> working at a minimum wage job

I've noticed gas stations start new people at almost double minimum wage. I made minimum wage - for about two months. Then I got raise because I reliably showed up for my shift - I was stoned out of my mind, but I was there. If you're over 16 1/2 and making minimum wage, start showing up on time. Flipping burgers is like a training bra to get prepared for an actual job, it's not a career for raising a family.

> 1/8th of their income

Do you not see that 1/8th of your income on soda is an INCREDIBLY stupid idea? Yet, I just spoke to someone who makes those kinds of decisions regularly. She literally buys several fountain drinks per day and she's on welfare. My ex-wife will always be broke because those are the decisions she makes.

You calculated five years of soda = 1 year of college.
My baby will be born soon. If I drop the soda money into a Roth for five years, that's one year of tuition. I then stop saving. In seven years, the investment doubles. In another seven, it doubles again. So that's four years of tuition when my kid is 19, because I skipped soda (or bought generic 2L bottles) for five years.

My dad grew up dirt poor, as in the floor of his parents. By making decisions like the soda decision, he ended up flying us on private jets when he was 40. Leaving his house, I did poor people stuff until I was living under a tarp behind the supermarket. Then I started doing rich people stuff. I'm now richer than 99.8% of people, having a comfortable home and a five figure income. (Yes, five figures is rich. Anything over $32K puts you on the top 1%).

Yes and no. You called that a "landmark case" this year, suggesting that it was previously unclear, and would remain unclear in cases not clearly bound by Bank.

  A REASONABLE reading of US statute would be to realize that it says "novel invention", nowhere does it say "on a computer". Therefore, people with reading comprehension problems think that means either a) doing the same old thing is patentable if you add the words "on a computer" or b) brand new inventions are not patentable if they are on a computer. Sure, both are silly interpretations of US law, but they are COMMON interpretations. The new NZ law spells it out in plain English.

So yeah, it's the same as US law IF the person reading US law has any common sense. Unfortunately, common sense isn't all that common in this area. Same as partial birth abortion - zealotry for a political stance makes people blind to the obvious.

Poking at Microsoft is always fun, but when their competitors were doing huge, high pressure deals worth billions and Google bid $3.1415 billion (pi billion) that was the best, I think.

With their reputation for April Fool's day prank launches, launching Gmail on April fool's was good too.

> And we have many in the software community cheering victory,
> when in fact this is a complete bait-and-switch defeat.

It seems to me that doing the same old thing "with a computer" is what shouldn't be patentable. On the other hand, a truly new invention should be treated as such, whether it uses wood, metal, silicon, or cat hair. An old idea is an old idea, a new invention is a new invention. That's what this law says, so I think it's a victory for common sense.

That particular clause says if the novel part is "solely in it being a computer program". "Lies solely in being" is a wordy way of saying "Only because it is", so let's make it clearer by using those clearer words which have the exact same meaningm:

[if it's new] Only because it's a computer program ...

So if it's "new" only because it's a computer program, it's not eligible. On the other hand, if it's new for some other reason, that's not new "solely in being a computer program", that's independent novelty and therefore eligible.

You are mistaken about what the NZ law says. I've quoted it several times, and other commentors have as well. The new NZ law says it's not patentable if the ONLY new thing about it is "in software". So GIF would be unpatentable only if it was previously done in hardware.

Well yes, one could invent a new material. If the process or machine is new, the material isn't relevant.

You be right, my example may not have been the best. I haven't looked carefully at "abstract idea" and how that applies to patents (or doesn't).

> That's independent of whether you implemented that abstract idea on a computer.

Indeed. If it's not patentable, it's not patentable. Not if built of wood, not if built of magnetic iron dust (on a hard drive).
If it is, it is. What one example is made from doesn't matter.

I'm afraid you're entirely theory falls completely flat when you realize that gears and levers are devices for doing multiplication.
ANY machine can be described with a mathematical function. Therefore, if you were correct that anything which can be described as a mathematical function is not patentable, machines are not patentable. Machines are patentable, and carry out functions, ergo you are mistaken.

What is true is that one cannot patent the fundamental laws of math or other "natural laws". You can, however, patent novel USES of natural laws.
You can't patent gravity, you can patent elevators. You can't patent division, you can patent the GIF method for image compression.
You can't patent friction, you can patent new tire inventions.

Obviously patents are for new inventions. Something that does something new, or does it in a new, better way.
A math textbook isn't a new invention, it doesn't do anything new. The first person to invent a book could have patented it.

Google's self-driving car may very well have something new in it. That new invention is patentable. After they invent it and patent it,
they might build it. When they build it, they might build it from steel, glass, rubber, magnetic disks, or brass. Maybe two or three different version made from different materials. Does it matter what material they use to make it? Why are magnetic particles somehow special?

> "It isn't a new invention if it is just software -- it must be part of a greater whole, such as an embedded device."

I see how to you got that idea, but read more carefully. What the examples are intended to show is that:

a) assume the washing machine has no new mechanics, so the washing machine is not patentable.
b) putting a computer program into the washing machine ALSO isn't patentable. That's the point of the law.
c) the computer chip may contain a program which IS a new invention and that program may be patentable.
d) it's patentable not BECAUSE it's a program, it's patentable because it's a new invention - being software is irrelevant

I think you're absolutely correct in the first part of what you said, which is why the second part makes no sense to me. You said:

> I create a machine to do something in a new and novel fashion. I do it using mechanical parts and gears (which are an implementation detail -
> the individual gears and such aren't really new or novel, just the way the machine works overall). I should be able to get a patent for that.

> Now, I rip out the gears and put in motors and software to do the same thing the gears did

It's the invention itself that's patentable. Whether you build a particular version of the invention from gears (metal) or Gears (software) makes no difference -
you might well do both. You could have a crank up gear version that sells for $3 and an electronic version of the same invention for $30. It's the invention
that's patented, not a particular build of it. We agree on that, right?

So why a whole new class of IP separate from patents. Patents cover "useful things". Programs are useful things. I don't see any reason to treat things differently whether they are built of wood, silicone, or silicon.

I do also agree on shorter patent terms, by the way, because the rate of technological change has increased. Technology didn't change nearly much from 1880 - 1900 as it did from 1980 - 2000. Not just with computers - biomedical technology, energy technologies, we're in a faster paced world now, so faster paced patent expiration makes sense. (Also MUCH faster copyright expiration.)

I think that the source code should have to be included as part of the patent application process. So that it can be examined to verify how novel the "invention" really is.

That's interesting. I think the exact opposite. I think that line of thinking, that using new code to do the same old thing makes it new, is exactly what created the problem. I think it would be better to know whether something is new by NOT mentioning if it's on a computer or not. Just say what it DOES. Does it do something new? If so, great, if not, buh-bye. I don't care if you use gears or code to do it.

I believe so, and I believe the bounce back patent is a good example - they didn't invent bouncing.

On the other hand, a meter could display the result of some new invention. We know progress meters are almost useless, especially in software but in
other areas as well. The fact that they've built 90% of the a new stealth fighter's parts doesn't mean the project is nearly complete, given that they've
completed the bolts but not the computer system. If someone INVENTED a new thing to measure progress accurately, that new invention would
be new whether it was displayed on a stick or on a screen.