NZ government is about to pass a new Patents Act. In the 8-year review, they seemingly forgot to consider the impacts of patents on computer software! Submissions on the bill are being accepted till 2 July, so we need to move fast. Make a submission now!
There are many reasons why software patents are bad. Many of these reasons impact users of Drupal and other Free/OpenSource software significantly. End Software Patents wiki website is a good resource for examples, evidence and more details of these reasons, but some generalised issues are:
- Harm to standards
- Stifle innovation
- Lower software quality and raise prices
- Freedom of expression
- Remove useful software from the market
- Harm SMEs
- Prevent competition and entrench monopolies
- Patent trolls, or "parasites"
- Used for sabotage rather than competition, sometimes called "business weapons"
- All businesses are targets
- Jobs and skills
- Incompatible timespans
- Costs of the patent system to governments
- Quality of software patents is particularly bad
The New Zealand page at the End Software Patents wiki has details about the bill that is being reviewed and links to more details. There is also a template submission that could use some more eyes and more review. Head over there and make a submission now. It will only take you a few minutes to customize the template with your details and email it away!
While on the topic of free software in NZ politics, the Green party advocates free software and even understands the issues of software patents: Green party MP Kevin Hague was the only MP to mention software in the first reading of the Patents bill in parliamant. The Greens are also heavy users of Drupal and CiviCRM.
This is mostly a cross-post from my CivicActions.com blog entry.
Comments
Clarification
Bevan
Are you saying that the NZ government are finishing off their review of the Patents legislation and may state that software can be patented in NZ which is not a good idea; and therefore we need to stand up and point out the reasons why this would not be a fair and reasonable thing and that software patents ought to be an exception?
Is there room for movement? What about the person who genuinely thinks they have come up with something original?
Software is already an exception
Software is already an exception, in that it is currently covered by both copyright and patent law. This is unproductive overkill. Why should software be treated differently to other forms of creative expression such as music or text. Does it make sense to patent a 6-chord progression, or a form of novel in which a crime is committed and clues are revealed in subsequent chapters? That is what currently happens in software, to the detriment of everyone but lawyers and patent trolls.
Whether there is room for movement depends on the Select Committee's understanding of the issue and the extent to which software multinationals that benefit from the status quo influence things. Given that software was mentioned by only a single MP when the bill was introduced doesn't bode well for their understanding.
Do you think they have come up with something original? Will this help Drupal developers? Explain.
I'm not sure I understand
I'm not sure I understand your question.
I – and many people that are knowledgable on the topic, including many significant patent holders, and especially open source advocates and folk in the free software movement – believe that software should not be patentable. There are many reasons why software patents are a bad idea. Actually I haven't heard a self-less reason why they should be yet.
I don't want to get into a debate about whether software should be patentable or not, or why here, but I'd like to refer you to this great and recent article from Guy Burgess, an expert on the topic; http://www.burgess.co.nz/law/software-patents-patently-in-need-of-fixing. You could also see http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/ and http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Main_Page for more examples, reasons and evidence of this.
I think it's certainly possible that a software idea may be sufficiently innovative, original, and costly to implement to be worthy of patent. However this would be, by far, an exception, rather than common in the software industry. Software is - most of the time - relatively cheap to implement and has fast returns.
Further, patents are not and never have been inherent rights of inventors – but privileges granted by the state. In other words, they shouldn't be given out readily. Compounded with the fact it is impossibly difficult for patent offices to review applications and grant patents correctly, and for software developers to be sufficiently free of patent-litigation threat so as to be innovative themselves, means software patents are just stupid, and waste of everyone's time and money.
Bevan/
Bevan/