en.swpat.org is a wiki.   You can edit it.   May contain statements End Software Patents does not endorse.

November 2014: About Microsoft’s patent licence for .NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits

Difference between revisions of "New Zealand"

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(Patents Bill 2009: title: still ongoing)
(Who's lobbying for software patents: A leaked email and a collection of documents published by the government in response to an Official Information Act request shows that the pro-swpat lobbying)
Line 16: Line 16:
===Who's lobbying ''for'' software patents===
===Who's lobbying ''for'' software patents===
A leaked email and a collection of documents published by the government in response to an Official Information Act request shows that the pro-swpat lobbying is down to four entities:<ref>http://lists.endsoftwarepatents.org/archive/html/nz-public-discuss/2012-08/msg00000.html</ref>
* [[NZICT]]<ref>http://davelane.name/blog/dave/nzict-unwarranted-influence-software-patents NZICT</ref>
* [[NZICT]]<ref>http://davelane.name/blog/dave/nzict-unwarranted-influence-software-patents NZICT</ref>
* [[Microsoft]]
* [[IBM]]
* [[Business Software Alliance]]
===Who's against software patents===
===Who's against software patents===

Revision as of 18:35, 24 August 2012

Template:New zealand


Patents Bill 2009 (as of 2012, still ongoing)


The proposed Patents Bill affects the whole NZ patents system. Regarding software, it will introduce unlimited software patenting. It will almost certainly go through since it is considered both necessary and overdue. The issue was that the implications it has on software had not been sufficiently considered or discussed.

April 2010 status

2nd April 2010: Success! The commerce committee has recommended "Computer software" be excluded from patentability. HTML PDF.

IMPORTANT: It is still possible for parliament to override this after the second reading , which is uncommon and not likely but it has occurred before (s92a copyright ammendments) and should be monitored closely. The date of the second reading is not yet known.

Articles about this win:

Who's lobbying for software patents

A leaked email and a collection of documents published by the government in response to an Official Information Act request shows that the pro-swpat lobbying is down to four entities:[1]

Who's against software patents

  • NZCS.[3] From a recent survey, 80% of their members were against software patents.[4]
  • NZOSS (nzoss.org.nz) - members of which wrote letters which lead to the government recommending abolition of software patents.
  • NZRise[5]
  • Orion Health[6]
  • Jade Software Corporation[7]


This bill is the culmination of a review of the Patents Act 1953, which was started in August 2000.[8] The bill intends to completely replace the old Patents Act (1953). As part of the review, initial submissions from the public were sought in 2002. The Ministry of Economic Development's website hosts a summary of those submissions, including a section on Business Methods and Software, in which it seems only 14 submissions commented on software, and mostly only corporates, including Telecom NZ. Many of those few submissions were in favour of software patents, however about half "were against mere schemes or plans, mathematical algorithms and other abstracts concepts being patentable, although suggestions varied on how this could be best achieved within the Act.".

Judith Tizard introduced the proposed act to parliament in 2008. Tizard also introduced S92 copyright law amendments (provoking the Internet Blackout in February). Tizard stated in 2005 in stage 3 of the review that "Concern has been expressed in some quarters that allowing patents for business methods and software may in fact stifle innovation in these fields, rather than encourage it, and that business methods and software should not be patentable at all. There is no evidence, however, to support such a concern. [...] There are, then, no strong arguments for specifically excluding business methods and software from patent protection. In light of this, I consider that business methods and software should continue to be patentable as long as they meet the requirements for patentability." Which is clearly a very poorly informed recommendation.

It seems that stage 3 of the review may have also handed the responsibility of this part off to a Select Committee: "11. Submitters raised a number of policy issues. Most of the issues raised were of a nature that would be best dealt when the Bill is considered by a Select Committee. These issues included; ... 2. The patentability of computer software and business methods;":

At the first reading on 5 May 2009, the party votes were:

  • Supporting: National, Labour, ACT, Progres., United F, totaling 107 votes.
  • Not supporting: Green, Maori, totalling 14 votes.

