The Imagination Deficit

This government is so devoid of imagination that all they can think to do is cut the public sector.

Cutting the public sector will see a short term gain, due to a reduction in government expenditure. But the negatives are fairly obvious: more unemployment, and a reduction in the quality of public service delivery. We don’t have a particularly large public service, having privatised almost everything that moved under previous administrations.

Some people would say that the government making more people unemployed during a time of recession is plain dumb economics. The orthodox thinking is that in a recessionary time you try to stimulate the economy. Cutbacks can potentially deepen a downturn, because they take money out of the economy. Pumping more money through the economy is the rationale National gave for the tax cuts. So why stimulate on the one hand and cut back on the other, unless you’re barking mad?

In the end this is more about ideology than economics.

Loss of livelihood is a thing more destructive to a person than having to pay another few dollars a week in tax. But this government doesn’t like public servants, and would rather screw the economy than allow public servants to feel secure in their jobs.

The government can always find money for its friends, like the $4 million it gave to AMI Stadium because the owner didn’t want to pay for insurance. And the tax cuts have gone mostly to people like me who really didn’t need them. It seems pretty clear that there is no plan for our economy other than “wait and pray for some sort of recovery.”

But waiting this out probably won’t work. We are a commodity-exporting nation, and at the moment we’re receiving record high prices for our goods. Imagine how bad things would be if commodity prices were not so high. When they go down again (and history tells us they will), we will see a reduction in government revenues and more stress on its books. The inevitable response will be cutbacks and a potential deepening of the downturn.

Despite the fact that commodity exports, while important, are not going to be a high growth industry for the nation long-term (we can only ever farm so many cows), there’s next to no planning underway to look at alternatives. There’s been tinkering with our science and innovation sector, but little in the way of bold vision. And tax incentives continue to encourage investment in low-growth areas of the economy, like property speculation.

Maybe this will dawn on the Nats one day (to be fair, I’m not sure that Labour gets it either). No doubt their response will be to cut taxes further.

Gone

It’s that time again. It’s amazing how the year just races by. Already it’s time for the annual Illuminati conference.

This year’s event is being held in Sydney, which means I won’t be posting much, if at all, for a few days. With all the secret rituals, drinking gallons of human blood and plotting your enslavement, there probably won’t be much time for pithy comments on the state of the economy or politics. And there’s nothing worse than a human blood hangover, I can tell you.

But at least I’m getting away from a toxic political environment where all the talk is about how terrible Labour is… oh, wait, I’m going to Sydney. Maybe not.

Denied Justice?

The Herald reports that the "Urewera 18" are to be denied the right to a trial by jury (actually this was kind of big news last year, or should have been, but the media largely ignored the story).

The Court of Appeal yesterday upheld the decision of the High Court in December ruling that the trials would take place in front of a judge only.

In a bizarre twist, a suppression order exists, so that reasons for the decision cannot be given.

To be tried before one's peers is a right that should be taken away from a defendant facing serious charges in only the rarest of cases. It seems almost abhorrent to justice that we aren't even allowed to know the reason why this time.

Price on Marshall

Lawyer Steven Price writes:

I have been contacted by a student at Victoria University who said he was approached by the Sunday Star-Times’ Jonathan Marshall at university last week, on the hunt for information about the 18-year-old at the centre of the Darren Hughes incident.

He said Marshall asked him to go to a university office and pretend to be a long-lost friend of the 18-year-old and ask for his class timetable. The student refused, saying this was a “morally bankrupt” thing to do, and good on him.

If true that would represent a new low in an already tarnished journalistic career. Marshall's style of tabloid journalism is the sort we associate with UK red-tops like The Sun. It's a style I don't particularly like.

Price continues:

I note the Press Council’s principle on subterfuge states:

The use of deceit and subterfuge can only be condoned in cases when the information sought is in the public interest and cannot be obtained by any other means.

I don’t think there can be much doubt that Marshall was trying to use deceit and subterfuge here, even if he was enlisting someone else to do the actual dirty work. Was it, then, really in the public interest? And mightn’t there be other ways of getting this information?

Price also reports that Marshall has denied engaging in any such activity, and that Marshall's editor is backing him up to the hilt. So whose version of events is true?

And why is the SST editor so confident there has been no wrongdoing? Has he spoken to the person who made the allegation?

Or is he just reflexively protecting his prized asset? Just as he weekly defends Michael Laws for writing indefensible hate-filled dross because it helps to sell papers?

Some Questions For Labour

Phil Goff has now said he told Darren Hughes he would strip Hughes of his portfolios regardless of the outcome of the police investigation. But he didn’t do anything for two weeks, apparently because he didn’t want to prejudice the police investigation.

Could Mr Goff please explain to us what difference sacking or standing down Hughes earlier would have made to that investigation? And could he please dispel for me the suspicion that what really lies behind this delay is both Goff and Hughes hoping the investigation would be dropped and that the whole thing would disappear?

On the subject of Labour Party mugs, could someone please tell Clayton Cosgrove that railing against bureaucrats, government officials and red tape is what the blue parties do, not the red ones? The blue parties use these tactics to soften people up for deregulation and cutting the public sector. Admittedly Cosgrove is one of the bluer reds, but perhaps he might consider keeping his mouth shut for the time being*.

* Actually, forever would be fine with me.

Labour Looks To The Dead

Labour leader Phil Goff was under fire today, after admitting his party used psychics to help make important decisions.

The revelations came after footage appeared on TV1's Close Up last night of a secret Labour frontbench session with a medium known as Madame Esmeralda.

Mr Goff admitted today that the party had consulted a number of psychic mediums, but he defended the move.

"We're not closed-minded like some political parties," said Mr Goff.

"This is about covering all bases as a party. We'd be foolish to go ahead and make decisions without considering all of the possible alternatives and potential ramifications.

"It's all very well doing what we think is best for the country, but why not take heed of the voices of the dead? They're a valuable resource.

"National's vision for growing the economy is to mine national parks. With Labour we're mining the vast knowledge of the deceased."

Mr Goff confirmed he had been in recent dialogue with former leaders of the party, including Walter Nash and Michael Joseph Savage.

"I also had a number of discussions with Sir Geoffrey Palmer. I was surprised to discover later that he's not actually dead."

But Goff only admitted to talking to the dead after the footage appeared on Close Up.

The footage shows what appears to be a seance involving most of the Labour frontbench.

The visual quality of the footage is poor, but the voices on the tape are clear.

Early in the recording Madame Esmeralda says she is channelling the spirit of a lost soul known as David. She asks if anyone knows a David who has passed on recently.

Another woman's voice, possibly Annette King's, is clearly heard saying "It's Lange! Speak to us! Save us! Tell us what we must do."

Madame Esmeralda then speaks again: "David says there is a time of darkness ahead. A tough decision to make, and a person who stands in the way of progress."

She then says, "possibly someone in this room here today. Is there a... a Paul or a Peter present?"

"But not a Phil?" the voice of the Labour leader is heard saying "Thank God. Are you sure the person standing in the way isn't a David or an Andrew? We have quite a lot of potential David problems. We always have."

Party president Andrew Little has also confirmed that he regularly consults a tarot card reader before making important decisions.

"I find consulting the cards to be extremely enlightening. It's also about the only way I can find out what the Labour leader is up to."

And in a startling twist, it was today revealed that acclaimed medium Bev Debber of the TV show Smelling Manslaughter was last week called in by Mr Little to consult on who killed the Labour Party's prospects in the November election.

It is understood that Ms Debber was able to identify a grey-haired man in his mid-fifties, though she said he may have dyed his hair recently.

National Party MPs were quick to mock the moves by Labour. But Phil Goff was equally quick to defend the actions.

"You may think that consulting mediums and fortune tellers is about the craziest thing someone can do.

"But how else would you have us make policy? Consult Treasury officials? At least our fortune tellers occasionally get it right."

A Goff-Hughes Free Zone

Today I am not going to post anything on the topic that has fixated just about every political blogger in this country for the last three or four days.

Today I don't care. I'm over it.

