Sponsor's Message

Over in Australia, there's a lot of work going on in an attempt to scuttle the patent's progress through the approval system, for fear it will cost Aussie companies a small fortune if the patent is sealed.

The DET situation once again raises the whole issue as to whether software or business systems ought to qualify for patents, and if not, what other kind of protection could be offered for such innovations.

If Australia decides to decline DET's application, seemingly on the basis that it would be injurious to Australian business, that would create a very interesting and potentially dangerous situation for innovators.

All patents have the potential to be injurious to business -- after all, once something is patented, chances are that others won't be able to use it without the payment of some type of licensing fee.

If it's doing its job properly, the Aussie patent office should consider objections to DET's application solely on the merits of its qualification for a patent. This includes such things as whether it is non-obvious and whether there's any prior art that shows they weren't the first to think of it.

But what should a government do when it discovers that its patent office has issued a patent that threatens to unreasonably raise the barriers to entry in a critical sector of the market -- a sector that stands to play a significant role in future export earnings?

Obviously, they can't just void the patent because it's not good for the country's businesses can they? To do that would immediately give us banana republic status with our trading partners.

But could the government challenge the patent's validity on behalf of the many small NZ businesses who pay tax and stand to be badly affected by the licensing fees being demanded?

Given that the current government has already shown how it is prepared to gamble/invest taxpayer's money to protect various businesses in the best interests of the country (AirNZ, NZRail, etc), I don't think it would be such a big ask for government to set aside a Crown Solicitor or two to act on behalf of all NZ businesses and investigate the legitimacy of challenging this patent.

What do you think? Would this be a sensible use of taxpayer's dollars or should the government remain on the fence, simply an impartial observer?

If any Aardvark readers want to share an opinion on today's column or add something, you're invited to chip in and have your say in The Aardvark Forums or, if you prefer, you can contact me directly.

Contacting Aardvark
I'm always happy to hear from readers, whether they're delivering brickbats, bouquets or news tip-offs. If you'd like to contact me directly, please this form. If you're happy for me to republish your comments then please be sure and select For Publication.

Other media organisations seeking more information or republication rights are also invited to contact me.

Just add a couple of lines of JavaScript to your pages and you can get a free summary of Aardvark's daily commentary -- automatically updated each and every week-day.

Aardvark also makes a summary of this daily column available via XML using the RSS format. More details can be found here.

Contact me if you decide to use either of these feeds and have any problems.

Linking Policy
Want to link to this site? Check out Aardvark's Linking Policy.

Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it now!