![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
While most people won't appreciate this for decades to come: today will go down in history as one of the most important days in the 21st century. We're only 2013, so that seems like a somewhat bold statement (even for me)... but here's what happened:
New Zealand bans software patents
The bill was passed with a breathtaking 117-4 vote in the New Zealand Parliament (with the support of 94% of those in that country's population working in the software industry). Specifically, they have weasel-worded their way around provisions of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) by stating simply, "a computer program is not an invention". TRIPS "requires patents to be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology". If it's not "an invention", then it cannot be patented.
Why is this important? Because it means that anyone with access to the crudest of computer systems in New Zealand (or other countries if they are looking to New Zealand as a market) can now write software, and thus generate a living for themselves, without having to worry about the likes of Apple or Microsoft or Oracle or Cisco (etc.) crushing them like bugs if their creation competes or could potentially compete with software products from those companies. Software is the economy for the 21st century and New Zealand has drawn a line in the sand saying creativity and innovation are to be protected within its borders, not stymied by monopolistic multinationals. As one article put it: "In the US, software patents have been declared harmful to competition and innovation by both Google and Nobel Prize-winning economists, yet American technology companies continue to spend billions amassing them 'like they are tactical nukes.' With patents in hand, and a guarantee of mutual assured (legal) destruction in their back pockets, US tech giants may have less incentive to push for their ban than technology companies in small countries and emerging markets". Again, it opens up the door for non-corrupt (i.e. not controlled by the US) developing nations to stand up for their citizens against the crippling economic and cultural effects of software patents, an industry that (in its pure form) requires almost no infrastructure or capital to participate in (as India figured out and built an economy with from scratch ... oh, software patents are not permitted there either, funny that, eh?).
Two last things... Firstly, there is an online textbook that is available on the subject that examines intellectual property laws in general (including copyright, etc.) from UCLA available for free here:
Against Intellectual Monopoly
(no wondering about what side they come down in favour of at least). And, secondly, I do need to mention that I have a patent. A software patent. That basically details a way to re-architect the Internet to turn it from its current many-to-one mapping to a many-to-many mapping in a completely backward compatible way by altering a few standard protocols in specific ways (thus making the Internet much more robust, technologically feature rich, and reliable). Sadly, I filed said patent when I worked for Nortel Networks (now defunct... and taking with it the retirement of hundreds of thousands of Canadians as the Liberals and Convervatives stood by with their marshmallow sticks as the whole thing burned to the ground, but that's another story for another day) and it is now owned by Avaya who bought that division of Nortel Networks (and is sitting on it, doing nothing to innovate, doing nothing to advance the state of the art... presumably keeping it in their back pockets to use in legal battles against other companies and upstarts that want to make the Internet more reliable and flexible... again, a story for another day, there's not much of anything I can do about it currently). I have nothing polite to say about the situation given that I went the (painful) route of filing the patent in hopes that it would allow the necessary funding to be allocated to implement and deploy the technology (it was the only chance I could see as it needed to be done on a grand scale from an industry leading position). The patent was filed in 2001, Nortel Networks collapsed shortly thereafter (I bailed before it did, but eventually was caught in the wholesale meltdown of the high-tech industry in Ottawa, and ultimately ended up working in the US for six years so I could house and feed my children), and the patent wasn't actually granted until 2008 (it's a complex patent and took longer than most to wind its way though the US and international patent organizations).
