902 points by gcforky 4568 days ago | 221 comments on HN
| Mild positive
Contested
Editorial · v3.7· 2026-02-28 09:24:28 0
Summary Innovation Access & IP Fairness Advocates
This ZDNET news article advocates for New Zealand's ban on software patents as a policy enabling broader participation in technology innovation and creative freedom. The content frames patent reform as removing barriers that prevented genuine software creators from operating, emphasizing fairness, innovation enablement, and protection against exploitative 'patent troll' practices. The article shows strongest alignment with UDHR provisions on freedom of expression in technology (Article 19), scientific participation (Article 27), and fair social order (Article 28).
Not so fast. Spin doctoring is no substitute for substance.
As Caesar used to say, "fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt" (people are ready to believe what they want to be the case).
The fact of the matter is that New Zealand has passed a law with some restrictive language, but this is far from abolition. Broad swaths of software patents can still be granted.
The real test of this will be if software companies flood to New Zealand to tinker to their hearts content without fear of litigation...
or if they flee NZ for fear of invalidating any patents they could have brought on their upcoming software.
I'd like to be able to say it will be the former, but I bet corporate lawyers will be pushing for the latter (if only out of a sense of self-preservation).
I'm glad this happened. For things like copyright, I thought there were international conventions - countries that were lax were hounded by others diplomatically. Is this not the case for patents?
Very roughly - if the innovation to be patented (ie the software) is used to improve the operation of the hardware then it is patentable. So buffering code in a HDD chip is presumably patentable (-ed). However if its a new way to display email - probably not. Not a clear win, and apparently similar to UK case law.
As Orwell wrote, "the English language ... becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."
Considering that patents are entirely a government creation, "ban" or "outlaw" does not apply, for such language treats patents as something apart from the state. Perhaps "stops issuing" would be more accurate, but it's not clear from the article whether that's actually the case.
Good news. NZ is already in the top-5 economically free countries while still maintaining a respectable social safety. And a couple SaaS heavyweights. Plus, no snakes.
Are there any good articles about how people in countries which allow software patents can benefit from this New Zealand body of law, such as incorporating as a New Zealand company and avoiding US jurisdiction for patent lawsuits?
US has banned 'software patents' long time ago. However, you can still patent a software being performed by a processor or computer, which then becomes 'hardware'. NZ has now caught up with US. It is not what you think it is.
If an idea is truly novel and valuable to the marketplace no patent is needed because the novelty itself provides ample time for you to 'recover' your investment.
Either no patents or very short patents[<=12 months for anything] is a basic requirement for a progressive society.
Software patents are an abomination. I could stomach copyright on software, because at least one is still permitted independent implementation and expression. I can't copy your code, but I can rewrite it.
Software patents on the other hand put a fence around ideas themselves. You can't draw a cursor using XOR by implementing it yourself, period, for 20 years.
The patent system is deeply broken, and it doesn't even stop big players anyway. Really, Apple successfully sued Samsung, did it stop Samsung from taking over half the market? Does $1 billion in fines really matter or Apple or Samsung over the long term? By the time these cases are settled, it has already played out in the consumer marketplace anyway. You can't defeat consumer success with patent attacks. Microsoft's Android revenue shakedown won't replace the death of Windows if it happens, and it won't make Windows Phone/Surface RT a winner.
It's a game only lawyers, IP trolls, or paid industry shills love.
Here is a question for the lawyers out there (which I am not): would it be possible to conceive a legal framework somewhat similar in spirit to the GPL, but with the goal of making any patent relying on it free of charge, ie. such that a patent delivered under those terms would be free of use, but also impose the same terms to any patent building up on its content?
They say they've adopted UK case law, which they claim is more restrictive than the overall European practice, but even under UK rules, hundreds of thousands of European software patents are valid. HTC challenged four Apple software patents and claimed in each case that the invention was not patentable because it was a computer program "as such" (today's New Zealand bill also excludes only patents on programs "as such"), and succeeded on only one of them, and even that one was overturned on appeal.
For further detail see the link in my first post to this thread in which I warn people against believing what they hope to be the case just because it makes them feel good, no matter how wrong it may be.
You're right on. There's a WTO treaty on the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and it requires patents to be available in all fields of technology. See TRIPS Art. 27: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm
That's probably part of the reason why New Zealand did't actually ban software patents today. For more information on why today's bill is not tantamount to the abolition of software patents, see my other comments on this thread.
As more and more people write code and become technically literate, I think we'll see lots of this sort of thing. Once the majority of normal people "get it" then it's all down hill for those trying to control ideas.
Don't be. This is the same country in which the PM thinks it's ok to literally walk out of a Q&A session with the press regarding a widely disputed bill that's being rushed into law.
If the product is created in NZ that uses technology patented in US for example, would it still be legal for them to do business in US, like offering services?
