She provides examples of some "bad" patents as evidence that software patents stifle innovation. But by using the same evidentiary technique, I could easily argue that we should abolish the entire welfare state because some people cheat the system.
There are bad patents in every field of technology. It isn't a perfect system, and processes exist within it to deal with most of the bad patents: such as revocation and invalidity actions, examination procedures, infringement defences and the like.
Curran is just rehashing the same myths the open source movement has been perpetuating for years. Those arguments are not anti-software specifically; they are anti-patent. There is no logic in Curran adopting these arguments (however flawed they may be) to justify banning software patents only. To be consistent she must demand the abolition of the entire patent system.
Which she will not do, because if we did abolish our patent system we would become the laughing stock of the entire world and would have most of our free trade agreements torn up.
The most troubling thing about Curran's post is her apparent failure to even understand the legislative process she is a part of. One of the most concerning aspects of the outright ban on software patents expressed by the language of the Patents Bill is that it does not allow for "embedded" software: software that plays a part in controlling electronic componentry, such as appliances. The Commerce Minister, Simon Power, agrees that embedded software should be allowed, but wants the matter resolved by the drafting of appropriate IPONZ guidelines. This has concerned many patent attorneys, because it is not clear how these guidelines would interact with the clear wording of the Bill, which is to disallow all software patents.
Curran says in her post:
there may still be some intense discussion to come around the regulations that accompany the legislation.The trouble is the IPONZ guidelines are not regulations. And that is the critical thing. The wording in the legislation will override the guidelines if they are inconsistent with the wording of the legislation.