Feel free to discuss anything else - within reason. Just not the Labour Party.

Who's Being More Insulting?

It's just downright insulting to order New Zealanders to donate.

So said former ACT MP and now Herald columnist Deborah Coddington, in response to Green Party MP Russel Norman's suggestion of a special earthquake levy for those earning more than $48,000.

We already know that a lot of people on good incomes are insulted at the notion that they would need to pay any tax at all. But that's just the way our society works. If we don't have taxes we won't have many of the things we as a civilised society insist upon: affordable healthcare and education, roads, and a safety net for the poor and sick.

It's equally insulting to have to listen to fools like Coddington harp on about the evils of government, when without the assistance of central government people in Christchurch would be suffering even more than they are at present. Who does she think organised the emergency benefits to people suddenly without livelihoods, so that they could feed their families? And what of the rescue services, police and army personnel? Are they not agents of the state? And even if some aspects of Civil Defence's control of central Christchurch could be criticised, would we be better off if that agency did not exist?

If anyone is being downright insulting (to the people in government working tirelessly to help Christchurch, and to so many in Christchurch who have been helped by our governmental agencies), it is Coddington.

Random Thoughts On Hughes and Goff

• This fiasco needs a name. But just putting "gate" at the end of "Hughes" or "Goff" would be pretty lame.
• Given the barely disguised homophobia in some of the reporting, maybe we could call the fiasco "Homogate".
• Like this article. Why does it matter who Hughes may have propositioned? Does the fact Hughes might be gay mean he's more likely to be a sex offender? What is this story even for?
• What business does the media have intruding into the private lives of our politicians? If someone wants to stay "in the closet", then that's their call. Our society is so intolerant of people with different sexual preferences that it's no wonder some people are afraid to reveal what they are.
• The complainant was 18. Not a child. The only thing that matters is whether there was consent. Would the people now saying that Hughes' judgement is suspect because he took an 18 year old male home be so concerned if the 18 year old had been a woman?
• I suspect the only reason why Chris Carter is again slagging Goff is because Jonathan Marshall called him. Who cares about the opinion of someone dumped by Labour? Of course he'd be bitter. How is this newsworthy?
• How long can the 18 year old at the centre of this matter keep his identity secret? The media are not reporting his name, even though they know who he is, but sooner or later some blogger is going to post it. The usual suspects spring to mind.
• The HOS reports that Goff and Andrew Little have still not spoken about this matter. Are the two no longer on speaking terms? If so, how long can this continue? A party where the leader and president won't talk to each other is going nowhere.
• How long before we get to talk again about how screwed our economy is?

Safe For Now?

I watched Patrick Gower's report on the ailing Labour Party on TV3 tonight. It appears to indicate that the Labour leadership is the most poisoned of chalices, and that Phil Goff may be safe for now. Why topple the man and be the guy (and it would probably be a guy, because all the potential leadership candidates are male) who leads the party to a potentially monumental defeat? It would take someone with real courage to step up.

On the other hand, the polls suggest that National can only win the election if it gets an outright majority, or at least close to one. If someone within Labour was prepared to back himself he could conceivably become PM in November. It would only take a change of a few percentage points in the polls. It's hard to see how things can get any worse under Goff, so what would there be to lose? And a new leader will always get a bit of media attention, so if the right man is chosen there could even be a lift in the polls.

With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps the seamless transition from Clark to Goff wasn't such a blessing after all. The voters rejected Labour in 2008, and in choosing the experienced Goff the party must have hoped that it was just a temporary setback and that the people would soon come to their senses. Perhaps had there been some bloodletting and a real battle for the leadership of the party, combined with a bit of realism (i.e. the Nats didn't win in 2008 because everyone who voted was drunk or stoned), this situation could have been avoided. Who knows?

Back to Gower's story. He interviewed Judith Tizard, and it became fairly clear from her refusal to endorse Phil Goff that she will be a potential problem for Labour if she exercises her right and takes the seat. She would be gone in November, so would have no incentive to toe the party line on any issue. Political parties require loyalty and discipline, and a person with no future in the party can't be relied upon to say and do the right things.

Tizard told Gower she would love to make a valedictory speech. It's an odd thing to say, but it suggests she is unhappy at the way she finished her last turn at MP and wants another go. You can only imagine the dilemma Phil Goff is now facing. How does he tell her she's not wanted without seriously pissing her off and encouraging her to take the job just to spite him? The only way she can be stopped from taking the seat is if she's not a member of the Labour Party. But I can't see any grounds to expel her from the party.

Goff's inability to turn his guns in any direction other than towards his own feet means he'll probably limp on as leader. He may even be our PM in November. But if John Key could choose the person he would most want as Labour leader, surely he would choose Phil Goff. National could yet be defeated in November, thanks to the way MMP works, but it probably won't be because of anything Phil Goff said or did.

Andrew Wakefield Does His Bit To Spread Measles

Andrew Wakefield is still pedalling his anti-vaccine quackery, as this newspaper article reports.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a controversial British doctor whose research purported to link vaccines to autism, met privately with a gathering of Somali parents in Minneapolis on Wednesday night.

Wakefield, who arrived amid the city's first measles outbreak in years, declined to answer questions about the purpose of his visit. Reporters were barred from the meeting, which was described as a "support group" for parents of autistic children.

 The effects of anti-vaccine hysteria are very real in the case of the Somali community.

Health officials say that vaccination rates have been dropping in the Somali community because of fears about vaccine safety, fueled by Wakefield's now-discredited research.

As of Wednesday, 11 measles cases have been confirmed in Hennepin County since February, at least three among unvaccinated children in the Somali community in Minneapolis. Local and state health officials are planning a forum for Somali immigrants Saturday to discuss the measles outbreak and the need to vaccinate children.

Wakefield's claim that vaccination increases the risk of autism must be one of the greatest medical frauds of all time.

Perhaps that's why he's working with immigrant communities. There's a good chance they don't know who he is, or that he's been accused of fraud and has had his medical licence taken away.

I'm not sure why journalists continue to call Wakefield a doctor. Can you still call yourself a doctor if you've been stripped of your licence to practice?  Perhaps someone with a medical background can clarify this point. I know, for example, that in this country you can't call yourself a lawyer unless you've got a practising certificate.

(hat tip to Grant Jacobs of Sciblogs for the link)

Right Thinking: Bully Attack!

Conservative columnist Dr Frank Shizenhausen exposes the weakness of every bully

There's been a lot of talk in the media lately about bullying and the best way to tackle the problem.

I've always found that if there's one thing bullies don't like it's someone who fights back. That's why I make it a policy to commit acts of violence against anyone who has the potential to one day threaten me.

And I've always said the best form of defence is a pre-emptive strike, which is why whenever I see an old lady walking down the street I'll snatch her walking cane from her hands and beat her over the head with it. Just in case.

Now you may take the view that attacking a group of Girl Guides with a bat is a little over the top, but there's nothing I hate more than the sight of those round succulent biscuits. They fill my body with urges that a man of my age and maturity really shouldn't have to put up with. And those girls just know I get upset at the sight of a naked biscuit. The temptresses seem to appear whenever I'm in a shopping mall. It can't be a coincidence.

But they never expect it when I get the cricket bat out and smash down their desk and scatter their money tins and biscuit boxes.

I am also intimidated by some of the more obnoxious forms of radio and TV advertising. For a long time I would cringe and close my ears at the sound of a Harvey Norman TV advert. If an annoying man screaming at you at a million miles an hour isn't bullying then I'm a leftie.

But I decided to fight back. I haven't been able to shut the ads down, but I did manage to bite one of their salesmen in the face last week. And I reckon I'd have had his ear if it hadn't been for his interfering wife coming out to see what all the noise was outside their front porch. It was a near thing, I can tell you, and I only just got away, because it took an eternity to find my trousers.

Another type of bully I can't abide is the one who berates me and tells me I'm a bad person. I've no time for emotional bullies. You probably know the sort. They are usually male or female, have hair, breathe, and lose the plot when you try to pin them down and tie them up.