The patent can be seen here: Network protocols for distributing functions within a network
If you look at all the patents that it is related to (many of which were about how to build load balancing server hardware and large web farms, which this patent does away with the need to have), it's clear (if you don't mind my saying so) that the idea was a revolutionary and foundational proposal. I also believed at the time it needed to be published in a high-visibility manner (after all, the patent system is supposed to be there to encourage companies and inventors to make their great ideas public to spur innovation while providing a tool to generate revenue from that invention even though its public... obviously it doesn't work that way these days). Given the paucity of actual general application of this technology (at least as far as I've seen), I would say that going the patent route was a mistake for me, and am actually quite upset that my idea was not used to its full potential (to say the least). I should also mention that I did contact Avaya (when I was weighing my options in 2009 before ultimately deciding to come back to Canada and get a degree in theoretical physics), and they basically told me that they were not interested in my involvement in commercializing technology based on my patent. Meh, I guess. There was a lot more money to be made (for Avaya and countless others) than will ever be realized the way things went, and the world was basically deprived of a game-changing (paradigm-shifting, and dare I say adjective-inducing) innovation. As a side note on the whole affair, the patent isn't even owned by Avaya... if you scroll down on the patent page I linked to, you will see the entry in March of this year that identifies that the patent is actually owned by a bank as part of a security agreement, presumably for financing received by Avaya to purchase Nortel Networks assets (or some other financing deal, I can't be bothered to look it up).
Needless to say, I now consider the patent system to be quite broken. Unfortunately, it's the only game in town when it comes to intellectual property rights for technological innovations (most venture capitalists won't even speak to you unless you've protected your invention already... first, it shows you have something; and secondly, and more importantly, there is no risk of you bringing an idea to them that they've already heard that you can later claim was your idea despite the fact you were late to the game). It's something of a no-win situation for me because I have another eight or so ideas that I should probably apply for patents on (only one of which could be considered a software patent), so I fight an ongoing ethics battle with myself on the subject. The only out is that I will not sign over these patents to a company that I'm working for (since I'm not working for anyone at the moment, if nothing else), but will rather have them as an independent inventor and can thus both realize the potential of the ideas and set them free if I think it will make a difference in the world (while having it as a tool against the Goliaths that might try to prevent the free spread of innovation, sort of like the GNU General Licence copyright idea: share the technology, but use the laws to prevent someone from attacking the freedom of that technology). Again, meh... it's academic at this point until I somehow find the time to actually write up the applications and file them (which I'm capable of doing on my own, I've even gone to workshops in Washington, D.C. at the US Patents and Trademark Office intended to assist and encourage independent inventors to file their own patents). Until then, I plan to raise a glass of champagne to the legislators of New Zealand this weekend for the service they have done to humanity.
New Zealand bans software patents
The bill was passed with a breathtaking 117-4 vote in the New Zealand Parliament (with the support of 94% of those in that country's population working in the software industry). Specifically, they have weasel-worded their way around provisions of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) by stating simply, "a computer program is not an invention". TRIPS "requires patents to be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology". If it's not "an invention", then it cannot be patented.
Why is this important? Because it means that anyone with access to the crudest of computer systems in New Zealand (or other countries if they are looking to New Zealand as a market) can now write software, and thus generate a living for themselves, without having to worry about the likes of Apple or Microsoft or Oracle or Cisco (etc.) crushing them like bugs if their creation competes or could potentially compete with software products from those companies. Software is the economy for the 21st century and New Zealand has drawn a line in the sand saying creativity and innovation are to be protected within its borders, not stymied by monopolistic multinationals. As one article put it: "In the US, software patents have been declared harmful to competition and innovation by both Google and Nobel Prize-winning economists, yet American technology companies continue to spend billions amassing them 'like they are tactical nukes.' With patents in hand, and a guarantee of mutual assured (legal) destruction in their back pockets, US tech giants may have less incentive to push for their ban than technology companies in small countries and emerging markets". Again, it opens up the door for non-corrupt (i.e. not controlled by the US) developing nations to stand up for their citizens against the crippling economic and cultural effects of software patents, an industry that (in its pure form) requires almost no infrastructure or capital to participate in (as India figured out and built an economy with from scratch ... oh, software patents are not permitted there either, funny that, eh?).
