Judge Richard Posner has blogged:

I am concerned that both patent and copyright protection, though particularly the former, may be excessive.

To evaluate optimal patent protection for an invention, one has to consider both the cost of inventing and the cost of copying; the higher the ratio of the former to the latter, the greater the optimal patent protection for the inventor. The ratio is very high for pharmaceutical drugs. The cost of inventing a new drug, a cost that includes the extensive testing required for the drug to be approved for sale, is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, yet for most drugs the cost of copying—or producing an identical substitute—is very low. And so the ratio of the first to the second cost is very high, making it hard for the inventor to recover his costs without patent protection (and for the additional reasons that the present value of the revenue from sale of the drug is depressed because of the length of time it takes to get approval, and that the effective patent term is truncated because the patent is granted, and the period patent protection begins to run, when the patent is granted rather than, years later, when the drug can begin to be sold).

Pharmaceutical drugs are the poster child for patent protection. Few other products have the characteristics that make patent protection indispensable to the pharmaceutical industry.

I think Judge Posner articulates well why patents are so necessary in areas such as pharmaceutical. Without them, we would have far fewer drugs and vaccines.

The problem of excessive patent protection is at present best illustrated by the software industry. This is a progressive, dynamic industry rife with invention. But the conditions that make patent protection essential in the pharmaceutical industry are absent. Nowadays most software innovation is incremental, created by teams of software engineers at modest cost, and also ephemeral—most software inventions are quickly superseded. Software innovation tends to be piecemeal—not entire devices, but components, so that a software device (a cellphone, a tablet, a laptop, etc.) may have tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of separate components (bits of software code or bits of hardware), each one arguably patentable. The result is huge patent thickets, creating rich opportunities for trying to hamstring competitors by suing for infringement—and also for infringing, and then challenging the validity of the patent when the patentee sues you. 

Just as patents encourage innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, there is a growing belief they stifle innovation in the software space. Hence why NZ has, in theory, decided not to allow software patents.

The Government has proposed a legislative wording which is effectively:

A computer program is not an invention for the purposes of this Act … to the extent that a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such

Labour MP Clare Curran has proposed an amendment, supported by many NZ technology groups, being:

A computer program is not an invention for the purposes of this Act … ]but] does not prevent an invention that makes use of an embedded computer program from being patentable

Guy Burgess has blogged that an opinion by Andrew Brown QC has stated:

 the Government amendment, now incorporated into the Bill following the second reading, will effectively allow the patentability of computer programs except where these have no technical effect e.g. algorithms, schemes or plans

Andrew Brown is one of the leading intellectual property lawyers in NZ, if not the leading one, so his opinions carry considerable weight. His full analysis is here. It is worth noting that overall, he thinks the “as such provision” presents a workable set of criteria and signposts.

Personally I think the issue is not just a workable definition, but also whether you want software patentable at all. My view is that amendment by Clare Curran is superior as it clearly says software is not patentable, however protects inventions that have software embedded within them.

National no doubt has to vote in line with the Government decision. However United Future, ACT and the Maori Party do not. I hope they take the time to get to grips with this issue – which is an important one for many NZ technology firms, and that they back the Curran amendment. It is, in my opinion, closest to what the Select Committee unanimously recommended.

Claire Trevett writes:

If you want someone to argue against former Labour MP John Tamihere making it back into Parliament, look elsewhere.

For if Planet Key has its own idylls in rolling greens and toilet-free climes, on Planet Media, utopia would be Tau Henare as the Speaker and John Tamihere back on the Labour benches.

And Hone as a Minister!

Labour is a different party from the one he left in 2005, and its leadership is more tolerant, both of Tamihere’s own political position and his character type.

The renaissance of Damien O’Connor despite his talk of gaggles of gays and self-serving unionists is evidence of that. But the left still holds great sway – and politically, Tamihere foxtrots on the margins of Genghis Khan’s beliefs.

I think Shearer would like Tamihere back, but not so sure he could use his limited influence to win him selection or even a winnable list place.

John Ansell blogs:

You’re invited to Treatygate/Colourblind State speech, Remuera Rotary Club, next Monday 8th October, 6.30pm.

If you’re in Auckland this coming Monday evening, I’ll be making my first speech about the Treatygate/Colourblind State campaign to the Remuera Rotary Club.

(At the Remuera Bowling Club, just to confuse you.)

