New NZICT board members include Kordia CEO Geoff Hunt, Microsoft NZ Managing Director Paul Muckleston, Richard Laverty who is the Director of creative, services and information and communication technology at NZ Trade and Enterprise, Fronde CEO Ian Clarke and SwayTech Director Bob Pinchin.

The new board members join those board members who were re-elected to the board for a second term: Cisco NZ Country Manager Geoff Lawrie, IBM Asia Pacific senior manager Daryl French, Gen-i Australasia CEO Chris Quin, Simpl CEO Bennett Medary and Kinetics Group CEO Andrew Hunt. 

The NZICT board also has two Independent Board Representatives: Telecommunications Carriers’ Forum CEO David Stone and Westpac General Manager of Customer and Technology Services David Boyes.

A new Chair will be appointed at the first meeting of the Board in August 2010.

NZICT Board members represent the diversity of our membership and will assist with the industry’s growth and economic development plans, both in terms of productivity improvements in the domestic economy and growth in export revenues, says NZICT CEO Brett O’Riley.

NZICT membership is nearing 100 New Zealand technology firms and related organisations with collective revenue of more than $10 billion and staff of around 10,000.

With exports of around $5 billion, the technology industry has become the third largest export segment market in New Zealand.

“We have an exciting range of programmes in prospect including the Digital Technologies Symposium, Small Business Competition, Smartstreet Fibre Pilot, China ICT Trade Mission, and the Rutherford Hi-Tech Forum, the latter in conjunction with RWC 2011,” says O’Riley.

“We will continue to drive awareness of what technology can do for businesses and the community.”

ends

For more information contact: NZICT CEO Brett O’Riley 02102709021

NZICT Group Board

Tier 1: Geoff Lawrie - Cisco, Geoff Hunt - Kordia, Daryl French - IBM, Paul Muckleston - Microsoft, Chris Quin - Gen-i

Tier 2: Bennett Medary - Simpl Group, Richard Laverty - NZTE, Ian Clarke - Fronde

General Tier: Andrew Hunt - Kinetics Group, Bob Pinchin - SwayTech

Independent Board Representatives: David Stone - TCF, David Boyes - Westpac

View Board Profiles

Industry group NZICT is organising a hi-tech forum that will coincide with the tournament and match local firms with potential international investors, distributors and customers.

Read the full article here

Tier 1

• Chris Quin, Gen-i
• Daryl French, IBM
• Geoff Hunt, Kordia
• Geoff Lawrie, Cisco
• Paul Muckleston, Microsoft

Tier 2

• Bennett Medary, Simpl
• Ian Clarke, Fronde
• Richard Laverty, NZTE

Tier 3

• Andrew Hunt, Kinetics Group
• Bob Pinchin, Swaytech

Board Profiles

If you need assistance with an existing or new technology project, we may be able to help.

NZICT Group represents suppliers across the spectrum of technologies and we are looking to assist a budding company that needs an ICT boost.

Registrations of interest are open for companies with vision that are looking for assistance with an ICT project.

NZICT will match your ICT project dollar for dollar to at least $10,000. We will assign a consultant to work with you.  Depending on your business, this could involve hardware, software, training or other ICT services.

See us at Bizzone Wellington: 21st-23rd July. Visit us at stand 134 to register and you could be in to win a 500GB external hard drive!

Terms and Conditions

1.     Registration of interest: By registering for the NZICT Smart Business Competition (the Competition) the registrant is assenting to receive more information about the Competition and information about how ICT can improve and assist business operations. You or your company’s details will not be used for any other purpose.

2.     Registration period: Entries will be open on or about a month’s time from when registrations open on July 21, 2010. NZICT will then assess all entries for the competition on or before October 30, 2010. NZICT’s judging panel will create a shortlist of up to five entries and work with those entrants to refine and finalise their entries. The winner or winners will then be notified by our judging panel on or around early December, 2010.

Register your interest now!

This announcement comes after considerable public debate in light of the Commerce Select Committee’s (CSC) recommendation that software should be excluded from patentability. Software industry groups were concerned about the impact the blanket exclusion might have on the ability to protect innovation in New Zealand. Simon Power, the Minister of Commerce, has now decided that the Patents Act will exclude all software from patent protection, but Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) guidelines will allow inventions for “embedded” software.

Read the full article

Source: James & Wells Intellectual Property

Owners of wireless internet connections are vulnerable to a number of dangers if they do not exercise adequate security precautions. A recent decision from the German courts has highlighted one potential risk of which New Zealand wireless owners should be mindful: copyright infringement.