Then there's the distant, untouchable bully who uses his or her position of authority to attack others. Like the High Court judge on Monday. Yelling at me and telling me I'm the most evil and cowardly monster who's ever set foot in his courtroom. Isn't that just textbook bullying? It's not even true and he knows it. What about the fact I was performing a public service? What was I meant to do? Leave that Greenpeace guy on the street corner to sign up even more members to his evil organisation? And I certainly don't need anyone's widow scowling at me in the courtroom.

It's a good thing they decided to put me in this place in the end, because it's quite pleasant. But the nurse is really starting to piss me off. Apparently it's "house rules" to wear underwear. And pants. And to not lick other patients. Socialist scum!

Meet Norman

Labour leader Phil Goff today stunned the political world when it was revealed that he has an identical twin brother.

Goff's twin brother, Norman, appeared at the side of the Labour leader during an event marking the opening of the new toilet block at Rangitoto College in Auckland today.

Norman Goff's appearance caused intense confusion at the event, when he walked on stage while his brother was giving a speech.

For many watching it was almost impossible to spot the difference between the two. The brothers wore similar suits and ties and had similar haircuts.

The only notable difference was the colour of Norman Goff's hair. It was brown.

The brothers spoke together to the media after the event, and the Labour leader admitted he had been using his brother to help manage some of his commitments.

"Look, I have to be honest," said the Labour leader. "Norman's been a stand-in for me on more than one occasion.

"We obviously got our wires crossed today and turned up to the same event," said his brother. "I guess the secret's out now.

"It's caused a few laughs along the way. Like that time when Phil said he'd not rule out working with Hone Harawira, then I said I wouldn't work with him, then Phil said he would, then I said..."

Norman then turned to his brother. "Actually, what is Labour's current position on that?"

"Fuck knows," said the Labour leader to his brother. "My advisers tell me to never say anything without talking to them first. It's a pity you have to keep opening your fat mouth."

The Labour leader admitted that the confusion caused by having two brothers doing the same job was one of the downsides.

"We're all over the place on policy, thanks to my dickhead brother," said Phil Goff.

"I've told Norman again and again to just smile and wave, like the other guy does. But he just can't help himself. He starts yapping and before we know it I'm trying to dig myself out of a huge hole."

The Labour leader then put his head in his hands. "Christ, sometimes I wish he'd just shut up."

But his brother Norman has a different perspective.

"Phil's so wooden and lacking any kind of spark. I'm just trying to liven things up.

"Frankly Phil can have the fucking job. I've had nothing but grief since I chose to help him. Even small children taunt me.

"Maybe, Phil, if you weren't such a jerk people might like you."

"That's rich coming from you," replied the Labour leader. "You were still wearing a nappy at the age of twelve. The only reason I decided to help you was because Mum made me promise at an early age to always make sure you kept out of trouble. Nobody else would employ you."

Phil Goff said that he was not sorry about deceiving the public into thinking his brother was him.

"It's like they say: deception is everything."

"That's 'perception', Phil, 'perception'", said Norman Goff. "Jesus Christ, it's no wonder Labour's got no show this year. Maybe I should take over the top job."

"Sure," sneered the Labour leader. "And tell the media once again how badly John Key handled the Richard Worth saga? I'm still apologising for your gaffe."

"You're yesterday's man, Phil."

"I ought to smack you in the mouth."

"Don't you need to get your media advisers' permission first?"

"I forgot about that. Damn it!"

Outrageous!

The NZ Herald appears to be insinuating that lawyers should not be entitled to receive preferential treatment when it comes to our drink driving laws.

I am outraged. Outraged!

I don't like what the paper's trying to suggest. Lawyers are central to the development and drafting of law. So it makes perfect sense for us to be above it.

I say boycott the Herald. Are you with me? Anyone? Come back!

Enter Judith Stage Left?

It seems that the career of Labour MP Darren Hughes is over. The only way I can see him surviving politically now is if the police announce that the complaint made against Hughes was a false one.

I would not bet on that occurring - not because I have any insight into what Hughes did on that fateful evening, but because the best realistic scenario for Hughes is for the police to simply announce that there isn't enough evidence to lay charges. In sexual matters, when one party alleges consent was not given, while the other says it was, it can be difficult for the police to proceed unless there is other evidence corroborating the complaint.

So even if Hughes survives the legal processes now underway, it seems likely that the only thing that would save him politically is evidence that the complaint was motivated by ill-will. Absent this, Hughes will be regarded as suspect in the eyes of the public. And questions about Hughes' personal judgement will linger, even if the complaint goes nowhere.

This is a dreadful blow to Labour, and to Phil Goff. Goff knew about this matter for a couple of weeks but did nothing. Goff attacked John Key for keeping mum on the allegations against Richard Worth, so now he must face the consequences of carelessly handling that particular petard.

The affair also blew up just when cracks in National's management of the economy were starting to appear (to be fair, they've been there for a while, but they're becoming more obvious by the day). Now we can expect an intense focus on Phil Goff by a scandal-hungry media bored of policy and economics stories.

We can also possibly expect the return of Judith Tizard to Parliament if Hughes resigns. Maybe that's why Goff kept quiet.

Labour MP Admits He Is Under Investigation

MP Dwayne Baker admitted today that he is the Labour politician under investigation by police.

The police investigation concerns a number of allegations made by an 18 year old man.

In a statement to the media Mr Baker admitted that he was the politician in question, but also denied all wrong-doing.

Mr Baker, who calls himself “The Dude”, was suspended from the Labour Party caucus in February, after a series of run-ins with the leadership of the party over offensive comments made by him.

The suspension was lifted earlier this month, after Mr Baker agreed to moderate his behaviour and language.

The young man at the centre of the allegations told journalists that he had come forward because he could no longer stand to see the MP’s face in public.

“Dwayne Baker is a criminal,” said the man.

“He totally stole my weed and crashed my car.”

The man filed a complaint with police, who confirmed that they were taking the matter seriously.

“We take a very dim view of anyone stealing someone else’s stash,” said Detective Inspector Jeff Smaug of the Auckland Police.

“We are continuing with our investigations.”

Meanwhile, Mr Baker today confirmed that he had been in discussions with independent MP Hone Harawira about the formation of a new left-wing party.

Baker has been tipped by many to break away from Labour, in spite of his recent reinstatement to the caucus. Insiders have said that Baker is unhappy with the direction the party has taken on a number of key issues.

One unnamed Labour MP said that Baker stood up during a recent caucus meeting and attacked Phil Goff for being out of touch. According to the unnamed MP Baker told Goff that he needed to focus more on the issues affecting ordinary New Zealanders. Baker identified those issues as “cheap weed and banging hot babes”.

Baker confirmed that he had met Mr Harawira at the independent MP’s house recently.

“Hone puts on a good feed,” said Mr Baker. “And I had to get out of town with all this shit going down with the pigs. So I turned up at his place and he just kept on talking about what he wanted in this new party. It was all so boring. Who cares about that shit?

“I fell asleep, because I’d got pretty wasted the night before. He was pissed off when I woke up and he told me to get out of his house, but don’t ask me why. I guess he’s angry because the pigs and fascists stole his land like a hundred years ago.”

Mr Baker said he had not heard back from Mr Harawira since the meeting, but was optimistic about the prospects of forming a new political party.

“I think the meeting went pretty well. I’m looking forward to being deputy leader, and expect Hone to call me soon.

“Hey, do you know if my salary goes up if I’m deputy leader? That would be totally awesome, because I owe a guy for some mushrooms I bought last month, and he’s starting to get really pissed at me.”

It’s Okay Now

The Government has signalled that the “It’s Not Okay” campaign against domestic violence may be cut to free up funding for Whanau Ora.

Campaign organisers are already anticipating that funding will be slashed and are in the process of preparing a relaunch of the campaign, but with a different slogan.

Labelled “It’s Often Okay”, the campaign will make it clear that, while most right-minded people think that domestic violence is abhorrent and a blight on our society, there are alternative viewpoints on the subject.