You’re invited, and so are the media. …

Well, here’s a few things they didn’t tell you:

• In 1840, those old chiefs were queuing up to take the Queen’s money for huge tracts of their land. Why? Because they had no use for it. Their tribes were tiny, and they knew nothing of farming or forestry. They just saw it as waste land, so why not swap it for something useful?

• In 1860, the largest-ever gathering of chiefs thanked the British for giving them law and order and property rights, for abolishing cannibalism and slavery, and for saving their people from extinction after a quarter century of intertribal genocide. (If only today’s Maori leaders were as grateful!)

• As war loomed, the rebel tribes were warned that if they took up arms against the Queen, they’d have their lands taken and given to people who could be trusted to keep the peace.

• All major Treaty claims were settled by 1947 – before the Pandora’s box was stupidly reopened in the 1970s.

• Some claims have now been settled “fully and finally” four and five times – with no end in sight.

• Hobson’s long-missing final Treaty draft was found in 1989, then hushed up by state academics. Why? Because that draft said the same things as the Maori Tiriti (the only treaty Hobson recognised). And both the draft and the Tiriti make it clear that the Treaty was with “all the people of New Zealand”, not just Maori. And neither makes any mention of Maori owning forests or fisheries.

On Monday in Auckland, at the Remuera Rotary Club (which meets at the Remuera Bowling Club), I’ll be putting up my evidence against the Treatygate fraudsters.

More crucially, I’ll be putting up some solutions about how we can put an end to the Treatygate rort, and chart a more unified course.

Should we hijack the hijackers with a written constitution of our own?

Should we petition for a referendum to sweep away the whole Treaty gravy train once and for all?

Or should we start a one-off, one-term, totally incorruptible, single-issue political party to force the government to start running New Zealand as a democracy?

Should be an interesting speech.

“Fluffy”

Click for larger, higher res image

Adult black swans are I confess, one of the least endearing birds I’ve encountered. Large aggressive birds are a tad lacking in charisma.  Still, its hard to deny that juvenile birds, clothed in down, have a much greater appeal.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Labour MP Nanaia Mahuta has hit back at speculation she will be demoted in a looming reshuffle by Labour leader David Shearer, indicating she will resist any attempt to take the education portfolio from her.

Mr Shearer confirmed last weekend he intended to go ahead with a reshuffle toward the end of the year. The recent appointment of Chris Hipkins to the education team and Ms Mahuta’s relatively low profile in the role until recently prompted speculation she would be taken off the front bench and the education portfolio given to another MP. The reshuffle will also coincide with Ms Mahuta having her second child in December.

If Shearer demotes her, it will look like she is being demoted for being pregnant and a mother. Would be a terrible look.

Ms Ms Mahuta said this time she intended to return to work and her pregnancy should not be a factor in any decisions to do with the reshuffle.

“I’ve said I intend to come back to work and I am happy in the role that I have in education, and I will work hard and am committed to that because it is an important portfolio.”

The other problem for Labour is their lack of Maori MPs who can become Ministers. Pareura is invisible (well politically) and on his way out. Shane Jones is under a cloud. And Mahuta is having people brief against her.

Asked about her future in politics, Ms Mahuta said she did intend to stand again in 2014. She was more dismissive about the possibility John Tamihere could run for Parliament again, saying Labour had decided during its recent organisational review that it should focus on attracting more young people and women to ensure it was in a strong place through to 2026.

“John Tamihere says a lot of things, and a lot of them are very memorable, like front bottoms, so if there’s space for John Tamihere in the Labour caucus it will probably be at the call of the current leadership. But what I know is that the future of the Labour Party will require looking to a younger generation of Maori leadership.”

Doesn’t sound like a warm welcome for JT.

A lawyer e-mailed me on this. You can see at this site a massive article in the SST about a woman called Erica and how in a marital dispute she could not afford a lawyer, and how the Judge didn’t allow her to miss a court hearing due to her having cancer. It quotes her saying she needs $300,000 for her future medical care. The entire article is based on what she said, and no attempt was made it seems to talk to anyone else.

Two weeks later, this article appeared, quoting the Family Court principal judge. He provided an extract from the oncologist who said “This is a low grade disease …”, and also how she had withdrawn from various sale agreements which had been reached, and then finally refused to communicate with her ex-husband anymore to try and reach a resolution.

It gives a very different perspective to the original article, and this information should have been in the original article. How is it good journalism to just take allegations, and not seek a response?

Note the free personality test on offer!

Scientology is know to recruit people by offering them free personality tests also. Is there a link? 🙂

Well no one picked this. Not only did Romney do very well, but Obama failed to connect. Romney was relaxed and confident and talked about actual people to illustrate his points while Obama looked like he’d rather not be there.

