<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"><channel><title>New Zealand on Feld Thoughts</title><link>https://feld.com/tags/new-zealand/</link><description>Recent content in New Zealand on Feld Thoughts</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.163.0</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 07:21:35 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://feld.com/tags/new-zealand/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Potential Progress On Dealing With Software Patents</title><link>https://feld.com/archives/2013/05/potential-progress-on-dealing-with-software-patents/</link><pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 07:21:35 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://feld.com/archives/2013/05/potential-progress-on-dealing-with-software-patents/</guid><description>I woke up this morning to a great article by Nick Grossman at Union Square Ventures on The Patent Quality Improvement Act. Nick does a great job of describing the software patent problem,</description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center" style="max-width:600px;width:100%;margin:0 auto;"><tr><td><div style="text-align:center;margin-bottom:24px;"><a href="https://feld.com" style="display:inline-block;"><img src="https://feld.com/images/email-header.png" alt="Feld Thoughts" width="600" style="max-width:100%;display:block;border:0;" /></a></div><p>I woke up this morning to a great article by Nick Grossman at Union Square Ventures on <em><a href="https://www.usv.com/2013/05/the-patent-quality-improvement-act.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Patent Quality Improvement Act</a>.</em> Nick does a great job of describing the software patent problem, suggesting several solutions, and explaining how the Patent Quality Improvement Act helps the increasingly dismal situation around software patents.</p>
<p>Nick has a great paragraph from Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School that describes a powerful solution to part of the problem – that of eliminating “functional claiming.” Regarding functional claiming, Mark says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>“This is a problem that is unique to software. We wouldn’t permit in any other area of technology the sorts of claims that appear in thousands of different software patents. Pharmaceutical inventors don’t claim “an arrangement of atoms that cures cancer,” asserting their patent against any chemical, whatever its form, that achieves that purpose. Indeed, the whole idea seems ludicrous. Pharmaceutical patent owners invent a drug, and it is the drug that they are entitled to patent. But in software, as we will see, claims of just that form are everywhere.”</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Mark has written a strong paper on this called <a href="https://www.stanford.edu/dept/law/ipsc/Paper%20PDF/Lemley,%20Mark%20-%20Paper.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Software Patents and the Return of Functional Claiming</a> that describes the problem – and the solution – in detail.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.avc.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fred Wilson</a>, Brad Burnham, Jason Mendelson, and I have been talking about the problem of software patents for a long time and Fred brought it up again today on his blog in a post titled <a href="https://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/05/piecemeal-patent-reform.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Piecemeal Patent Reform</em></a>. It’s nice to see <a href="https://twitter.com/ChuckSchumer" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Senator Chuck Schumer</a> proposing a <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s866" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simple yet powerful solution to part of the software patent problem</a>.</p>
<p>While we continue to struggle with patent trolls in the US – which used to be called “non-practicing entities” (NPEs) but now apparently prefer to be called “patent assertion entities” (PAE) – the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2013/05/08/new-zealand-government-announces-that-software-will-no-longer-be-patentable/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">New Zealand government has announced that software will no longer be patented</a>. Maybe someday we will be so bold.</p>
</td></tr></table>]]></content:encoded></item></channel></rss>