Two last things... Firstly, there is an online textbook that is available on the subject that examines intellectual property laws in general (including copyright, etc.) from UCLA available for free here:
Against Intellectual Monopoly
(no wondering about what side they come down in favour of at least). And, secondly, I do need to mention that I have a patent. A software patent. That basically details a way to re-architect the Internet to turn it from its current many-to-one mapping to a many-to-many mapping in a completely backward compatible way by altering a few standard protocols in specific ways (thus making the Internet much more robust, technologically feature rich, and reliable). Sadly, I filed said patent when I worked for Nortel Networks (now defunct... and taking with it the retirement of hundreds of thousands of Canadians as the Liberals and Convervatives stood by with their marshmallow sticks as the whole thing burned to the ground, but that's another story for another day) and it is now owned by Avaya who bought that division of Nortel Networks (and is sitting on it, doing nothing to innovate, doing nothing to advance the state of the art... presumably keeping it in their back pockets to use in legal battles against other companies and upstarts that want to make the Internet more reliable and flexible... again, a story for another day, there's not much of anything I can do about it currently). I have nothing polite to say about the situation given that I went the (painful) route of filing the patent in hopes that it would allow the necessary funding to be allocated to implement and deploy the technology (it was the only chance I could see as it needed to be done on a grand scale from an industry leading position). The patent was filed in 2001, Nortel Networks collapsed shortly thereafter (I bailed before it did, but eventually was caught in the wholesale meltdown of the high-tech industry in Ottawa, and ultimately ended up working in the US for six years so I could house and feed my children), and the patent wasn't actually granted until 2008 (it's a complex patent and took longer than most to wind its way though the US and international patent organizations).
The patent can be seen here: Network protocols for distributing functions within a network
If you look at all the patents that it is related to (many of which were about how to build load balancing server hardware and large web farms, which this patent does away with the need to have), it's clear (if you don't mind my saying so) that the idea was a revolutionary and foundational proposal. I also believed at the time it needed to be published in a high-visibility manner (after all, the patent system is supposed to be there to encourage companies and inventors to make their great ideas public to spur innovation while providing a tool to generate revenue from that invention even though its public... obviously it doesn't work that way these days). Given the paucity of actual general application of this technology (at least as far as I've seen), I would say that going the patent route was a mistake for me, and am actually quite upset that my idea was not used to its full potential (to say the least). I should also mention that I did contact Avaya (when I was weighing my options in 2009 before ultimately deciding to come back to Canada and get a degree in theoretical physics), and they basically told me that they were not interested in my involvement in commercializing technology based on my patent. Meh, I guess. There was a lot more money to be made (for Avaya and countless others) than will ever be realized the way things went, and the world was basically deprived of a game-changing (paradigm-shifting, and dare I say adjective-inducing) innovation. As a side note on the whole affair, the patent isn't even owned by Avaya... if you scroll down on the patent page I linked to, you will see the entry in March of this year that identifies that the patent is actually owned by a bank as part of a security agreement, presumably for financing received by Avaya to purchase Nortel Networks assets (or some other financing deal, I can't be bothered to look it up).
Needless to say, I now consider the patent system to be quite broken. Unfortunately, it's the only game in town when it comes to intellectual property rights for technological innovations (most venture capitalists won't even speak to you unless you've protected your invention already... first, it shows you have something; and secondly, and more importantly, there is no risk of you bringing an idea to them that they've already heard that you can later claim was your idea despite the fact you were late to the game). It's something of a no-win situation for me because I have another eight or so ideas that I should probably apply for patents on (only one of which could be considered a software patent), so I fight an ongoing ethics battle with myself on the subject. The only out is that I will not sign over these patents to a company that I'm working for (since I'm not working for anyone at the moment, if nothing else), but will rather have them as an independent inventor and can thus both realize the potential of the ideas and set them free if I think it will make a difference in the world (while having it as a tool against the Goliaths that might try to prevent the free spread of innovation, sort of like the GNU General Licence copyright idea: share the technology, but use the laws to prevent someone from attacking the freedom of that technology). Again, meh... it's academic at this point until I somehow find the time to actually write up the applications and file them (which I'm capable of doing on my own, I've even gone to workshops in Washington, D.C. at the US Patents and Trademark Office intended to assist and encourage independent inventors to file their own patents). Until then, I plan to raise a glass of champagne to the legislators of New Zealand this weekend for the service they have done to humanity.