Author: Jonathan Lucas, June 2010

Wireless internet connections, popularly known as WiFi^TM connections, enable mobile devices such as laptops to connect to the internet via a wireless link.  The wireless link is conveyed through a wireless router.  Most wireless internet connections conform to the IEEE 802.11 set of standards for carrying out Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) communication.

A wireless connection can be protected to prevent it being used by unauthorised persons.  For example, the connection can be encrypted such that only people with a password can use it.  If a connection is left unprotected, anyone with a suitable mobile device within range of the signal can use it to access the internet.

In the recent German case, a home wireless connection of person A was not secured.  Another person (B) was able to use the connection to access the internet and proceeded to download a piece of music that was subject to copyright protection.  A could prove that he was on holiday when the download occurred so could not have been the person downloading.  The owner of the copyright in the piece of music (C) sued for copyright infringement and requested an injunction and financial damages.

The case was referred to the German Supreme Court after one lower court considered the matter and ruled that A had to pay damages to C, and a second lower court reversed this decision.

The German Supreme Court ruled that A should face an injunction (i.e. restraining further infringement) but was not liable to C for any financial damages because he did not personally commit the act that infringed the rights of C.  Furthermore, the Court said that because there was no intent on A’s part, he was not adjudged to be contributing to the infringement.

Nevertheless, A was required to take reasonable measures to prevent the connection being used by third parties.  Because he had not done so, for example by password protecting the connection, he had to pay a portion of C’s legal costs.

While this is a German case and does not serve as a precedent in New Zealand, it should serve as a warning to anyone owning a wireless connection. Most people are probably aware that leaving a wireless connection unprotected exposes the owner to the danger of others accessing personal and sensitive information.  Also, it allows others to use the internet connection paid for by the owner for free, perhaps using up a large amount of the owner’s monthly download allowance.  Now we can also add the risks of copyright infringement to the list of risks associated with unprotected wireless connections.

As a safeguard, all owners of wireless connections are advised to take reasonable precautions in securing access to their connection.  The easiest way of doing so is generally by using the password protection option available with most routers.

The warning should also be heeded by anyone who wants to extend use of a wireless connection to others.  Many businesses (for example hotels, cafés and libraries) offer wireless internet connections to customers.  To avoid any potential liability for copyright infringement, they should ensure all users are obliged to agree to terms of use, which stipulate the owner of the wireless internet connection is not liable for any such infringing acts.

For further advice, please contact Jonathan Lucas.

About the Author

Jonathan Lucas is an Associate based in the Auckland office of James & Wells, specialising in patents, designs and related intellectual property. Jonathan’s intellectual property experience covers a wide range of technologies, with particular expertise in telecommunications and software.

Author: Jonathan Lucas, June 2010

After one of the longest waits in the history of US Supreme Court patent cases, the appeal decision was finally issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Bilski v. Kappos on 28 June 2010. The decision considers the patenting of method claims in the US, particularly relating to business methods.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that lower courts were correct in holding the Bilski application to be non-patentable subject matter. However, it applied precedent from earlier decisions to conclude that the application was not patentable because it related to an abstract idea rather than using the “machine-or-transformation” test of the Federal Circuit.

Although the decision is only binding for patent applications in the US, the conclusions drawn are important for companies across the globe, particularly those that regularly file patent applications containing method claims in the US.

Background - The Application

In 1997, Bernard L. Bilski and Rand Warsaw filed a patent application for a method of hedging risks in commodities trading. The application describes providing a fixed bill energy contract to consumers such that consumers pay a fixed monthly fee in advance of the winter period based on their past energy use and irrespective of how much energy they subsequently use. Consumers can save money relative to others if a winter is particularly cold and a large amount of energy is used.

The Bilski “invention” lies in a three-step method for a broker to hedge risks for consumers of a commodity. The three essential steps of the method are:

• initiating a series of transactions between a broker and consumers in which the consumers buy a commodity at a fixed rate based on past prices;
• identifying sellers of the commodity having a risk position with regard to the commodity contrary to that of the consumers; and
• initiating transactions between the broker and sellers at a fixed rate so that the risks of the consumers and sellers balance.

This is an example of what is known as a “business method” patent application. The extent to which business methods are patentable varies around the world. In some countries a method must be associated with some kind of physical technology to be patentable. In others, it is sufficient that the process leads to some commercial advantage. The situation in New Zealand and Australia is summarised further below.

