Hacker News Reader

Comment by spodek | Hacker News Reader

"Commerce Minister Craig Foss said today that following industry consultation he had decided to remove the patentability of software from the Patents Bill, which is currently before Parliament."

If anyone is going to support Free and Open Source Software, it's going to be a guy named Foss.

The government asked its citizens their thoughts "a recent poll of more than 1000 Kiwi IT professionals found 94 per cent wanted to see software patents gone." -- As overwhelming as 94% is, I wonder the motivations of the last 6%.

The U.S. is in software patents so deep, the only way I can see it changing is watching other countries move faster without the drain on innovation and the need to pay lawyers when you code.

View on HN

This sounds suspiciously like a government that works for its people.

[partisan alert] I wouldn't go too far on that. If you're poor and unemployed here you probably don't feel like the govt. are working for you all that much.

I'm continuously amazed by all of the major political parties here in New Zealand who keep using logic and facts instead of merely political stances. Our process of making laws is open, listens to the people as well as lobbyists, and yet allows room for policy differences.

NZ makes some great laws (this is one of them) but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights.

Sorry I brought that one up but is one of those laws that has always just made me say - "What the fuuuuuc....."

Great Ape personhood, or at least granting them the right to not have cruel tests done, has been done by several other nations not just New Zealand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood

I can't remember the exact wording but one provision was about how they couldn't be exported unless it was in their best interests. E.g. you can't sell them a circus overseas in which they would likely receive cruel treatment.

So it's not about calling them people, it's about giving them some rights because they have sentience.

I don't agree with the label, I do agree with the principle.

Many animals show signs of sentience and even if they don't, they should not be allowed to undergo cruel testing. To try to only apply this to great apes shows a lack of understanding of the issues involved. It is often human nature to be guilty of anthropomorphizing.

The intentions are noble, but the focus is too narrow and the label is quite frankly, ridiculous.

The label is a bit weird, I agree, but personhood is an established legal concept with clear interpretations and case law so I just think of it as lawyer speak. Extremely disabled people may lack clear communication and yet a person who makes decisions on their behalf is guided by similar principles. The argument in favour of personhood is that the benefits of that legal history outweigh the superficial qualms by using a slightly wrong title.

While other animals have sentience too this is about the thin edge of the wedge, and what's achievable in politics. You go for the creatures that are nearest to human and then increase it as is appropriate. It's important to establish precedent and not to go too far at once or else the first step will fail and politicians won't touch it again for a long time. I see it more as practical political expediency rather than a lack of understanding of how non-apes may be sentient too.

Sure, we all know since Descartes that animals are robot-like objects, have no feelings and no emotion and should be treated as such. So, let's make sure the Law does not take in account any of the discoveries related to emotion and pain in animals, and let's keep business as usual and feel good about it.

Sums up your position ?

Wow, over-reaction, much? Look, I could go on and make several well reasoned arguments about how animals are not human but clearly it would be wasted on you.

Just a quick question, but once you have given Chimps human rights and said Chimps go on and kill and eat other apes/monkeys, as they commonly do in the wild - would you have them up for murder and cannibalism charges with appropriate punishments?

OK, maybe I took your comment the wrong way. Sorry about that. The way you wrote your comment gave me the impression that you were saying animals are not worthy of compassion, but if that's not the case then it's all good.

Compassion...sure. Human rights? No.

Why?

I would argue that if we are to give chimpanzees human rights then we may as well start enforcing building codes for beavers and ants. What is unnatural (law) does not necessarily work for those the animal kingdom. It should not be forgotten that animals have a certain level of rights to coexist with us on Earth but at the same time it does a disservice to humanity to treat them as our equals.

Human rights for Chimps. Definitely no. If you give them rights, you need to make sure they abide by the same laws that humans abide by. If one 'tells' a chimp to steal something, will the human be punished? He could as well say, "I told him to jump off the cliff, but he didn't do that right? Why are you punishing me for this". I mean, I know this sounds ridiculous but humans have known to be clever to exploit every possible loop hole in wording or spirit of the law - case in point, the patent system.

