Re: Patent "Reform"

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by steve, Aug 20, 2005.

  1. steve

    steve Guest

    Peter wrote:

    >
    > The USA is changing patent law, in ways that apparently favour the large
    > incumbent corporates and disadvantages inventors and users.
    > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050818.html
    >
    > "In short, the bill is bad. It reflects the worst kind of special interest
    > law-making that hurts us all. And I mean REALLY hurts us because it will
    > only act to discourage inventors. Microsoft loves it, of course.
    > Microsoft historically has also shown itself to be a consistent and wilful
    > patent infringer."
    >
    > Maybe NZ will get our laws "harmonised" with the USA after this election?


    If you vote for National you can bet your last dollar they will bend over,
    spread their cheeks and say "Pretty please" to Mr. Bush and the other war
    criminals.
     
    steve, Aug 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hi there,

    steve wrote:
    > Peter wrote:
    >
    >
    >>The USA is changing patent law, in ways that apparently favour the large
    >>incumbent corporates and disadvantages inventors and users.
    >>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050818.html
    >>
    >>"In short, the bill is bad. It reflects the worst kind of special interest
    >>law-making that hurts us all. And I mean REALLY hurts us because it will
    >>only act to discourage inventors. Microsoft loves it, of course.
    >>Microsoft historically has also shown itself to be a consistent and wilful
    >>patent infringer."
    >>
    >>Maybe NZ will get our laws "harmonised" with the USA after this election?

    >
    >
    > If you vote for National you can bet your last dollar they will bend over,
    > spread their cheeks and say "Pretty please" to Mr. Bush and the other war
    > criminals.


    So you think Labour wouldn't do the same? I'm pretty sure pressure from
    US corporates with NZ interests, and from US Commission staff would see
    any party that gets in bow to pressure to accept such a submission...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u

    Software patents are killing YOUR freedom, STOP THEM NOW!
    http://swpat.ffii.org/ http://nosoftwarepatents.com/
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Aug 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:37:09 +1000, someone purporting to be Chris
    Wilkinson didst scrawl:

    *SNIP*
    >> If you vote for National you can bet your last dollar they will bend over,
    >> spread their cheeks and say "Pretty please" to Mr. Bush and the other war
    >> criminals.

    >
    > So you think Labour wouldn't do the same? I'm pretty sure pressure from
    > US corporates with NZ interests, and from US Commission staff would see
    > any party that gets in bow to pressure to accept such a submission...


    The difference is more in just how pliant the respective parties will be.
    Labour are unlikely to accept the destruction of Pharmac's reference
    pricing system, but National, as a free-market party, are unlikely to
    object. The removal of that system isn't conjecture, it's one of the
    conditions of the FTA that was struck between Aus and the US - and the
    Australian medical establishment are claiming prices for some medications
    will quadruple as a result.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Aug 22, 2005
    #3
  4. steve

    Brendan Guest

    On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:37:09 +1000, Chris Wilkinson wrote:

    > So you think Labour wouldn't do the same? I'm pretty sure pressure from
    > US corporates with NZ interests, and from US Commission staff would see
    > any party that gets in bow to pressure to accept such a submission...


    Labour told the yanks to keep their nukes away from us. And made it stick.
    They could do the same for patents, if it was made an issue the public were
    informed about.

    National has played with the idea of scrapping the anti-nuke policy.

    (personally, I am pro nuclear _power_, but against the bomb. Also pro GE).

    --

    .... Brendan

    #171987 +(5636)- [X]

    <Th3No0b> Im going to be the next hitler
    <Th3No0b> Im going to kill all the jews and 1 clown
    <RageAgainsttheAmish> why the clown
    <Th3No0b> See? no one cares about the jews
    <RageAgainsttheAmish> lmao


    Note: All my comments are copyright 22/08/2005 11:36:53 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
     
    Brendan, Aug 22, 2005
    #4
  5. On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:24:06 +1200, someone purporting to be Brendan didst
    scrawl:

    > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:37:09 +1000, Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >

    *SNIP*
    > Labour told the yanks to keep their nukes away from us. And made it stick.
    > They could do the same for patents, if it was made an issue the public were
    > informed about.
    >

