much faster, making patents a bad means of protecting it.

This might be a good move for New Zealand, but any potential success is rather unrealistic when you think about it. Companies based in New Zealand gain access to a plethora of software from all over the world only at the cost of other New Zealand companies possibly copying their work.

So basically the costs are externalized, and any success New Zealand has isn't the whole picture.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 11:27:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 10:02:02 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
I don't know enough about this bill. Does this prohibit companies from selling software like Joomla, Drupal, or WordPress?

No.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 11:30:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
i personally like china's patent and copyright system. Remove all copyright and patents rights to foreign products.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 11:37:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 11:25:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 11:23:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 11:13:40 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:55:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:37:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:32:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2013 10:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Should be noted that this applies for treating software as patents. Software can still be considered copyrightable:

"On balance, it is in New Zealand's best interests for software to continue to be covered through the provisions of Copyright, in the same way movies and books are, rather than through the patent system, which has significant problems,"

I don't understand the distinction made?

Let's take for example, the website DDO. DDO can be considered copyrighted, so
that you just can't just make a website that looks exactly like DDO, and claim it as your own and have that be your website.

However, if DDO patents something like "debate platform" that means you have to pay royalties for anything that is a debate platform, even if it's graphical interface is completely different.

But isn't the value of software really its idea, not its form? In any case, patents are a very tricky subject. There must be a balance between protecting the rights of creators and the would-be creators who are born into a world of things that are off-limits.

Software development is one of the few areas where perfect competition can actually work. Making things non-patentable means that businesses are FORCED to compete and provide better products, or else get crushed by competition. Software also evolves much faster, making patents a bad means of protecting it.

This might be a good move for New Zealand, but any potential success is rather unrealistic when you think about it. Companies based in New Zealand gain access to a plethora of software from all over the world only at the cost of other New Zealand companies possibly copying their work.

So basically the costs are externalized, and any success New Zealand has isn't the whole picture.

And the alternative is this:
https://www.eff.org...

Software patents have a tendency to be over stupid crap, and when those patents turn into lawsuits, we end up with innovation being hindered... over a bunch of stupid crap. The patent system has claimed too many victims. For software developers, software patents would mean checking every line of code for something patented, on the off chance that they "accidentally" had the same idea as someone else. To be honest, if someone else has the same idea without seeing yours, the idea shouldn't be patented. This is the case with all software.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:37:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it's a smart move. If anyone actually looks ahead to the future, torrenting and "pirating" and sharing software has become so common place making things freeware and open source from the get go seems like something ahead of the curve.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 7:52:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 8:39:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/9/2013 8:34:58 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Yay for removing incentive for people to innovate if they aren't a huge company!

Do you realize that open-source software is a huge industry even despite the existence of patent law? And that it's often far superior to patented software because it's allowed to freely evolve based on the changes created by the public? Open-source is the reason Linux is better than windows or anything else.

Yeah, and it's a fascinating to imagine a whole economy based on cooperation instead of competition. Just something fascinating to think about, I'm not proposing any great political theory here.
This space for rent.