That's a straw man rights and responsibiltes are different things.

It's certainly honorable to want to give rights to animals and it wouldn't be a "wtf" moment if they declared they wanted animal rights (or chimpanzee rights in that case) based on current human right.

But granting human right to chimpanzees is not saying animals have the same rights than humans. It's saying chimpanzees are humans. We can debate on how apes are different (if at all) with humans, but we should not forget that what NZ government was basically saying is that they're not different.

I guess the discussion starts from "human rights" because there is no established "animal rights" anywhere in the first place. I'm not saying I agree that they should have human rights.

I dont think "rights" is the right word to begin with, but "compassion towards other species" would be a good place to start with, and reflecting about how "moral / ethical" it is to inflict pain willingly on other species.

Because if "pain" and "emotions" are felt pretty much in the same way by animals and humans (for which there is more and more evidence on that as we learn how the brain works), why would it be moral to inflict pain to animals but amoral to inflict pain on human beings ?

> Because if "pain" and "emotions" are felt pretty much in the same way by animals and humans (for which there is more and more evidence on that as we learn how the brain works), why would it be moral to inflict pain to animals but amoral to inflict pain on human beings ?

Without being an antispecist, I surely agree with that. It would have been indeed a great thing to start with writing some kind of animal rights chart, or even a global "life rights", that would include human rights (and which would probably leads to questions like "how much is it ok to takes from nature" or "when taking animal life for food, how to do it respectfully"). But I don't think that's what this government had in mind.

I may be wrong, of course, but it seems to me they had more anthropological considerations about apes than considerations about animal suffering, or else, they would have proposed some kind of general animal law.

Certainly agree with you here.

And what's wrong with that?

They are not human. I agree there should be some for of animal rights for them...but they are not human so they do not get "human rights".

This is why I love HN. This conversation went from NZ software patents to the legal status of apes in NZ in no time.

If it were reddit, we'd already be on the subject of throwing feces.

This is still net benefit. Call the law FooBarBuzz if you prefer, I don't care as long as it is a good law.

> but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights.

Hilariously, everyone replying to you has missed the point.

NZ has so many things fundamentally right they actually have time and money to debate and discuss giving more thought to the treatment of animals.

Meanwhile, America is stuck bickering about basic healthcare, gay rights, gun control, abortion and education for HUMANS.

Except for the "we made a mistake, now we are retrofitting the law so that we did not make a mistake" laws that have been passed over the last few years. The Search and Surveillance Bill, as well as the upcoming changes to the GCSB spring to mind.

At least these are just the government covering it's own ass, rather than out and out corruption.

Our process of making laws mostly listens to the people, but it it is contingent on the government's willingness to listen. The problem is the lack of rules around urgency (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/parliaments-urgency-provision-b...). For non-Kiwis, urgency allows a government to force through a bill in a hurry and without consultation. The loophole is that urgency doesn't require a supermajority and there are no limits on the kind of bills that can be passed this way: if the government decides to bypass the normal legislative process, there's not much anyone can do to stop it.

The result is that governments have used urgency as a way to pass major and controversial laws without full consultation or debate. Examples include 'three strikes' (http://boingboing.net/2011/04/15/new-zealands-3-strik.html), the 'Hobbit Act' (http://www.3news.co.nz/Hobbit-bill-becomes-law/tabid/419/art...) and the GCSB (spy) bill (http://parliamenttoday.co.nz/2013/05/house-goes-into-urgency...). Whether you agree or disagree on the merits of the bills, I do think it's fair to say that all deserved more debate and consultation than they got.

And I'd argue that all of these examples were driven by lobbying (from the media industry, the Hobbit producers and the espionage agencies). Our process of making laws is generally healthy and open, but it does have dangerous blind spots.