Obama had obviously been told you’re the front runner so don’t mix it up too much – generally good advice, but he took it too far and came across to technical.

I don’t think the debate by itself will change the polls massively, but it will hearten the Republicans and help them with fundraising and getting activists out there. The challenge for Romney is to build on the momentum.

The next debate is the VP debate, and Biden could be anywhere from okay to awful, so the Democrats will be looking forward to the next presidential debate. Off memory it is on foreign policy where Obama should be stronger – and I suspect more aggressive.

Those wanting to order stuff from overseas may be interested in Prezoom. You can order stuff in the UK and US to a local address there, and they then ship it to NZ. Cost is $19.50 for first 1/2 kg and then $4.50 for every 1/2 kg after that.

The NZ Post service is $23.00 for first 1/2 kg and then $10.50 for every 1/2 kg after that.

Hoping some competition will see prices for both firms head down.

The Herald reports:

Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson breached BBC guidelines by comparing a Japanese car to people with growths on their faces.

A report by the BBC Trust’s editorial standards committee (ESC) found he “strayed into an offensive stereotypical assumption” with the scripted remarks during an episode of the hit motoring show.

A member of the public complained about the “offensive” remarks after Clarkson likened the shape of a Prius campervan to someone with “a growth on their face” and referred to it as the “elephant car”.

He also described it as “not a car that you could talk to at a party unless you were looking at something else”.

The ESC said the show’s audience enjoyed the presenters’ “sometimes controversial and forthright views” but ruled this remark “played on a stereotypically negative reaction to facial disfigurement”.

It said it “strayed into an offensive stereotypical assumption” and was “not editorially justified”.

Oh Good God you can’t even joke about elephantiasis now?  This must be one of the least offensive things Clarkson has said!

Taken by a reader this morning. The Police are onto it!

The University of Canterbury announced:

The University Council has approved a four percent across-the-board increase in domestic tuition fees for 2013.

The University’s student services levy will also increase in 2013 from $635 to $699 but, for the first time, will include gym membership (which currently costs $120 per year).

Surveys have consistently identified the Health Centre and Recreation Centre as services highly valued by students and we have responded to this feedback by incorporating gym membership into the student services levy.

With gym membership included in the levy, students will no longer have to pay an upfront fee to use the gym.

So 100% of students will be forced to fund a gym, which a minority will use. With 19,000 students, the average student wouldn’t be able to use it even once a week – yet are forced to pay for it.

Also it is a naked money grab. The fee used to be in fact $99 for those who joined in February, and now instead each student will pay $64 more in fees.

Also many students may choose to exercise at another gym, or by going running or cycling. Why are they forced to subsidize the gym?

Here’s a novel idea. Let each student keep their own money, and they can decide for themselves what to spend it on.

This just reinforces for me that most universities have little fiscal discipline, and mis-use their income for non-core activities. Good luck convincing the Government you need more money.

The Herald reports:

Hospital bosses have launched an investigation into a breach of patient privacy after details of an eel getting stuck up a man’s bottom were made public.

The Auckland District Health Board said this afternoon that it would investigate “the apparent inappropriate access of clinical records and the possible separate leaking of information to the media”.

The Herald on Sunday reported that an unnamed man who turned up at Auckland City Hospital last month was sent for X-rays and a scan, which showed there was an eel lodged inside him.

Board chief executive Ailsa Claire, who began her role this week, said high standards of professionalism were expected from staff.

“One of the fundamental responsibilities of working in a healthcare environment is showing respect for patients’ right to privacy,” she said.

t”I take that responsibility very seriously indeed and I expect our staff to work and act at all times with a level of professionalism that honours the trust our patients place in us.”

Ms Claire said any breach of a patient’s privacy was taken seriously and, if proved, would result in disciplinary action.

Oh come on, are we not getting a bit precious.

If anything was done to identify the actual patient, that would be very serious.

But do you really think medical staff are not going to talk about how they found an eel up someone’s bottom?

A&E doctors and nurses are often asked about the most unusual things they have had to remove from patients. As long as it is general and not naming an individual, what’s the harm?

The Herald on Sunday reported a hospital source as saying the eel was “about the size of a decent sprig of asparagus”.

“The incident is the talk of the place. Doctors and nurses have come across people with strange objects that have got stuck where they shouldn’t be before, but an eel has to be a first,” the source was reported as saying.

Of course it is the talk of the place. We get too precious sometimes.