Kevin Hague (Green MP) – the only MP to mention software in the first reading – points out that "the 20-year duration of patent coverage may be reasonable for a new mousetrap, but is effectively forever for a software idea". Kevin Hague is against software patents.

The Commerce Committee of the Parliament was inviting comments on the fill till July 2. The hearings, including the oral submissions, are over.

The commerce committee have recommended to parliament that software patents be excluded in the new patents act in section 15. This recommendation and the patents bill is yet to have a second reading in parliament, but is well on it's way to being passed as law.


There is also a supporting thesis by Joel Wiramu Pauling. The content of a draft is publicly available. The text of the final version may become available if all submissions are published (do they?). In the mean time, there is a version for sale.


The written law

Section 13 defines what is patentable, and sections 14 and 15 defines exclusions.

(The words in bold with serifs are terms that are defined by the bill. The words in bold without serifs are references to other parts of the bill.)

Note that inventions must be "a manner of manufacture" in the new law. However this is not sufficiently precise so as to unambiguously include or exclude software, as noted by Guy Burgess, solicitor.

Unifying examination with Australia 2012

In 2012, the government published a the Building Innovation[9] report. The only relevant mention of patents was one general statement:

Passing the Patents Bill will align our patent laws more closely with those of our trading partners and international best practice.

"aligning with trading partners" could be a euphemism for taking orders from the USA, or it could be innocuous.

Patent office decisions

The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) is responsible for examining patent applications.

In 2005, they approved an application for using a computer with an XML word-processor document, displayed with an XML Schema Definition, using software with the functionality of "parsing, modifying, reading, and creating the word-processor document".[10] [11]

To search for patents on the NZIPO website, go to their search page:

Then fill in one or more fields and go back to the top of the page and click "Submit query".

Related pages on en.swpat.org

External links

Government institutions

Third-party pages about The Patents Bill



  1. http://lists.endsoftwarepatents.org/archive/html/nz-public-discuss/2012-08/msg00000.html
  2. http://davelane.name/blog/dave/nzict-unwarranted-influence-software-patents NZICT
  3. "It's official: Software will be unpatentable in NZ". http://www.nzcs.org.nz/news/blog.php?/archives/97-.html. "...on balance, we believe they represent a far greater risk to smaller NZ-based software providers than opportunity, and there are many cases where they have significantly stifled innovation." 
  4. "NZCS lobbies to end patent protection for software". http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/nzcs-lobbies-to-end-patent-protection-for-software. "The move comes after a quick poll of NZCS members, IT professionals from around New Zealand, found 80 percent opposed patent protection for software." 
  5. http://fairdeal.net.nz/2012/07/nzrise-software-patents-and-the-tpp
  6. "Orion Health backs moves to block patents". http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/development/orion-health-backs-moves-to-block-patents. "Ian McCrae, CEO of Orion Health, which claims to be New Zealand’s largest application vendor, supports a Commerce Select Committee proposal to rule out software patents in New Zealand. The negatives of a patent system outweigh the positives, he says. “Obvious things are getting patented. You might see a logical enhancement to your software, but you can’t do it because someone else has a patent. It gets in the way of innovation.”" 
  7. "email sent to journalist". http://www.iitp.org.nz/news/archives/1818-It_s_official_Software_will_be_unpatentable_in_NZ. "Jade Software Corporation does not support patents related to software. Reflecting this position we withdrew from applying for patents a number of years ago. We believe the patent process is onerous, not suited to the software industry, and challenges our investment in innovation." 
  8. http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____5876.aspx
  9. http://www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/business-growth-agenda/building-innovation
  10. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10115247
  11. http://www.iponz.govt.nz/ipol-ipdocs/doc/11399/11399109_ido_6918154_6.doc

This wiki is part of the End Software Patents (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (Main ESP website) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (News) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (See: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, not a statement of ESP's views or policies, so no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (See: Help:How to make a good contribution)