    *SNIP*

    Labour made it stick because there was nothing the US could really do to
    trade the law away. Plus, it would've been seen, on their part, as
    interference with the sovereignty of another country's legislature if they
    had really forced the issue.
    Patents, though, are non-negotiable for the US as part of trade
    agreements. They've said as much, and it's widely believed that the Aus-US
    FTA is the shape of any future comprehensive trade agreement - that is: IP
    law reform in the shape of the DMCA and extension of copyright to
    death-plus-70; recognition of USPTO-granted rights (but not the reverse);
    demolition of pharmaceutical reference-pricing where it exists; etc ad
    nauseum. Distinctly beneficial for the US, pretty lousy for the other
    party.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Aug 22, 2005
    #5
  6. steve

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:34:09 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:

    > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:24:06 +1200, someone purporting to be Brendan didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:37:09 +1000, Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >>

    > *SNIP*
    >> Labour told the yanks to keep their nukes away from us. And made it
    >> stick. They could do the same for patents, if it was made an issue the
    >> public were informed about.
    >>

    > *SNIP*
    >
    > Labour made it stick because there was nothing the US could really do to
    > trade the law away. Plus, it would've been seen, on their part, as
    > interference with the sovereignty of another country's legislature if they
    > had really forced the issue.
    > Patents, though, are non-negotiable for the US as part of trade
    > agreements. They've said as much, and it's widely believed that the Aus-US
    > FTA is the shape of any future comprehensive trade agreement - that is: IP
    > law reform in the shape of the DMCA and extension of copyright to
    > death-plus-70; recognition of USPTO-granted rights (but not the reverse);
    > demolition of pharmaceutical reference-pricing where it exists; etc ad
    > nauseum. Distinctly beneficial for the US, pretty lousy for the other
    > party.


    And the other factor: popular politics. The public just don't care as much
    about intellectual property as they do about nukes. Labour could trade IP
    law away without a backlash - in fact they would probably even gain
    support from a lot of people for the trade agreement. Joe Public would
    just wonder why some geeky losers are whinging (with big words though)
    about the trade agreement.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Aug 22, 2005
    #6
  7. Brendan wrote:
    > (personally, I am pro nuclear _power_, but against the bomb. Also pro GE)


    and I thought I was the only one... :)

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
    http://synaptic.net.nz <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 22, 2005
    #7
  8. steve

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:06:14 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Brendan wrote:
    >> (personally, I am pro nuclear _power_, but against the bomb. Also pro
    >> GE)

    >
    > and I thought I was the only one... :)


    Nope...

    :)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Aug 22, 2005
    #8
  9. steve

    steve Guest

    Chris Wilkinson wrote:

    > Hi there,
    >
    > steve wrote:
    >> Peter wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>The USA is changing patent law, in ways that apparently favour the large
    >>>incumbent corporates and disadvantages inventors and users.
    >>>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050818.html
    >>>
    >>>"In short, the bill is bad. It reflects the worst kind of special
    >>>interest law-making that hurts us all. And I mean REALLY hurts us because
    >>>it will
    >>>only act to discourage inventors. Microsoft loves it, of course.
    >>>Microsoft historically has also shown itself to be a consistent and
    >>>wilful patent infringer."
    >>>
    >>>Maybe NZ will get our laws "harmonised" with the USA after this election?

    >>
    >>
    >> If you vote for National you can bet your last dollar they will bend
    >> over, spread their cheeks and say "Pretty please" to Mr. Bush and the
    >> other war criminals.

    >
    > So you think Labour wouldn't do the same? I'm pretty sure pressure from
    > US corporates with NZ interests, and from US Commission staff would see
    > any party that gets in bow to pressure to accept such a submission...


    Labour's partners in government wouldn't allow it.

    National's (if they can find any) would.

    It's conceivable we may see a situation where National is the largest
    party.....but can't get a majority for most of its policies - not without
    major renovations, anyway.

    As it should be. If they can't get 50%+ of the vote, they don't deserve to
    get it all their own way.
     
    steve, Aug 23, 2005
    #9
  10. steve

    steve Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:

    > The removal of that system isn't conjecture, it's one of the
    > conditions of the FTA that was struck between Aus and the US - and the
    > Australian medical establishment are claiming prices for some medications
    > will quadruple as a result.