Yes, I believe it is easier to listen to 4M people than 300 M people.

Welfare-society-partisan I guess? The best thing a government can do is not run into debt and avoid charging massive taxes to employees and companies working in their country. That way, business can thrive better and jobs get created in larger number, so it should be a good thing if you are poor and unemployed.

Countries ridden with welfare are not doing TOO well currently. Most countries in Europe, US, Japan. All deep to their neck in public debt, always at the verge of bankruptcy. This can't be good for anyone in the end, poor included.

Australia is "ridden" with welfare and we're doing just fine economically, thanks.

We also get to walk around our cities without constant fear of violent robbery by the extreme poor. Nice huh?

Yeah, lets not forget the huge advantage of natural resources in Australia. Just like Russia can survive on its gaz business alone.

ANd thanks for the cliche that poor = robber/criminal, I am sure many honest poor people appreciate your point of view.

Ok, then what would be your response to Canada?

Maple Syrup.

Growing public debt from one year to another. And quite fast, too.

"Canada’s federal debt grew steadily between 5% and 10% per year until 1975. For the next 12 years it grew on average over 20% per year. It surpassed $100 billion in 1981, $200 billion in 1985, $300 billion in 1988, $400 billion in 1992, and $500 billion in 1994. It peaked at $563 billion in 1997. The debt then declined to $458 billion by 2008. With the recession, the federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09 and is expected to grow by $55.9 billion in 2009-10. November 2012 Canadian debt surpassed the $600 billion mark"

Canada certainly look like Maple Red in this map of worldwide public debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dette_publique2011.jpg

You better check your sources before commenting. Or maybe you are one of those to think that federal debt is not an issue and that you never need to pay it back. You are in for a big surprise.

You are asserting that extreme poverty and the absence of welfare or assistance does not lead to crime? I find your position dubious.

Yeah. Have you ever heard of peer to peer assistance? you know, that thing called charity that used to exist before governments started to take care of it themselves?

How about Mother Theresa? How about the Red Cross? About about the religious associations who live on donations only?

In your little world everything comes from the government, as well as your ideology it seems.

I would not bring up a notorious nutter like Mother Theresa in support of your Ayn Rand ideology if I were you.

And your argument that charities and government-funded welfare are mutually exclusive is just plain bizarre. In any case, let us know how Somalia works out for you.

> In your little world everything comes from the government, as well as your ideology it seems.

I suspect we may well share some sentiments, but you're coming off as needlessly argumentative. Yeah, sometimes I do too :p

[Mother Theresa] felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus. Sanal Edamaruku, President of Rationalist International, criticised the failure to give painkillers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying, one could "hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers were not administered even in severe cases. According to Mother Teresa's philosophy, it is 'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ'."

The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press. The Lancet and the British Medical Journal reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that precluded the use of many elements of modern medical care, such as systematic diagnosis. Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care as "haphazard", as volunteers without medical knowledge had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors. He observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa)

As a Canadian, I think I strongly prefer our government-provided healthcare to the Mother Theresa version.

> ANd thanks for the cliche that poor = robber/criminal

Parent was pointing out that a reasonable government welfare program does a lot less to foster resentment than a free market "fend for yourself" approach.

> I am sure many honest poor people appreciate your point of view.

Honest people still have to eat. Poor people don't (usually) choose to be poor, and if you force them into a corner with no other alternative, they will either

a) Die

b) Resort to crime or some other undesirable activity to prevent themselves from dying.

Nordic countries are ridden with wellfare and are doing quite OK, I'd say. The problems Greeks and others are having are not related to wellfare.

Also eastern/southern Europe countries are not exactly welfare countries.

Well welfare has a threshold effect. Nordic countries have very small populations to take care of. You'll see that countries where welfare becomes an issue are usually larger ones in the dozens of millions.