I was on a panel at the recent Miro Summit on gender diversity in the boardroom. My speaking notes are here.

As I said, I am not a fan of any sort of quota system, but I do think that companies do better with diversity (in all its forms) on their board.

Anyway for those interested in this area, Women on Boards have a Gender Diversity Summit on the 1st of November. Their keynote speaker is Dr Sharon Lord, who in her 30s was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Ronald Reagan. Lord lives in NZ for five years.

A great Venn diagram. From Pinterest.

This letter to the editor warns that if same sex marriage leads to an increase in homosexuality, then ducks could take over the world as they always nest in pairs. Jasmin doesn’t want humans to compete with ducks and warns us that the ducks may get us in the end.

Sadly for Jasmin, I think her homeschooled education may have overly romanticsed the duck. I’d heard somewhere that duck sex often involves rape, but didn’t realise quite how bad ducks are in the sex stakes. I relayed my findings over Twitter last night to both amusement and horror.

Around one third of duck sex is duck rape. And we’re often talking gang rape of ducks when a group of drakes will basically subdue a female duck. Wikipedia says:

When they pair off with mating partners, often one or several drakes end up “left out”. This group sometimes targets an isolated female duck, even one of a different species, and proceeds to chase and peck at her until she weakens, at which point the males take turns copulating with the female.

One site makes the point:

They’ll hump any species, any gender, anytime.

Even worse for Jasmine who implied ducks may evolve further as they don’t do same sex stuff, well one Dutch researcher saw a drake ravage another male’s lifeless duck-corpse for seventy-five minutes.

Male Mallards also occasionally chase other male ducks of a different species, and even each other, in the same way. In one documented case of “homosexual necrophilia”, a male Mallard copulated with another male he was chasing after the chased male died upon flying into a glass window.

Sure he may not have married the dead drake at the end of it, but …

Basically ducks are nasty little creatures. I feel rather guilty for all the times I have fed them.

Interesting rep Todd Akin may have been right about females not getting pregnant if they are raped – if he was talking about ducks.

Some vaginas had spiral channels that would impede sex by twisting in the opposite direction to that of the male phallus. Others had as many as eight cul-de-sac pouches en route, that could prevent fertilisation by capturing unwelcome sperm. Moreover, these features were only found in species renowned for forced sex. All other species had simple male and female genitalia.

“These structures are wonderfully devious, sending sperm down the wrong road or impeding penetration,” says Birkhead.

He says that the features demonstrate an evolutionary “arms race” in which control over reproduction alternates between the sexes. If the male develops a longer, more elaborate phallus to force copulation, females wrest back control by developing features to thwart males who rape.

I will agree with Jasmine that we don’t want to live in a planet ruled by our duck overlords.

Incidentally the duck penis is rather large. In some ducks it can stretch to 40 cm or so, which if they were a human would be a 3.5 metre penis.

Many dolphins are also rapists, and like mallards do either gender.

We’ve seen an interesting comparison of two parliamentary leaders who have both not recalled a mention of an issue in a briefing or presentation.

In July 2011, then Opposition Leader Phil Goff said that he was “not aware of the allegations” around the Israeli hitchhikers.

More recently John Key said he was unaware of the GCSB involvement in the Kim Dotcom case until a couple of weeks ago.

It turned out in the case of Phil Goff he was briefed personally by the Director of the SIS in March 2011. A contemporaneous file note states that it was on the agenda, that Goff asked a question about it, that it was “discussed at length” and notes that Goff was shown the investigation paper and that Goff read it.

In the case of John Key, the GCSB has said that the PM was not briefed on the case until September 2012, but that at a visit to the GCSB offices in Feb 2012, he was given a powerpoint presentation where the Dotcom issues was briefly mentioned, and an image of Dotcom was one of 11 in a montage. The Director says he does not recall the reference, but his staff say it was mentioned briefly.

Now I have to say I believe both Phil Goff and John Key, in that they didn’t recall their respective issues. I would point out that SIS meeting with Goff was a one on one meeting specially to brief on intelligence issues – not a general “this is what we are up to” type presentation. But regardless both men have hundreds of meetings a month.

Where there is a stark difference, is when documents came to light that highlighted there was a briefing or mention.

Even though there is no written record of the matter being mentioned to him,, and even though the GCSB Director says he doesn’t recall it, John Key has said he accepts the recollection of the other GCSB staff – and at the first opportunity has made public that fact, and has said he will correct the record.