Progress of the Application

The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected Bilski’s patent application on the ground that the invention is an abstract idea. Because the method was not implemented on an apparatus (for example a computer) and it was not limited to a practical application, it was held to be non-patentable subject matter in the US.

The USPTO’s rejection was appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals, which agreed with the rejection but on the basis that patentable subject matter must involve the transformation of physical subject matter from one state to another. Since this was not the case with Bilski’s invention, the appeal was rejected.

The applicants further appealed the rejection to the Federal Circuit which, in the en banc decision In re Bilski, confirmed that the invention did not relate to patentable subject matter because it failed the “machine-or-transformation” test for judging the patentability of a claimed process in the US. This is discussed further below.

Despite the continued rejections, the applicants appealed the Federal Circuit decision and the case was heard by the US Supreme Court in November 2009. On 28 June 2010, the Supreme Court decision issued.

The Federal Circuit’s Machine-or-Transformation Test

In the Federal Circuit decision In re Bilski, the machine-or-transformation test was formulated to determine the patentability of a claimed process in the US. This test says that a method or process is patentable subject matter if:

• 1. it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus; or
• 2. it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.

The Federal Circuit used this test instead of an earlier test in State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. that a patentable process must be useful, concrete and produce a tangible result because the Federal Circuit judges thought the State Street requirements were insufficient to determine patentability.

The Bilski application failed the first part of this new machine-or-transformation test because the claims were not tied to a particular machine or apparatus. This part of the test rules out a process where every step could be performed in the human mind.

The second part of the machine-or-transformation test concerns the transformation of an article into a different state or thing. Whereas many patented processes concern the transformation of physical objects or chemical compositions, the transformation of more abstract entities such as data and electronic signals is more debatable subject matter for patentability.

In applying the machine-or-transformation test to the Bilski application, the Federal Circuit decided that the claims related to the exchange of legal rights to purchase a commodity so there is no transformation of any physical object or substance. Similarly, because the method was not linked to a computer there was no transformation of an electronic signal representative of a physical object or substance.

Since the claims of the Bilski patent application failed both parts of the machine-or-transformation test, the appeal was rejected and the refusal of the application was upheld.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

 The Supreme Court confirmed that the Bilski application is not allowable because it relates to non-patentable subject matter. However, instead of applying the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test, the Supreme Court reasoned that Bilski’s risk-management method could be rejected with reference to earlier cases dealing with the unpatentability of abstract ideas.

Despite refusing Bilski’s application, the Supreme Court did confirm that business methods in general remain patentable in the US. Furthermore, by not approving the applicability of the machine-or-transformation test to define a process the court has confirmed a wide range of other inventions remain eligible for patent protection in the US. However, the court did state that, while the machine-or-transformation test cannot exclusively determine whether a claimed process is patentable, it remains a useful tool.

Also of note is the fact that the court refused to rule on the patentability of software, which some commentators were anticipating. As such, it seems software remains patentable in the US.

Consequences of the Decision

The full impact of the Bilski decision may not be truly understood for some time, but it seems unlikely to be the earth-shattering decision that some people may have been anticipating. By upholding the original reasoning of the USPTO (that the Bilski application is not patentable because it claims an abstract idea) the status quo has been maintained; business methods are generally patentable in the US and abstract ideas are not.

Tests such as the machine-or-transformation test are often favoured by patent professionals as they tend to provide clear guidance as to how a court may determine a particular decision. In the light of Bilski, the machine-or-transformation test remains useful for assessing when a process is likely to be patentable (if a claimed invention passes the test), but cannot be used to definitively determine when a process is not patentable (if a claimed invention fails the test).

The machine-or-transformation test will therefore continue to be applied as a useful yardstick to assess patentability. But some questions in applying this test remain, because they did not need to be considered by either the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court in relation to the Bilski case. For example, what constitutes a “particular machine or apparatus” for the purposes of the machine-or-transformation test? Does it include a general purpose computer? The USPTO Board of Patent Appeals in Ex parte Langemeyr and Ex parte Wasynczuk, which decided that a general purpose computer is not a particular machine. But it is unclear whether that remains the case following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski.

Another question is whether data or electronic signals are “articles” for the purposes of the machine-or-transformation test. In its Bilski opinion, the Federal Circuit stated that the gathering of data would not constitute a transformation of any article, but went on to approve an earlier court’s decision that a claim to the transformation of data representing physical objects into visual images on a display was patentable. The Supreme Court did not provide any clarification on this question.