“There are plenty of people in Wellington who think this programme isn’t important enough to warrant funding,” said new campaign co-ordinator, Cilla Nebelwerfer,

“The relaunched campaign will be about sending that message.

“We all know that domestic violence costs the taxpayer millions of dollars. If you look at the cost to the police and justice system alone in dealing with domestic violence matters, it’s just a huge drain on resources.

“The Government has finally recognised that we need to think differently about domestic violence issues. If we continue to send the message that it’s not okay, women will continue to clog police resources, and offenders will continue to be hauled through the courts.

“We want the police to be freed up to deal with more important matters, such as looking after visiting celebrities and tackling the scourge of jaywalking.”

Ms Nebelwerfer said the campaign would be relaunched in May, and that filming of television and radio advertisements was already underway.

“We’ve engaged a number of prominent New Zealanders to help spread the message,” said Ms Nebelwerfer.

“What we’re really trying to say to people is this: if you know someone who’s the victim of domestic violence, you need to intervene. They’re probably feeling vulnerable and desperate. You need to get in there and tell them to just harden up and don’t be such a crybaby.”

Campaign organisers would not name any of the celebrities due to appear in the campaign, but radio host Tony Veitch confirmed he had been approached.

“This is an issue very dear to my heart,” said Mr Veitch. “I’m delighted to be able to contribute.”

A number of prominent sportsmen have also been linked to the campaign. It is understood that the men, who all have name suppression, will appear in campaign television commercials with their faces blurred and their voices altered.

“This is about the men too,” said Ms Nebelwerfer. “It’s all too easy to judge a guy, just because he’s smashed his girlfriend’s teeth in and put her in hospital. We want them to know that help is available. Legal help and PR help. Being a callous brute doesn’t have to destroy your life, or even cause you anything other than mild career inconvenience.”

Ms Nebelwerfer acknowledged that a number of domestic violence support groups were outraged at the plan, but defended the proposed campaign.

“I personally found the ‘It’s Not Okay’ campaign to be too preachy and judgmental. This is public money we’re using, and a surprising number of people in this society are violent sociopaths. Their viewpoint deserves to be recognised too.”

Critical Children's Commissioner Report Rejected

A new report by the Children's Commissioner raises concerns about the level of resources being invested in early childhood education.

But the report’s findings have been rejected by the Government.

The report found that the quality of care for under-2s is variable, and that the current regulatory regime and funding arrangements contributed to this variability.

However, Agriculture Minister David Carter today rejected the claims made in the report.

"This government has overseen a fundamental overhaul of animal welfare regulations," said Mr Carter.

"I have no current concerns about the quality of the baby farms being established under the new regulatory regime."

The authors of the report claim that the best place for under-2s is with their parents.

But Mr Carter said that allowing children to graze in unfenced suburban environments was not the answer.

"Modern farming practices are humane. Gone are the days when animals were simply left to rot in cages for hours on end.

"Under the new regulations we're limiting the periods during which cages can be used. I realise this won't satisfy everyone, and some people will say cages should never be used, but we have to be fair to farmers."

Mr Carter said that the additional burden to the taxpayer in complying with the recommendations of the report would be substantial.

"It's about priorities. The most pressing priority for this government is rugby. We've just given $4 million to Christchurch's rugby stadium because they forgot to get insurance, so we're a bit short of cash for other things right now.

"Plus it's not as if we're going to run out of kids, is it? They keep making more of the little bastards, so it doesn't matter if we lose a few on the way."

Ha!

The Herald reports:

Self-described real estate "king" Don Ha will sell his property and business advice in a series of seminars starting next week - despite receivers taking control of his property company.

The "Millionaire Secret Recipe" seminars were advertised in a Sunday newspaper and urged people to "commit to your success" by purchasing a $29.95 ticket to one of three events.

This is an unexpected move by Mr Ha. He’s clearly bored of real estate and disillusioned with his business failure, and has decided to explore a different career path.

I don’t know if the show will be any good, though. And $29.95 seems quite steep for such a raw up-and-coming comedian.

A Helpful Guide To Dealing With Difficult Moral Issues

Read this post carefully at least once, until you have memorised its contents. If you follow my instructions to the letter you won't be able to come back to check what it says.

Once you've done that it will be time to proceed!

I can make you feel better. But only if you do as I say.

First, turn the TV and radio off. Don't look at the newspaper. If you're on the computer please walk away from it. Turn your phone off.

Next, close your eyes. Then block your ears.

Now repeat after me:

"There is no evidence of any civilian casualties."

Feeling better now?

It's Always The Fault Of The Left

I know will be accused in some quarters of pursuing a vendetta (you know who you are), but I follow dozens of other blogs, and when someone well-known says something outrageous in the blogosphere then, gosh darn it, I'm going to maybe mention it.

I'm referring to this contribution from former ACT MP Stephen Franks.

Yes, yes yes – at last those who our masters would make into worms have turned.

All of us who want to live on our feet and not our knees owe thanks to the business people who today stormed the cordon to regain the right to their own properties.

The humiliation piled on them since the earthquake by the lords of emergency, "in their own interests, of course" is humiliation we should all have felt. Lets now hope tomorrow's revolt is bigger, and the next day until the oppressors are shamed and slink away.

The left fondly thinks that working class warriors established our freedoms. In fact it was the merchants of London and other property owners who needed freedom and respect for the rule of law to protect their properties as well as their consciences. Unions and the left have been on the side of repression more often than not.

I salute you merchants of Christchurch, as worthy inheritors of a noble tradition of merchants.

I can totally understand the frustrations felt by businesspeople unable to access their premises. If I were in their position I could well imagine being driven almost crazy.

Still, let's think this through. If authorities let through the cordon anyone who wanted to go in, and if a building were to collapse on one of those people, we'd be demanding the head of someone in a position of responsibility.

This may be a difficult concept for some people who believe property rights are paramount, but sometimes the protection of human life is more important than stuff. It's just stuff. Things. Possessions. Chattels.

What made Franks' intemperate post all the more amusing was the almost pre-programmed need to blame the entire situation on the left. This is not a left v right thing. You could hardly call the police and army puppets of our all-seeing socialist overlords.

I just hope that the citizen revolt Franks is calling for doesn't end up with someone being buried under a tonne of bricks and masonry.

Corporate Welfare Watch

The decision by the owner of Christchurch’s AMI Stadium, V-Base, not to insure its pitch will cost the government $4.1 million. That’s the amount the taxpayer is giving to the company.

But Key’s government is not being so generous to other uninsured folk. The Government has steadfastly refused to compensate uninsured householders for damage suffered to their homes during the September and February quakes.

So why is the stadium different? Ministers would argue, no doubt, that the stadium is integral to the identity of Cantabrians, and that getting rugby and cricket back there as quickly as possible will be critical to recovery.

But the Government’s moralising and preaching to the uninsured homeowners starts to sound hollow when it turns out that insurance was available for the turf, and that it wasn’t even necessarily that expensive.

This looks like a textbook case of corporate welfarism. Of particular concern is the admission by V-Base chief executive Bryan Pearson on Morning Report today that the money was coming with no preconditions at all. Presumably, then, the company could take the money and blow the lot on booze, cigarettes and lotto tickets.

We are frequently being told how irresponsible people on welfare are when money is just thrown at them. So we should insist the Government pays the $4.1 million over in Mitre 10 vouchers instead of cash.

Where Will This End?

As Operation Avenge Knut continues, it's unclear how the forces bombarding Libya will measure success.

Obviously, the ideal would be for Gaddafi to be overthrown, and for a peaceloving government to be established that treats all the people of Libya with respect and that empowers the citizenry through various democratic institutions and the rule of law.

So now we've established that such an event won't happen, what will it take realistically for the bombardment to stop? Perhaps it will be enough to see Gaddafi toppled. Anything less seems unlikely. He's unstable at the best of times, and any ceasefire he promised to adhere to wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

Perhaps he'll just hold on defiantly in Tripoli, his defiance of the West making him a hero for many who used to despise him. It's a certainty that the "pinpoint" airstrikes we've been hearing about will kill civilians. We will hear more in days to come about US missiles killing Arab children.