Now compare that to what Phil Goff did.  Phil Goff accused the SIS of lying, and inventing things, and said he would refuse to meet them in the future without witnesses. Even to this day, he refuses to admit his memory may have been faulty.

I think that speaks volume about character.

A nice takeoff of Gangnam Style.

The original Gangnam video is here, in case you are part of the 1% who hasn’t seen it. It is at 350 million views!

A reader sent these in, to give others an idea of how many choices most US people get when they vote. He says some years there are four pages of things to vote on.

From Pablos:

Artworks by some of New Zealand’s favourite artists will be up for grabs on 17th October at the Pablos Art Auction 2012. Tickets on sale now!

 You’ll find work from Dick Frizzell, Michel Tuffery, Nigel Brown, Wayne Youle, Tom Sladden, Sam Broad, Ewan McDougall, Matt Gauldie, Andrew Blythe, Rob Cherry, Angus Walker, Chris Grosz, Jane Blackmore, Jon Drypnz, Miss Mica Still, Scott Kennedy, Ruth Korver, Michele Irving, Ben Buchanan, Stephen Templer, Rose-Marie Salmon, Greg Broadmore, John Lake, Gavin Chilcott, Debbie Pointon, Anne Marie Jean, Antoinette Ratcliffe, Di Conway, Margaret Elliot, Jane Hyder, Nestor Opetaiaand many more, including of course, the wonderful artists from Pablos Art Studios.

 Come along and join in the excitement of a live auction.  Bid on works you fancy and maybe you will be taking home a unique art work as well as supporting Pablos Art Studios.  It doesn’t get better than that!

The Pablos annual fundraising Art Auction is at a NEW VENUE (with 100 free carparks) in

THE GREAT HALL, MUSEUM BUILDING

at Massey University on Wednesday 17^th October.

 $20 Pre-sale tickets are available from ROAR! gallery or Pablos Art Studios.

There will also be $25 Door Sale tickets available on the night.

Doors open at 5pm to pre-view the work, bid on the silent auction, eat, drink and enjoy some live music.  The live auction gets underway at 6.30pm.

Sounds like a great range of art works will be there.

A reader e-mails:

Thought you might be interested in this. I am a labour supporter, but I can’t let basic scientific illiteracy like this go unpunished, so could you please do the honours? 

 The speech is at Cunliffe.co.nz/speech-forward-growing-good-jobs/

At the very start of his speech he launches into an analogy about how we need to have an economic system with more examples of win win symbiosis, like that between plants (who breathe out oxygen and breathe in CO2) and animals (who breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2). He concludes that “the green plants and I need each other”. 

 As any third former will tell you, yes WE need plants for the oxygen they produce during photosynthesis. But THEY don’t need us for the CO2 we produce during respiration in which we burn up the fruits of their photosynthesis. They also respire and produce CO2. That is why they photosynthesise in the first place. So they can make and store food and then use it later to produce energy and CO2. 

 Scientific progress is the main reason why the economy has grown so much over the last 200 years. When an aspiring PM doesn’t know or care enough about science to get it right then this is not good. He needs to be called out on this.

The reader is of course quite right. Plants enjoyed life on earth long before us humans turned up. Scientists think photoynthesis started around 3.5 billion years ago and diverged from chimps around 5 million years ago.

To be fair to DC, plants benefit from us humans, as the CO2 they produce is not the same as what they consume, but they certainly don’t need us. His words were:

The green plants and I need each other. We trade what we produce, and both sides survive and prosper as a result of our necessary partnership.

Sadly for us, the plants can survive and prosper without us. They find us useful, not not essential!

Hopefully DC’s economics are better tested than his science 🙂

As I did under Labour, I blog every so often on how many staff in total are employed in the Beehive (well in Ministerial Offices). The latest staff list has numbers slightly declining, so no blow out in numbers, as happened under previous Governments. The data is:

So there are 20% fewer comms and media staff than under the previous government. A couple fewer political advisors, a few more portfolio advisors, and a lot fewer admin staff.

Staff numbers are a bit like PQs. You don’t want too few, or too many. Generally each office has one manager and one press secretary. The frontbench Ministers often have a second comms person, but Ministers outside Cabinet often have no dedicated media person at all.

Most offices have a political or ministerial advisor. They are the ones who are meant to give some independent advice to the Minister about what their departments want them to do.

The portfolio staff are often seconded, and often work for Ministers of all parties.

The admin staff, well they administer.

No surprise the office with the most staff is the PM, who has 26 staff. The previous PM had 31. The smallest is Simon Bridges with a frugal five staff.