«

The Select Committee reporting on the new Patents Bill has said that
software should be specifically listed among items that cannot be patented
<http://techdirt.com/articles/20100330/1852558798.shtml>.

Powerful opposition is gathering
<http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/development/nzoss-expects-powerful-opposition-to-patent-reform#39C900C21B7669DBCC257700003C8A5F>.

One thing that worried me about the way the Select Committee phrased things,
is that their specific mention that “Protecting software by patenting it is
inconsistent with the open source model and its proponents oppose it” could
be seen to be favouring one group (open-source developers) over others.

I wonder if this was deliberate, or am I simply seeing too many wheels
within wheels...

The Commerce Minister says he agrees with the Select Committee
<http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/development/power-backs-deletion-of-software-patents>:

Power says the issue is not simple or straightforward. "However, the
Government believes the committee has dealt with the issue in a sensible
manner and has found a reasonable solution."

However, Microsoft’s Mark Rees naturally doesn’t agree. This in spite of the
fact that Microsoft has so far had to pay out much more than it’s been able
to make on software patents.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:19:04 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> However, Microsoft’s Mark Rees naturally doesn’t agree.

That's because Microsoft has a financial interest in pushing for the patenting of mathematical
algorithms (which cannot be patented).

All applications for software patents without exception should be declined. Mathematics is not an
invention.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On 12/04/2010 6:49 p.m., Sweetpea wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:19:04 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> However, Microsoft’s Mark Rees naturally doesn’t agree.
>
> That's because Microsoft has a financial interest in pushing for the patenting of mathematical
> algorithms (which cannot be patented).
>
> All applications for software patents without exception should be declined. Mathematics is not an
> invention.
>
>
Jolly good principle to start out with.
But patents for software inventions and the whole body of legal
precedent concerning them already exists.
And as they say, you can't get the **** back in the donkey

In message <>, Sweetpea wrote:

> That's because Microsoft has a financial interest in pushing for the
> patenting of mathematical algorithms (which cannot be patented).

Then how come RSA got patented?

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:00:14 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <>, Sweetpea wrote:
>
>> That's because Microsoft has a financial interest in pushing for the
>> patenting of mathematical algorithms (which cannot be patented).
>
> Then how come RSA got patented?

I can't explain how RSA got patented. What is its NZ patent Nr?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:31:40 +1200, victor wrote:

>> That's because Microsoft has a financial interest in pushing for the
>> patenting of mathematical algorithms (which cannot be patented).
>>
>> All applications for software patents without exception should be
>> declined. Mathematics is not an invention.
>>
>>
> Jolly good principle to start out with. But patents for software
> inventions and the whole body of legal precedent concerning them already
> exists.

Irrelevant. In the USA patents are regularly challenged and ruled to be invalid.


> And as they say, you can't get the **** back in the donkey

"****" and donkeys are irrelevant to patents and software.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On 12/04/10 21:47, Sweetpea wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:31:40 +1200, victor wrote:
>
>>> That's because Microsoft has a financial interest in pushing for the
>>> patenting of mathematical algorithms (which cannot be patented).
>>>
>>> All applications for software patents without exception should be
>>> declined. Mathematics is not an invention.
>>>
>>>
>> Jolly good principle to start out with. But patents for software
>> inventions and the whole body of legal precedent concerning them already
>> exists.
>
> Irrelevant. In the USA patents are regularly challenged and ruled to be invalid.

Yet the RSA patent held by MIT for its full term wasn't.


>
>
>> And as they say, you can't get the **** back in the donkey
>
> "****" and donkeys are irrelevant to patents and software.
>
>
LOL, I can't believe that one went over your head.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:18:26 +1200, victor wrote:

>> Irrelevant. In the USA patents are regularly challenged and ruled to be
>> invalid.
>
> Yet the RSA patent held by MIT for its full term wasn't.

Was it a patent that got challenged?

Was such a patent registered here in NZ or only in the USA - a nation that has defective patent laws?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"