It's easy to criticise the US and other major countries for their involvement in Libya. But had they done nothing to prevent Gaddafi's killing of his citizens we'd be equally lound in condemnation of them. Still, after all these failed Middle Eastern adventures it would be nice if there was a clear endgame.

Muammar Gaddafi, Why Did Knut Have To Die?

Polar bears are cute. This cute.

Anyone who reckons a polar bear isn't cute doesn't know what they're talking about.

So when someone kills a polar bear a little part of the world's magic dies.

Knut the famous polar bear died mysteriously in his enclosure at Berlin Zoo yesterday. At about the same time as NATO forces began bombing Libya.

Gaddafi warned again and again that if his country was attacked he would strike back, but we didn't listen. We all thought it was the bluster of an old man whose regime was about to topple. Little did we know that within hours our dear, beloved Knut would be dead, his life snuffed out in the name of politics, oil and greed.

Muammar Gaddafi, why did Knut have to die? Wasn't it enough for you to bomb your own people into oblivion? Wasn't watching their misery enough to get you off?

Why did the bear have to die too?

Ken Ring Only Uses His Magic For Good

It's no surprise that Ken Ring would predict a major earthquake occurring today. It's a Supermoon today, and Ring seems to blame the Moon for everything. Maybe the Moon really pissed him off once, or stitched him up in some business dealing. Perhaps the Moon stole his girl back in high school. Whatever it was, Ring's never forgotten.

I'm not so sure myself about the Moon theory. If I had to blame something or someone for all this quakiness (other than all the boring stuff scientists say causes earthquakes. Ha, scientists! What would they know?), my money would be on Justin Bieber's hair. Bieber cut his hair in February, and within hours a major quake struck Christchurch. I'm not sure on the exact relationship between plate tectonics and Bieber's coiffure, because my learnings have a hole in them, but I doubt it's a coincidence. Everything's connected in some way.

I'm probably tempting fate by posting this (it's not midnight yet!), but here's how one friend of Ken Ring sees the Moonman's predictions.

Watson said Ring was like a doctor diagnosing a terminal illness. "If you've got six months to live should your doctor not say so?"

I agree. I absolutely would want to know if I had terminal cancer. But once I had discovered that the guy who diagnosed me was an impostor with no training pretending to be an expert, and that I was in fact perfectly healthy, I'd be suing the hospital. After I'd kicked the quack's arse some.

Ring's friend also says:

"He's been shocked and upset. He thought he was doing a service to help people and save lives. He's not getting anything out of it. In fact, he's only had grief."

All the publicity must be a boon for book sales. So I'm pleased to hear Ring's friend confirming that Ring isn't profiting from what some people have called rampant scaremongering.

I wonder which charity Ring's donating the sale proceeds to.

Phil Goff WIN!

Labour Party Leader Plays Politics Again

To Wear Red On This Of All Days...

Discuss.

VIP Tours More Important?

John Hartevelt in Stuff:

[Labour MP Clayton] Cosgrove said Civil Defence national controller John Hamilton did not seem to know how many buildings were being demolished without consultation with the owners.

Cosgrove said he had asked for a one or two day moratorium on the demolition of commercial buildings in the CBD and an urgent conversation with Hamilton over the issue. But Hamilton had not been available because he was tied up with the visit of Prince William.

Discuss.

Overheating Media Threaten Meltdown Over Nuclear Crisis

As Japanese officials attempt to avert a nuclear catastrophe at the Fukushima plant, the scale of the growing media crisis continues to alarm experts.

Officials have been struggling to take the heat out of media reporting of the event, but a number of journalistic explosions have made their task particularly challenging.

The rampant newspaper and TV speculation surrounding the crisis now threatens to overheat and cause a massive leak of toxic material directed towards authorities. Government officials and bureaucrats have already been forced to put themselves in harm’s way in an attempt to douse the worst of the overheating speculation. However, experts are concerned that the layers of obfuscation, denial and bland assurances of safety that officials are relying upon to protect themselves against the fallout of public rage and panic, may be insufficient.

Officials fear that if the media heat continues to rise over the plant’s safety, they may be forced to admit that the problem is far worse than they are letting on. That would in turn involve potentially enormous damage to the credibility of the Japanese government, and a critical loss of face. Already the US has told its citizens to get at least 80kms away from the plant, even as Japanese authorities continue to say radiation levels outside the 20km radius are safe. New Zealand has followed the US’s lead.

Experts are also concerned that even if officials can get some of the overheating media reactors to cool, other media reactors will still be at risk of total meltdown. A policy of total honesty and candour is unlikely to prevent headlines in some newspapers from predicting a nuclear holocaust, because pictures of smoke rising from a nuclear plant are the stuff of editors’ dreams, especially during periods when celebrities are not doing anything interesting. And so officials have been left scrambling to devise a solution that will take the heat from all of the media organisations now threatening to explode.

There may be respite on the way, however. Officials are confident that another Charlie Sheen meltdown is imminent, and expect such an event to divert the attention of the press, in turn allowing authorities to encase the media speculation in an unbreakable shell of assurances and denials.

Uncle Ernie: An Honest Young Lad

I’ve always admired the British royal family. Next to the Tiger Tank, they’re probably the finest thing to come out of Germany. I especially like that young Prince fellow they’ve sent over here.

The Prince is down to earth and humble. He stood before the people of Christchurch and said “I count myself extremely privileged”.

Honest too, it seems. Makes a nice change.

******

I see the United Nations have declared a no-fly zone over Libya.

I say good luck to them! A fat lot of good it will do.

Everyone knows Africa’s full of flies. What are they going to do? Spray the entire continent?

Madness, I tell you. Madness.

Criminal Procedure Bill Picks Away At Rights Of Accused

Members of the judiciary have attacked some of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill, which is currently before the Justice and Electoral Select Committee.

The bill is huge and introduces a large number of changes to criminal procedure. Many of them are entirely sensible and will be welcomed by the legal profession.

But other changes are more controversial. One provision that has the judiciary up in arms is the requirement on the defence to indicate at an early state which elements of an offence are accepted, which are denied, and what defences will be raised. If the defence fails to do so the judge or jury are allowed to use the accused's silence as evidence inferring guilt. It's a partial abolition of the accused's right to silence.

The Chief Justice has also attacked the speed with which this law reform has been pushed through. On law and order issues this has been a pattern for the National government. The three-strikes legislation is a good example of bad law pushed through quickly.

The bill also abolishes the right of a defendant to seek a jury trial for offences where the maximum punishment is less than three years' imprisonment. The current threshold in most cases is three months. This is another erosion of the right of defendants. I'm not sure what the practical effect of this measure will be, and whether it will lead to a greater number of convictions. I suspect the main motivation for this measure is an attempt to cut costs.

But the most controversial measures are consistent with the approach successive governments have taken on law and order issues: picking away slowly at the rights of the accused, in favour of "get tough" policies and "streamlining" the system.

At the same time the ongoing assault on the legal aid system is also diminishing the ability of accused people to get proper representation.

Someone who knows a lot more about the bill than me is Graeme Edgeler, and he has a good summary of it here.

And My Vote Goes To...

I'm only one voter, but I like to imagine that my vote counts for something.

In case anyone cares, I've decided to measure my dissatisfaction with the Opposition in a meaningful way.

Like this.

 I'll update this from time to time.

Yuk

If there was ever any question as to whether Michael Laws had any redeeming features, this will answer it.

More Goff Blundering

It may have seemed likely to most people shortly after the quake that the chances of Christchurch hosting any Rugby World Cup games were remote, but it hardly seems unreasonable for the government to take a couple of weeks to consider the issue.

Phil Goff has accused the National government of unnecessarily delaying the decision to take hosting rights off the city. Delaying? The earthquake happened only three-and-a-bit weeks ago, FFS. Perhaps the structural engineers had more important things to worry about than the state of a stadium and the fate of some rugby games. Had Key rushed the decision and said on 23 February "sorry Christchurch", how would that have gone down?