"The computer program exclusion is the subject of two governmental supplementary order papers (SOPs). Government SOP 120 introduces a European-style 'as such' exclusion that is considered to be more consistent with New Zealand's international obligations and precedents. More recent SOP 237 introduces several additional new clauses intended to clarify the meaning of the term 'as such'."
Wondering the same thing. What would it take to set up an equivalent of an LLC there to hold the IP of a saas business? And would Americans be able to do a tax pass-through (no or limited NZ tax liability and no change in US tax situation).
Keeping the software company in a NZ trust and using that to own a US LLC (for US operations) might be a good way to minimize IP liability.
NZ is not the first country to disallow software patents (also patents on game rules and business methods in some countries). I'm guessing something is stopping Americans from exploiting that. We are talking about the country that taxes its citizens for what they earn while they live in another countries. Only sure way out of this stupidity is to ditch the US citizenship.
The rationale here was that they still wanted to allow patents of machines and devices and they had to draw the line somewhere since software these days is embedded in almost everything. I think New Zealand has a very good set of laws in place and has shown remarkable courage to pass this anti-software-patent legislation. Unfortunately, their legislation to support government surveillance and software backdoors is really terrible.
I don't know. Every legal concept is entirely the government's creation, including both physical and intellectual property, so I'm not sure it's worth quibbling about that part.
Kiwi here. As another commenter mentioned, don't be. Overall, I think things are going downhill. The New Zealand Law Society recently reported to the UN Human Rights Council indicating that we've passed a number of laws recently that are in breach of human rights.
- We've very recently passed an odious bill to legitimise spying on NZ citizens.
- We've recently passed a bill that cannot cannot be challenged in court. (IANAL, don't ask me how this can be the case).
- We've recently passed a bill (copyright infringement) that presumes guilt.
In 2010 many New Zealanders staged a huge protest against mining conservation land (owned by the government, accessible to everyone). The government stood down. Yesterday I discovered permits for mining exploration have been granted on conservation land. Technically, this is land that was not under explicit discussion in 2010, but it unquestionably violates the spirit of the protests.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o...http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...
We're one of the few western democracies that hasn't banned or restricted shark finning. We'd rather have an estimated NZD 6m/yr (IIRC).
We'll have a few million dollars instead of an entire species (Maui's dolphin).
Merely being performed by a computer does not make software patentable in NZ under this new law. The inventive step has to involve the hardware to be eligible. They did just make a broad swath of software inventions non-patentable.
"Get a dozen sharp programmers together, give them all a hard problem to work on, and a bunch of them will come up with solutions that would probably be patentable, and be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent could sue the others for patent infringement." -- John Carmack
I disagree with this sort of extremism. What should not be patentable are basic "way of doing business" patents.
On the other hand, if someone slaves away for years and develops a truly new and unique compression technique, I don't see why that shouldn't be patentable. How is that any different from, say, a steel foundry developing a new unique alloy?
> It's a game only lawyers, IP trolls, or paid industry shills love.
I think it's a major problem when something like 60% of all IP litigation is over software patents, a relatively obscure area of the law until recently, but I disagree with this statement. I worked for two entrepreneurs who founded real R&D companies and considered patents to be a basic protection that allowed them to operate a small R&D company independently of a massive manufacturing company. These guys couldn't be further from the description of "lawyer" or "IP troll" or "paid industry shill." They're PhD's who have spent their entire careers inventing.
If you characterize everyone who relies on the existing patent system as a "lawyer" or "troll" or "industry shill" you'll make no progress in achieving the reforms of the system that need to happen. You cannot figure out how to solve a problem while understanding only one side of the issue.
Article strongly advocates for removing patent barriers as a mechanism to enable freedom of software creation and expression. Frames patent thickets as restrictions on developers' ability to create and innovate, with the ban presented as liberating creative capacity.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The article states the patent ban will 'effectively outlaw software patents' and enable New Zealand businesses to have 'more flexibility to adapt and improve existing inventions.'
IITP chief quotes: 'The patents system doesn't work for software, because it is almost impossible for genuine technology companies to create new software without breaching some of the hundreds of thousands of software patents that exist.'
The article presents this as a 'breakthrough day where old law met modern technology and came out on the side of New Zealand's software innovators.'
Inferences
The emphasis on removing barriers to software creation directly supports Article 19's protection of freedom to create, express, and share technological ideas.
The framing of patent restrictions as impossible barriers to innovation suggests the article views the ban as restoring creators' ability to exercise expressive freedom.
Public accessibility of this news article demonstrates structural support for free access to information about technology policy.
Article frames New Zealand's patent law modernization as advancing 'innovation' and 'progress,' aligning with preamble's aspirational language about social advancement and establishing conditions for human dignity.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The article quotes Commerce Minister Craig Foss describing the Patents Bill as 'modernisation of the patents law' that marked a 'significant step towards driving innovation.'
The article frames the ban as a breakthrough 'where old law met modern technology and came out on the side of New Zealand's software innovators.'
Inferences
The emphasis on 'innovation' and 'modernization' suggests alignment with the preamble's language on social progress and advancement.
