5 1/2 months into discussing this topic and we're still delaying. If we don't want a policy on this, can we just have a vote to not adopt any policy until further review, and move on to areas we DO want policy in?

e.g. - make it something like:

Patents on (X)
[A] No policy
[B] No policy yet, but look for evidence-based solutions / analyses
[C] Stop granting new patents once an alternative system is in place
[D] Abolish patents immediately
[W] No confidence in the vote (if you use this option, you must place it first)

Cheers James g. That looks pretty good imo. Always small things like the above, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. not after 5 1/2 months anyway :p

[Edit: corrected 7 1/2 months to 5 1/2 months, it started in October]

This is the last call for policy proposals for patent reach. The current provisional options are available at:
Policy Committee Proposals on Patent Reach
Unless there are any objections, the current options will be moved to a vote on the evening of Tuesday 03/01/2012.

Voting is now open for the official PPNZ policy on patent reach. Voting will remain open until 11 pm on Wednesday 11/04/2012. Votes will be counted by the Condorcet method (which performs strategic voting on voters' behalf) with IR/STV as a tie breaker if necessary. The results will be posted in this thread. Except in the case of a tie, the winning options will become official policy.

There are 4 issues to vote on, and the options in each are:

Patents on non-tangible 'inventions':

• [A] No policy
• [B] No policy yet, but look for evidence-based solutions / analyses
• [C] Stop granting new patents once an alternative system is in place
• [D] Abolish patents immediately
• [W] No confidence in the vote (if you use this option, you must place it first)

Patents on pharmaceuticals:

• [E] No policy
• [F] No policy yet, but look for evidence-based solutions / analyses
• [G] Stop granting new patents once an alternative system is in place
• [H] Abolish patents immediately (requires 75% majority)
• [W] No confidence in the vote (if you use this option, you must place it first)

Patents on life:

• [I] No policy
• [J] No policy yet, but look for evidence-based solutions / analyses
• [K] Stop granting new patents once an alternative system is in place
• [L] Abolish patents immediately
• [W] No confidence in the vote (if you use this option, you must place it first)

Patents in all other areas:

• [M] No policy
• [N] No policy yet, but look for evidence-based solutions / analyses
• [O] Stop granting new patents once an alternative system is in place
• [P] Abolish patents immediately
• [W] No confidence in the vote (if you use this option, you must place it first)

(Option H would require a 75% majority to win because it goes beyond the policies of the international pirate movement, and is therefore considered non-core policy.)

A vote of no confidence means you think the way the options are presented is biased or misleading, that an option suggested during the discussion was inappropriately excluded, or that the vote is otherwise flawed.

Members can cast their vote by sending an e-mail (from the account they put on their membership application) of the following form:A separate line should be used for each issue that you wish to vote on. In the place of 'Q > R > S', 'T > U > V', and "X > Y > Z", include the letters that indicate your options in order of preference, separated by the greater than sign '>'. (It is also valid to separate options with the equal sign, for example "X > Y = Z" to indicate that you give Y and Z equal rankings.) You can vote on one issue, or all of them, or any number in between. For each issue you can include 1 option, or all of them, or any number in between, and including more options will not harm the chances of earlier options being successful. Only if the earlier options do not have enough support to be successful will the Condorcet method shift your vote to later options.

Before voting, please read the summary of ideas from the discussion available on the wiki page Policy Committee Proposals on Patent Reach (linked).

Can you clarify "non tangible inventions"? does this include software patents?

What is meant by "patents on life"?

"all other areas" may be overbroad.

Why is there no option to support patent-ability for any of these areas? or to say that the current system should be maintained? What about options to limit patent-ability but not abolish alltogether?

Software patents, mathematical formula, anything that is entirely abstract, not a physical thing or a process that results in the production of a physical thing. Apart from software, I believe these things are already excluded from patents in New Zealand. Which means the vote is really only about software, and really only about making sure the patent amendment bill gets passed without taking software back out of the list of things that can't be patented.


Patents covering genetically modified organisms (round-up ready canola etc), patents covering identified genetic sequences, tests for certain genetic disorders, etc. This is the bad side

There's also some interesting GMO research in New Zealand though, eg (about hte only example I can think of.. there will be others) adapting enzymes from thermophillic bacteria so that industrial processes can happen at higher temperatures and thus much faster. This is good stuff which probably deserves patents, and such patents won't stop anyone from growing their own food or getting medical treatment.



This is the wrong party if you want to be voting for -more- patents

The options aren't ideal but voting has already started. There is an option for 'no confidence' and if we get more than a few of these (not even a majority) I'll be pressing for a revote with options everyone is happy with.

Here's my perspective on that (from someone not on the Policy Committee):

Short answer: because in the 5 1/2 months that this official policy development thread was open to everyone for suggestions, no one suggested it.

Also, this is the first look at this topic, and there are umpteen other ones waiting. Those minor details can easily be sorted out by reviewing this policy later, which will happen. No policy and supporting the status quo are pretty similar, increasing patentability would probably be non-core policy. limiting patentability within one of those particular areas is something that it's now too late to suggest - the past 5 1/2 months was the time for that. besides, it's similar to "No policy yet, but look for evidence-based solutions / analyses" since there are no ready-made proposals.

There is always the no confidence option, and if it's an area enough people want reviewed (read - looked at in more detail), it will happen sooner.

I agree, but what I'm looking for is an option that says, "we think that patents are OK in this particular area". Some might feel that patents as they are now are fine for inventions such as a new type of variable-speed transmission (that I heard of about a year ago) for a car (strictly a hardware device). Basically that in some areas it's OK to maintain the status quo. Also missing would be an option that says that patents are good in some areas but the current length needs shortening and/or the system needs to be reformed.

patent term is (i assume) a separate policy which might come up in the next few months.

As the process is, it is kind of the responsibility of people who want those options to suggest them in the discussion phase, i.e. if no one asks for an option, while it might still be nice to have, it isn't needed. Way to have better options -> get more people involved in the discussion process.

I felt I'd share what my vote is:


Patents on non-tangible 'inventions':
D>C>B>A

Patents on pharmaceuticals:
H>G>F>E

Patents on life:
L>K>J>I

Patents in all other areas:
P>O>N>M

In for a penny, in for a pound huh?
My vote was... different :p