I can't fault John Key's management to date of this particular issue, because decisions have neither been rushed nor unduly delayed. And, on the face of it, the decision to take the hosting rights away is probably the right one.

So why doesn't Phil Goff get off Key's back and stop petty politicking, and instead start asking some hard questions about things that matter? Like welfare reform, our lack of economic growth and the like.

Just a thought, Phil.

TPP IP Provisions Shouldn't Be Imposed Without Debate

I've been a bit slow off the mark in analysing the potential impact of the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations, but as a busy  IP lawyer I kind of find myself working within the laws we do have rather than the ones we should have. It's not often that I get the chance to consider IP law reform issues.

I had read some of the stuff on the TPP, but not until attending a seminar by Wellington academic Suzie Frankel this evening have I felt even remotely informed on the topic.

It's pretty clear that if we go with the TPP it will require a degree of bending over backwards on IP law matters in favour of the US. The US is keen to ensure that signatories to the TPP have strong IP protections in place. These protections would in many cases be much stronger than the protections we currently have in place. Some of the most notable changes demanded by the US are:

• increasing the duration of copyright to the life of the author plus 70 years (currently it is plus 50), and to 95 years for "works for hire"
• eliminating parallel importing
• extending the scope of patentable subject matter to include methods of treatment of humans
• fixed penalties for copyright infringement
• a requirement for NZ to accede to a number of IP treaties it has not ratified.

There's lots more, besides, including in the areas of digital copyright and pharmaceuticals.

You can debate whether these protections are good or bad for New Zealand. And indeed we should have that debate. But negotiations are going on behind closed doors, and it's likely that we will have a set of laws foisted upon us that don't take heed of our own economy's innovation requirements. What's good for the US pharmaceutical and entertainment industries may not always be good for NZ, a nation that is still developing as a "knowledge economy".

The Australian Productivity Commission undertook a review of free trade agreements after the US-Australia free trade agreement was signed. It has been largely accepted that Australia's agreeing to stronger IP laws at the behest of the US was the price Australia had to pay for a free trade agreement. But the Productivity Commission's report concluded that future free trade agreements should not include IP provisions unless a full economic assessment of their effects had been undertaken. The imposition of IP laws without any consideration as to their effect on the economy is likely to be damaging to innovation.

The reality is that we will probably cave in on a number of measures, if we get concessions on agriculture. Politicians like to talk about innovation and the knowledge economy, but when they're pushed they never have the actions to back up the rhetoric. Meat, dairy and kiwifruit always take precedence.

The biggest concern in all of this is not the proposed changes under the TPP, but the secrecy of the negotiations and lack of public debate.

Important Research Published

I’ve always said that the UK has the best newspapers in the world. For example, the Guardian has reported on some very important medical research.

In 1995, the Ig Nobel Prize in literature was awarded to two surgeons who painstakingly assembled a study called Rectal Foreign Bodies: Case Reports and a Comprehensive Review of the World's Literature. Those case reports involve, among other items: seven light bulbs; a knife sharpener; two flashlights; a wire spring; a snuff box; an oil can with potato stopper; 11 different forms of fruits, vegetables and other foodstuffs; a jeweller's saw; a frozen pig's tail; a tin cup; a beer glass; and one patient's remarkable ensemble collection consisting of spectacles, a suitcase key, a tobacco pouch and a magazine.

The doctors, David B Busch and James R Starling of Madison, Wisconsin, were inspired by one of their own patients: "A 39-year-old married white male lawyer presented with a self-inserted perfume bottle in his rectum that he was unable to remove using various objects, including a back scratcher."

That last guy wasn’t me, by the way. I’m only 38.

Other highlights include:

Their attention was caught by a "case of suspected misreporting of an assault" described in a 1934 New York State Journal of Medicine article: "A 54-year-old married man admitted to self-insertion of two apples, having previously complained of assault by several men involving forced insertion of a vegetable (one cucumber and one parsnip)."

I won’t be eating fruit or vegetables again for a while – not until the mental image now burned into my mind fades. It could be a while. I’m glad I’m not a vegetarian right at the moment.

A 1928 American Journal of Surgery article described a "patient who admitted to self-insertion of a lemon and a cold cream jar and stated that a drug clerk had advised him to use lemon juice and cold cream for relief of haemorrhoids, which were not found on examination". A 1935 report in the same journal concerned a patient who "presented with a broken broom handle, stating that he was using the object to massage his own prostate, a service allegedly rendered twice a week by his physician when the patient had more money". In 1932, The Illinois Medical Journal described a patient who "reported self-insertion of two drinking glasses for relief of itching".

The author of this fine piece of journalism has promised there is more to come, including some practical advice. One rather obvious piece of advice springs to mind.

Pushing The Boundaries?

It seems to me that blog posts by practising lawyers like this one (I am specifically referring to the title of the post: “Judge fosters corruption”) must be pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable and what amounts to contempt of court.

If I accuse a judge of being corrupt and of engaging in corrupt behaviour I can feel confident that, unless I have strong evidence of corruption, I’m going to end my career.

If Mr Franks wants to make a statement that an inadequate punishment given to a serious fraudster will only encourage corruption, then he may well have a point.

But “Judge fosters corruption” seems to get personal. Note, Franks didn’t use the word “judgment” but instead chose to use “judge”.

Busting Some IP Myths

You would think that, being an IP lawyer, I'd write a bit more frequently about IP issues. But something else always seems to get in the way. Here is one of those rare posts. I guess I just got bored beating up on ACT.

This post came about because I've been thinking a bit about some of the most common myths and fallacies surrounding my area of practice, and in particular the poor maligned patent. This post has been prompted by some of the stuff I’ve read or been told by clients about patents.

So out of a desire to set things straight I offer you my wisdom, or lack of it. And I won't even charge you for it.

Here are (in no particular order) just some of the most common myths about patents.

If you have a patent then that gives you an unfettered right to exploit the patented invention

No. A patent is really a negative right. It gives you the right to exclude others for the life of the patent (20 years from filing in most countries). You can still infringe someone else's rights when you make, use or sell a patented invention. For example, if your patented invention is an improvement on an existing technology, you may not be able to exploit the improvement without infringing any patent rights in the underlying technology.

I can get a worldwide patent for my invention

No. Patents are territorially limited. A New Zealand patent won’t stop anyone from doing anything they like in Australia, for example. But you can file patent applications in more than one country for your invention.

If someone gets a patent for their invention then that automatically increases its value

No. The claims of a patent describe the scope of the monopoly right given to the owner. The claims describe what is protected, and if the claims don't cover the most important and innovative features of the invention then the protection offered by the patent will be worthless. That's why you're a mug if you invest in something because it is patented but without getting someone to analyse the scope of the claims of the patent.

But a well-drafted patent that encompasses the essential features of a valuable invention will potentially be extremely valuable.

Once I get my patent granted I can't have it taken away from me

No. Just because you get a granted patent doesn't mean you can enforce it, or that it won't be challenged or even revoked. If you try to enforce a patent against an infringer and they decide to fight back the first thing they will do is look for grounds to invalidate your patent. They will look for any prior art or prior publications to show your invention wasn't novel, and might try a host of other arguments.

But a well-drafted patent that takes into account the prior art can be hard to knock out. It may have a deterrent value, discouraging potential infringers.

So if I am going to spend all this money and my patent still isn’t bullet-proof, why should I bother?

If you have an invention that you want to make money off, and if you want to take it offshore, then unless you can secure some form of IP protection for it you're probably not going to make a great deal of money. Someone will always be able to make it cheaper than you, and someone will do it if they think it is good.

I once had a client who thought his invention was so powerful and so revolutionary that people would fall over to throw money at him, even though the invention wasn't protectable in any way. He was convinced that once he released his invention onto the market people would be queuing up to sign licensing deals with him, even though he had no IP rights to license. I asked him why people wouldn't just copy his invention without permission and give him the one-finger salute. His response was that people in business were generally honourable and just wouldn't do such a thing. Heh.