The legislative process with stakeholder consultation reflects participatory decision-making that supports the preamble's framework of collective human advancement.
Article advocates for removing patent barriers as a mechanism to enable broader participation in scientific/technological advancement (27.1), while simultaneously reducing patent monopoly protections (27.2). Frames the ban as enabling genuine innovators while preventing abusive monopolies.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The article states the ban gives 'New Zealand businesses more flexibility to adapt and improve existing inventions, while continuing to protect genuine innovations.'
IITP chief quotes: 'this historic legislation will support our innovative technology industry.'
The article frames the 94% industry support as recognition that 'the patents system doesn't work for software' because existing patents prevent new creation.
Inferences
The emphasis on removing barriers to innovation participation directly addresses Article 27.1's right to participate in scientific advancement.
The distinction between legitimate patent protections and monopolistic barriers suggests the article balances IP protection (27.2) with participation rights (27.1).
The focus on enabling 'genuine innovations' suggests alignment with protecting actual scientific creators' interests.
Article advocates for a patent ban framed as enabling broader participation in the technology innovation economy, allowing more individuals and companies to work in and contribute to software development.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
The article quotes the minister framing the law as giving 'businesses more flexibility to adapt and improve existing inventions,' suggesting expanded economic opportunity in innovation.
The IITP chief references support for 'New Zealand's software innovators,' suggesting the policy is framed as enabling work and contribution in tech.
Inferences
The emphasis on removing barriers to business participation and innovation suggests alignment with Article 23's protection of the right to work in technology sectors.
Article advocates for the ban partly as a correction to an unjust system where 'patent trolls' exploited IP law unfairly. Frames reform as establishing a fairer social order for innovation.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The article states the ban 'sends a clear message to the rest of the world that New Zealand won't tolerate the vexatious practice of patent trolls.'
Inferences
The reference to removing 'vexatious' patent abuse suggests alignment with Article 28's right to a favorable social order that prevents exploitation and unfair advantage.
Article frames patent-troll abuse as a failure of equal legal protection and presents the ban as correcting systemic inequality in how patent law affected innovators.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The article quotes IITP chief stating that patent reform 'sends a clear message that New Zealand won't tolerate the vexatious practice of patent trolls.'
Inferences
The reference to 'patent trolls' and 'vexatious practice' suggests the article frames the ban as addressing unequal exploitation, which relates to equal protection before law.
Article reports on public legislative process with industry stakeholder input (94% industry consensus), suggesting adherence to fair, public procedures.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The article references an 'IITP poll of members' showing '94 percent of those with a view were in favour of banning software patents,' indicating a public consultation process.
Inferences
The reference to a public poll suggests the legislative process involved stakeholder consultation, which relates to fair and public procedures in decision-making.
Article presents patent removal as protecting legitimate property rights in innovation by removing monopolistic barriers rather than restricting genuine property protections. Frames ban as enabling more creators to protect their innovations.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The article quotes the minister saying the law gives 'New Zealand businesses more flexibility to adapt and improve existing inventions, while continuing to protect genuine innovations.'
IITP chief states 'it is almost impossible for genuine technology companies to create new software without breaching some of the hundreds of thousands of software patents.'
Inferences
The framing of patent restrictions as preventing legitimate creators from operating suggests the article views the ban as protecting property rights of real innovators.
The distinction between 'vexatious' patents and 'genuine innovations' suggests the article conceptualizes the ban as removing illegitimate restrictions on others' property-creation ability.
Article reports on democratic legislative process and shows evidence of public consultation (industry poll) and stakeholder engagement in policy formation.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The article describes the passage of a Patents Bill following 'five years of debate, delay, and intense lobbying,' suggesting an extended public and political process.
Inferences
The extended legislative debate and industry consultation indicates democratic political participation in shaping technology policy.
Article frames software innovation and patent reform as supporting scientific and technological advancement, which relates to participation in scientific progress.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The article describes the patent ban as supporting 'New Zealand's software innovators' and enabling 'driving innovation.'
Inferences
The framing of patent reform as supporting innovation suggests alignment with Article 26's right to participate in scientific advancement.
Content is publicly accessible without paywalls; ZDNET's structure supports broad access to technology information and multiple narrative categories, structurally supporting Article 19's freedom of information.
Public discourse on legislative progress with stakeholder input demonstrates structural support for transparent, participatory advancement of human rights-relevant policy.
Public discourse about innovation participation policy with stakeholder input demonstrates structural support for transparent decision-making on scientific advancement.
The term 'patent trolls' and 'vexatious practice' are used repeatedly to characterize patent holders exploiting the system. While descriptively accurate, the framing is emotionally charged and one-sided.
build 1ad9551+j7zs · deployed 2026-03-02 09:09 UTC · evaluated 2026-03-02 10:41:39 UTC
Support HN HRCB
Each evaluation uses real API credits. HN HRCB runs on donations — no ads, no paywalls.
If you find it useful, please consider helping keep it running.