But I wouldn't put all the nordic countries in the same basket. Last I know Sweden is not doing too well compared to Finland.

Couldn't one simply split countries up into smaller countries, if being a small country makes things better?

Greece is a rather small country, so are Portugal and Ireland. If anything, being small makes things worse, as it is more likely that there is less economical diversification.

Greece never had an economy to begin with. It's got a free ride with the Euro cheap interest rates and now a brutal reality check when they had to pay back.

Is is not all relative? It's not like countries with "small populations to take care of" have massive populations to pay for that welfare.

I don't know the answer, but maybe you do: what percentage of the population is considered "on welfare" for those countries that are striving, versus those that aren't?

> Last I know Sweden is not doing too well compared to Finland.

I don't know if that's the case, but if so, it just might be related to Sweden having shitloads of more Somalis than Finland.

Australia, at 23 million, has one of the most liberal welfare systems in the world [1]. The economy is doing just great.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#Australia (Everyone gets money for nothing, forever)

"Last I know Sweden is not doing too well compared to Finland."

'But from another perspective, Finland’s performance looks disappointing. An alternative destination from Helsinki on one of those monster cruise ships is due west to Stockholm. Unlike Finland, Sweden chose not to join the euro. Until the crisis, that made little difference. Both countries did well; if anything Finland’s performance was stronger. But over the past five years their fortunes have diverged to the detriment of Finland.'

http://www.economist.com/node/21560865

> Countries ridden with welfare are not doing TOO well currently. Most countries in Europe, US, Japan. All deep to their neck in public debt, always at the verge of bankruptcy. This can't be good for anyone in the end, poor included.

At least most of said countries have smaller debt-to-GDP ratio than US.

Software patents and copyright are a form of welfare for business.

I found this extremely humorous (John Stewart Show on gun violence and politician motives): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T...

@ 2:00 it speaks volumes about US politics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T...)

Off topic, but thanks for that link: while I'm not going to go into the politics, those clips make me want to go back home now, just because of those scenes from Australia...

You should get rid of all patents if that's the case. Patents slow down innovation period. And software patents can be non-obvious, just like hardware patents -- software and hardware innovations can be just as equally obvious to anyone who starts to work on a problem.

Don't be fooled - we're selling off our assets as you speak. But hey, we can buy shares in them, so the thing I partly owned I can pay money for and partly own it again.

>I wonder the motivations of the last 6%

People in corporate take pride in IP. The number of patents a team has applied for is a measure of its success.

As a proponent of foss, I believe software patents hinder development, because it makes the work I do difficult.

But people working in 'corporate' IT see it as a reward for their work.

I am sure many of them celebrated the recent World IP day and made plans to apply for more patents.

Craig Foss probably wouldn't understand FOSS if you hit him with it. That's how the SOP got in there in the first place.

Alas it's not a case of nominative determinism.

"The U.S. is in software patents so deep, the only way I can see it changing is watching other countries move faster without the drain on innovation and the need to pay lawyers when you code."

Lawyers have a lot of money. Those laws aren't going to change until the role of money in politics changes. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Yeh, because that's worked so well in the US for gun control and health cover! (Referring to the quote)

Probably the last 6% either hold patents or really don't quite get the issue. Lots of folks work in closed source/proprietary only and have no problem with the idea of making everyone license every little thing.

Motivations of the last 6% are probably relating to trying to create a business that won't just be copied by someone who has access to resources faster than them, e.g. entrepreneurs and business folk..

When you create a business you're not applying for patents, and when you apply for patents you're not creating a business.

Have you tried getting funding before for something that's complex, though then could easily be copied / re-engineered by big companies? Investors will know this and you won't be able to start the business with investors' money in most cases like this.

And how exactly do patents help you here?

Can you provide some examples?

there's even a term for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism

Naw.. if you've got a 3 or 4 letter last name and you work in/on/around I.T. you're going to run into an acronym that happens to be your name at some point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com