Savvy investors understand the importance of IP protection. When they look for businesses or technologies to invest in they will hunt out opportunities that provide a competitive advantage. It's not enough for a product to be innovative, if the day after it's released onto the market a dozen or more competitors start to copy it.

The only people who make money off patents are patent attorneys and multinationals

No. I have a number of SME clients who’ve done very well out of their patent portfolios. And for a number of well-known New Zealand companies, their patent portfolios are of critical importance.

Contrary to what some people may think, the vast majority of patent attorneys are responsible and professional, and will steer a client away from trying to patent something that either can’t realistically be protected, or that has no prospect of making any money.

Patents are expensive. Maybe I'll wait until my invention starts to make money and has demonstrated that it is commercially viable, before taking this step

This is a very bad idea. You can only patent things that are novel. Generally speaking, if you have disclosed your invention, published any details of it, or made sales of any products encompassing it, it will be too late to get patent protection. So you have to either take the plunge early, or not do it at all.

It can be expensive to secure good patent coverage across the world for an invention. But the costs don't all come at the beginning. You can file a provisional application initially in New Zealand, which might cost a few thousand bucks, and then you will have 12 months to file a complete specification that fully describes your invention and includes all the claims. If the countries you want protection in are signatories to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) you can further defer the cost of filing in those countries. That gives you time to work out whether the technology is commercially viable, and gives you time to find licensees or investors before spending serious dollars.

But I’ll just require people I’m disclosing my invention to to first sign a confidentiality agreement

Confidentiality agreements can be useful where you aren’t ready to disclose your invention to the world. But they have their limitations. If you make an offer to someone to license or sell your invention and you haven’t got a patent application in place for it, then in some countries you will be prevented from getting any protection for the invention in the future.

The other big limitation is the fact that some people just won’t sign confidentiality agreements. This isn’t because they plan to screw you over, but because some people receive so many ideas that they just don’t want to be tied down. Many large companies have a policy of never signing confidentiality agreements with inventors who knock on their door. This can be a problem for you if the company that won’t sign is the only logical business partner to progress your idea. In those situations you can either choose not to do business with them, or first file a patent application to cover what you are going to disclose.

Some people say you should never discuss any new business opportunity with a person who won’t sign a confidentiality agreement with you. In my opinion this is not always the best advice. There are sometimes good reasons for a person not to sign a confidentiality agreement. Sometimes it’s corporate policy and the person you’re dealing with has his/her hands tied. Likewise the people who say you should never let yourself be tied up by confidentiality agreements, and that such matters demonstrate a lack of faith and trust, are probably being a bit naïve.

I've heard patents can take years to be granted. My invention might be obsolete by that time

It can take years in some countries for an application to be granted. You can't sue for infringement of a patent until it has been granted, but in most countries the damages you can claim for infringement are calculated from the date the patent application was published. This means that as soon as a patent application is published it will have a potential deterrent effect.

I don’t need a patent, because I can keep my invention a trade secret

Actually this is sometimes true. We all know about the Colonel’s secret recipe or the Coke formula. Those are good examples of trade secrets that have stayed out of the public domain.

But the trouble with trade secrets is that your protection is lost once someone spills the beans. In some cases it just isn’t possible to maintain trade secret protection. For example, if the very act of putting your product onto the market tells would-be copiers everything they need to know about the product, your trade secret won’t be very secret.

Treating something as a trade secret can often work for formulations and recipes, but only where the secret is known by only a few people, and only where consumer protection laws (e.g. product labelling laws) don’t require the disclosure of the secret (e.g. an ingredients list) to customers.

I don't need a patent, because copyright will protect my invention

New Zealand is an odd country when it comes to industrial copyright laws. If someone copies a product in New Zealand then, in some cases, the copier can be held liable for infringing the copyright in the design drawings of the product. Most countries don't have similar copyright laws, so industrial copyright protection is of limited value outside New Zealand. Relying on industrial copyright might not always be the best strategy if you want to export your product.

Copyright is a particularly useful form of protection in some industries. For example, the source code in a piece of software will attract copyright protection, preventing any direct copying of the software without a licence.

And of course copyright is also particularly valuable in protecting the work of designers, artists, writers and others involved in the creative arts.

I don't need a patent, because a registered design will protect my invention

Registered designs protect the shape and appearance of a product, rather than the way in which it works. In many cases it can be useful to seek both patent and registered design protection for a product.

But if the innovative features of a product aren't really down to its visually-apparent design features, a registered design may be of limited value.

I don't need a patent, because a good brand is more important

There is no reason why having strong patent protection and a good brand can't go hand in hand. But relying on branding alone requires you to have the marketing expertise to create a perception that your product is better in some way than the others. If there are no IP rights in existence to stop someone else with a powerful brand from copying and selling your product, you may lose much of any market share you had established.

Software patents are a bad idea

This is perhaps the one area of patent law that attracts the most heated debate. The draft Patents Bill before Parliament will exclude software from the list of patentable matter.

For some in the open source movement the essential evil of software patents is an article of faith. But this faith is based on a number of arguments that don’t really make much sense. The most popular are:

• Only big bad nasty multinationals benefit from software patents. This is untrue, because a lot of SMEs seek patent protection. A number of smaller companies have also had big paydays thanks to those big nasty multinationals infringing their rights. For example, i4i recently slammed Microsoft (yes, the evil baby-eating Microsoft) for US$280 million. In 2009 a jury awarded Uniloc US$388 million against the same baby-eaters, and although the damages in that case have to be reassessed after Microsoft appealed, they're still likely to be huge.
• Software doesn't need protection because it already has copyright protection. There is copyright in aspects of the software, namely the source code and the screen display and graphic interfaces. But there is more to software than code. Copyright doesn't protect algorithms or functionality. There's nothing more demoralising to a software developer than to see someone else copy his/her software, but doing so without actually copying the code user interface. In those cases there's nothing the developer can do if he/she doesn't have patent protection.
• Why allow two types of protection over software? Other creative endeavour doesn’t have such dual protection. This is completely untrue. It is common for different types of IP to protect different aspects of an invention. It’s the same for software. Software patents don’t protect source code, whereas copyright does.
• Software patents stifle innovation. The evidence for this is largely anecdotal. There is no reliable data to support this proposition. There has been almost no software patent litigation in New Zealand, which doesn’t make sense if the existence of software patents is crushing innovation.

Most of the arguments against software patentability are really just arguments against the entire patent system in disguise.

 

P lawyers are successful, well-adjusted, good-looking and popular; and their opinions on all matters, IP and non-IP related, deserve to be listened to; because when an IP lawyer speaks on a subject his/her authority is irrefutable; and that is why if there is a God He/She will almost certainly be an IP lawyer

 

Actually, I think that one’s true.

Stop The Press: ACT Policy Makes No Sense

I love it whenever a bunch of ACT people get together. You can always guarantee there will be at least one memorable comment. One immediately imagines holding a rifle over a barrel filled with fish. One is seldom disappointed.

The conference over the weekend was particularly rewarding for those who enjoy that form of sport.

This effort from Rodney Hide was especially memorable.

What is wrong with a few open-cast mines? I find the scale of them dramatic and grand. Plenty of other people do, too.

So that's how Rodney plans to grow tourism. Carve up the conservation estate and replace pristine landscapes with enormous gashes on the face of Mother Nature.

As the leader of a party that has been a festering sore on the arse of this particular parliament, Hide speaks from a position of experience.

But putting aside the aesthetics argument, Hide's statement that mining could be worth hundreds of billions makes little sense. How can we extract hundreds of billions in returns to the government (remembering that the royalty payable to the government is only a fraction of the total earned from a mining operation) if we have only "a few open-cast mines"? Many of the minerals Hide wants us to dig up are in places that are difficult to access, and in many cases open-cast mining would be the only viable way to extract them.

So when Hide says "a few" he really means " a lot".

But if mining conservation land is Hide's plan to regain popularity he should be prepared for disappointment. Polls on mining have shown a solid majority adamantly opposed to mining on conservation land. It may be that the only people (outside a few in ACT and National) who think open-cast mines are "dramatic and grand" are mine operators.