The Bilski decision should be well received by New Zealand companies who seek patent protection for processes in the US. Business methods remain protectable, provided they are not solely abstract ideas.

The Situation in New Zealand and Australia

Finally, we briefly consider the situation in New Zealand and Australia in comparison. In both these countries, an invention must be a “manner of manufacture” for it to be eligible for patent protection. Over the years, case law has moulded the boundaries of this term to clarify its meaning.

Mere schemes or plans that do not involve some sort of interaction with a real entity are excluded, in the same way that abstract ideas are excluded in the US. However, to be patentable in New Zealand and Australia a business method must also produce a commercially useful effect and an artificially created state of affairs.

As a result, the set of claims that Bilski was attempting to patent in the US would also have been refused protection in New Zealand and Australia.

Computer software is currently patentable in New Zealand and Australia, as it is in the US. This issue is currently the subject of some debate, particularly in New Zealand where it is proposed to exclude computer software (other than embedded software) from patentable subject matter under the new Patents Bill (which is likely to come into force in late 2012). The fact that computer software remains patentable in light of Bilski is likely to add weight to the pro-software patentability side of the argument.

About the Author

Jonathan Lucas is an Associate based in the Auckland office of James & Wells, specialising in patents, designs and related intellectual property. Jonathan’s intellectual property experience covers a wide range of technologies, with particular expertise in telecommunications and software.

Simon Power today stated that the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) will now work on guidelines for patents for embedded software.

In creating these guidelines, IPONZ will now consult with interested parties, which will result in a clear definition around the patentability of software,” says NZICT CEO Brett O’Riley.

“We look forward to participating with IPONZ in creating guidelines on software patents.”

Furthermore, NZICT welcomes additional clarification around the intent of the Commerce Select Committee, which indicated that certain types of software would be patentable in line with current practice in Europe and the UK.

“Our goal is to ensure that industry participants clearly understand their legal options in commercialising intellectual property and taking it to market.

 Our objective is to grow and improve New Zealand’s international competitiveness as a result,” states O’Riley.

The Awards recognise New Zealand and Australian-based organisations, businesses, groups and individuals that have made significant contributions towards the security, openness, diversity and accessibility of the internet.  The award categories are based on the four main themes of the United Nations’ Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The categories are:

 *Best Security Initiative* - Initiatives that are at the forefront of developing solutions to security threats, building trust and confidence in the online environment.

*Best Openness Initiative* - Initiatives that enable Internet users to benefit from increased access to online materials, knowledge or information.

*Best Access Initiative* - Initiatives that aim to combat the digital divide, facilitating access for groups such as the elderly, disabled or socially disadvantaged.

*Best Diversity Initiative* - Initiatives that encourage expressions of cultural diversity and identity, including the promotion of multilingualism and indigenous cultures online.

*Best Youth Initiative* - A project led by a New Zealander or Australian who is under the age of 28 on 20 August 2010 and is eligible for entry under the four main categories.

Entries close Friday, 20 August 2010. For information on how to enter and terms and conditions visit:

http://www.bestpracticeawards.org.nz/

For more information contact:

Richard Wood
Policy and Communications
InternetNZ
0274 974 837

NZICT represents multiple ICT vendors in New Zealand. With the inclusion of one of the country’s largest end users on our board, we are seeking to ensure that we accommodate the requirements and aspirations of this community within NZICT’s initiatives, says NZICT chair Geoff Lawrie.

“I would like to welcome David as an independent director on the NZICT board. We value David’s experience in the sector and look forward to working with him in the future,” says Lawrie.

David says that he is pleased to take up the opportunity as the newest member of the NZICT board and that he is looking forward to working with such a talented team.

“Westpac New Zealand is a heavy consumer of ICT products and services and has a keen interest in the innovation and success of the industry.”

“At Westpac, my team is focused on delivering quality service to our customers and I hope my experiences can add value to our discussions and direction,” he says.

For more information contact:

NZICT Communications Executive Paul Clearwater 027 282 0016

David’s biography:

David is General Manager of Customer and Technology Services at Westpac New Zealand responsible for over 1,100 employees in a wide range of teams that include IT, Operations, Call Centres and Simplification. Customer and Technology Services are responsible for driving the processing of the bank’s business as it directly relates to the customer and supports the technology framework that enables Westpac to reach its strategic goals.

David’s career in IT has spanned more than 25 years working in a variety of roles for IBM Global Services, Databank and the National Bank of New Zealand.  David has a MBA from Massey University and is currently serving on the board of The Warehouse Financial Services.