    Agreed. The US wants to protect the monopoly profits of its drug
    multinationals.....and could care less about the health of any citizen,
    anywhere.
     
    steve, Aug 23, 2005
    #10
  11. steve

    steve Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:

    > They've said as much, and it's widely believed that the Aus-US
    > FTA is the shape of any future comprehensive trade agreement - that is: IP
    > law reform in the shape of the DMCA and extension of copyright to
    > death-plus-70; recognition of USPTO-granted rights (but not the reverse);
    > demolition of pharmaceutical reference-pricing where it exists; etc ad
    > nauseum. Distinctly beneficial for the US, pretty lousy for the other
    > party.


    Again agreed.

    Any FTA rthe US would let us have wouldn't be worth having....in the short
    or long terms.

    We need to find our own solutions and stop thinking like would-be welfare
    rorters hoping to suckle on the US teet.

    That teet is ringed with thorns.
     
    steve, Aug 23, 2005
    #11
  12. On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:24:06 +1200, Brendan <>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:37:09 +1000, Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    >> So you think Labour wouldn't do the same? I'm pretty sure pressure from
    >> US corporates with NZ interests, and from US Commission staff would see
    >> any party that gets in bow to pressure to accept such a submission...

    >
    >Labour told the yanks to keep their nukes away from us. And made it stick.
    >They could do the same for patents, if it was made an issue the public were
    >informed about.


    only if they wer prepared to pay price inactual $costs
     
    FreedomChooser, Aug 27, 2005
    #12
  13. On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:13:52 +1200, steve
    <> wrote:

    >Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    >> Hi there,
    >>
    >> steve wrote:
    >>> Peter wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>The USA is changing patent law, in ways that apparently favour the large
    >>>>incumbent corporates and disadvantages inventors and users.
    >>>>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050818.html
    >>>>
    >>>>"In short, the bill is bad. It reflects the worst kind of special
    >>>>interest law-making that hurts us all. And I mean REALLY hurts us because
    >>>>it will
    >>>>only act to discourage inventors. Microsoft loves it, of course.
    >>>>Microsoft historically has also shown itself to be a consistent and
    >>>>wilful patent infringer."
    >>>>
    >>>>Maybe NZ will get our laws "harmonised" with the USA after this election?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> If you vote for National you can bet your last dollar they will bend
    >>> over, spread their cheeks and say "Pretty please" to Mr. Bush and the
    >>> other war criminals.

    >>
    >> So you think Labour wouldn't do the same? I'm pretty sure pressure from
    >> US corporates with NZ interests, and from US Commission staff would see
    >> any party that gets in bow to pressure to accept such a submission...

    >
    >Labour's partners in government wouldn't allow it.
    >
    >National's (if they can find any) would.
    >
    >It's conceivable we may see a situation where National is the largest
    >party.....but can't get a majority for most of its policies - not without
    >major renovations, anyway.
    >
    >As it should be. If they can't get 50%+ of the vote, they don't deserve to
    >get it all their own way.


    explain the hypocrysy of this view since it doesnt apply to Labaour
    party
     
    FreedomChooser, Aug 27, 2005
    #13
  14. On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:03:18 +1200, someone purporting to be
    FreedomChooser didst scrawl:

    > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:24:06 +1200, Brendan <>
    > wrote:

    *SNIP*
    >>Labour told the yanks to keep their nukes away from us. And made it stick.
    >>They could do the same for patents, if it was made an issue the public were
    >>informed about.

    >
    > only if they wer prepared to pay price inactual $costs


    Huh? Not only is your spelling terrible, that post is utterly
    incomprehensible. What are you trying to say? That Labour would have to
    pay for the lost opportunity costs associated with denying IP law reforms
    to bring us into line with the US? What costs would those be? The ones
    that would see pharmaceutical prices bloat dramatically for the NZ
    healthcare consumer? How about the ones that would see ridiculous US
    patents recognised here, to the detriment of our economy?
    Were those the type of costs you were thinking of?

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Aug 27, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tom

    Reform exam?

    Tom, Mar 31, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    562
    Ben Smith
    Mar 31, 2005
  2. D Flint

    Real Election Reform

    D Flint, Jan 8, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    396
    WormWood
    Jan 8, 2005
  3. donnie

    Re: Real Election Reform

    donnie, Jan 8, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    424
    donnie
    Jan 8, 2005
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    386
    victor
    Aug 31, 2010
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    If A Patent Is A Monopoly, Then A Patent Pool Is A Cartel

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 29, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    529
    Gordon
    Oct 31, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page