Goff Needs To Learn About Gun Safety

I'm willing to cut the new leader of a political party a bit of slack. Even if they have been around the political scene for years.

But I can barely listen to or read a thing Phil Goff says without groaning. He really needs to be taken aside and given the hard word about gun safety. How can anyone shoot themselves in the foot so many times?

The gruesome impact of today's self-inflicted wound is graphically documented here.

Labour leader Phil Goff has ruled out a deal with Te Tai Tokerau MP Hone Harawira or any party he leads.

''I don't believe he would be a suitable coalition partner,'' Goff said.

He said Harawira was not reliable and had expressed some extreme policies that Goff found personally offensive.

"I don't believe you could form a stable government on a relationship with Hone Harawira."

But Goff's happy to work with Winston Peters, despite Peters being at least as widely reviled as Harawira. The main difference between the two is that Harawira speaks from the heart. He may be unreliable and unstable, but you know where you stand with Hone.

Does anyone remember how Goff reacted when John Key ruled out working with Winston Peters? I recall accusations of hubris and arrogance. Goff in turn said that he was prepared to work with anyone.

To me this demonstrates a crisis in confidence within the leadership of Labour. There is no consistency in the messages they are sending to the electorate, because they are floundering and bereft of ideas. Nothing they do seems to impress the voters. So they keep trying new things. Goff's "me too" approach to politicking just shows him to be weak and lacking a firm vision for the country. His comments about Liz Hurley, and suggestions that extrajudicial means should be used to deal with looters, all indicate Goff may be more reactionary than visionary. They also piss off a lot of people who should be falling over to vote Labour.

There are plenty of good people within Labour, but I can't see them flourishing while the party retains a leader who doesn't seem to know what to say or do in response to the John Key phenomenon. Key oozes charm and relaxed good humour, while Goff just looks uptight whenever he is interviewed. Goff's predecessor was also criticised for never looking relaxed, but that is about the only thing they had in common. Clark could usually dispose easily of anyone who challenged her, while Goff just comes across as indecisive and insincere.

Goff could still become PM if things turn out well in November, even if Labour comes a comfortable second to National in the party vote. For example, ACT is likely to disappear from Parliament unless Key decides to run a chimpanzee as the National candidate for Epsom. And Winston could sneak in with 5% of the vote (though, ironically, ACT's latest appeal to racists may be an attempt to steal votes from NZ First).

But I personally don't like his chances. And if someone like me, who should be a natural Labour voter, is seriously wondering why he should bother voting for them, how many others are there in the same situation?

The Face Of Looting

ACT MP Rodney Hide was today apprehended by authorities after he was caught red-handed attempting to make off with the nation’s riches.

Mr Hide, 54, is accused of having urged government ministers to pursue policies that, if implemented, would see an immediate financial windfall to Hide’s supporters. Hide’s supporters would have benefited enormously from a wholesale sell-off of state assets proposed by Hide, and a reduction in tax rates for the wealthy.

Authorities have laid a raft of other charges against Hide. They include engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct in representing to the public of New Zealand that the ACT Party has a remaining shred of integrity and is not a refuge for the bewildered.

Conspiracy charges have also been laid in relation to a range of violence and property damage matters, including conspiring to slash, burn and gut the New Zealand state sector, and to cut state assistance for the poor and needy.

The president of the ACT Party, Chris Simmons, has issued a statement dismissing the accusations made against Hide.

“I have received a document with the list of charges laid against Mr Hide, and I am confident that there is no substance to it whatsoever,” Mr Simmons’ statement says.

“I would even go as far as to say that the person who concocted these charges is utterly insane.

“Let me add that I speak from a position of some experience in these matters. In my role as ACT president I deal with a lot of insane people.”

If found guilty of the charges Mr Hide faces a lengthy period of exile. A guilty verdict could even give rise to a political death sentence being handed down by the court of public opinion.

People With Arsehole Syndrome Need To Be Understood, Not Judged

If you read Michael Laws' latest column in the Sunday Star Times today you may have concluded that Laws is a revolting human being. Brian Edwards has described Laws' comments in that column as being "worthy of Joseph Mengele."

I confess that I have expressed a lot of ill-will towards Mr Laws in a few of my own posts. And for that I wish to apologise.

In my defence, however, I didn't realise until today that Michael Laws has a disorder that affects his brain, and makes him behave in a manner that "normal" people generally find uncomfortable.

Michael Laws has Arsehole Syndrome.

The most important thing to understand about people who have Arsehole Syndrome is that they do not experience the world as the rest of us do. Arseholes (as people with the syndrome are commonly called) can find it stressful and difficult to function in environments that most of us take for granted. The urge to abuse, demean and vilify can quickly become overwhelming for an Arsehole when they are put in an unfamiliar situation, especially if the people around them are not exactly like them and don't subscribe to their narrow range of beliefs.

It is true that an Arsehole will usually understand the difference between right and wrong. But the wiring of an Arsehole's brain isn't like your own. Arseholes are compelled to repeat behaviours that the rest of us find bizarre or even disgusting.

That is why Arseholes come across as socially stunted and unlikeable.

It is notoriously difficult to diagnose the syndrome. I suspect this is why Laws' compulsion to put the boot into anyone who can't defend themselves was misdiagnosed for so long. Most people who read or hear a Laws diatribe aimed at Maori, solo mothers or the disabled will just assume they are dealing with a gutless coward.

Arseholes almost always have terrible trouble when they try to enter the workforce. To those unaware of the syndrome, the behaviour of an Arsehole can seem loathsome and offensive. Arseholes have particular difficulties with understanding the nuances of social intercourse. The reaction of an Arsehole when put into any environment they are unfamiliar with can be difficult for their co-workers to make sense of. When confronted with uncertainty, an Arsehole will spew obscene hatred at anyone and anything. An Arsehole will continue with a rant long after the other person has lost interest in the topic.

That is why most Arseholes try to avoid social interaction, preferring instead to write columns for Sunday newspapers.

But there is a place where Arseholes can feel safe, and where people with the disorder can communicate and have their opinions validated. The medium of talkback radio is enormously important for many Arseholes, because it allows them to feel as if their lives have some meaning. Denouncing people of other ethnicities and the disabled, and people who are different, is an well-recognised therapy for Arseholes.

That is why we need to cut Michael Laws some slack. He can't help the way he is. You may be sick of reading or hearing what he thinks about people who dare to be different to him, but he's an Arsehole. What else can you expect?

This Won't Work

Stuff reports on a new ACT initiative to recapture lost votes on the right.

Race relations dominated today's ACT party conference with one delegate suggesting the party should introduce a policy to ''shoot the natives.''

The comment came as guest speaker Don Brash outlined why he thought the Treaty of Waitangi was ahead of its time.

''I'm not someone who wants to scrap the Treaty. I think it's a fantastic document. It was a move that was well ahead of it's time. ''In 1840, when the British colonial power arrived in Australia...[the policy] was to shoot the natives.''

One member piped up: ''Lets bring it back.'' The remark was met with a groan.

This is a naive policy that won't inspire ACT's members. The party is hot on property rights. Why would you shoot people that can (with some minimal effort) be turned into cash-earning chattels?

Next Year Will Be Even Better

The ACT Party is downsizing. Its 2011 conference is being held at a motel.

I have been told planning for next year's ACT conference is already underway. Here's a picture of the venue. 

And, thanks to a great accommodation deal the party has struck, here's where the delegates will be staying.

The keynote speaker has already been booked.

And the conference dinner promises to be a highlight.

It's always a good chance at conference to catch up with some of the party faithful.

And then after dinner, and when the dancing starts, people really start letting things go.

But in the end the party conference is all about communicating your message to the country.

They Should Have Listened

It's a tragedy that nobody listened to me.

I predicted both of the Christchurch earthquakes. I even picked the dates. I said that the February one would be particularly severe, and would result in the loss of life.

But nobody listened.

You probably don't believe me, but I can prove it. My predictions are on footage captured in a documentary, which will up be on YouTube soon. I start filming the footage this weekend.

Then you'll see.