[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fsfe-uk] McCarthy report withdrawn

From: test
Subject: Re: [Fsfe-uk] McCarthy report withdrawn
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 00:11:56 -0000

> On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 11:52, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> > > If it's possible to get it back on the agenda, we should watch them
> > > fairly carefully - they have been caught trying to push things through
> > > before.

It's possible for them to get it back on the agenda if a party votes on
Monday for adding it, but I'm not sure if it's possible to get the voting
scheduled before Thursday after Lunch (see the plenary links on wiki.ael.be
for the exact slot for late addes votes for the exact earlyest time)

> > We need to get this back on the agenda. It is essential for a directive
> > to go through and prevent any more stupid patents being granted. They

I think a directive could only be needed to get the case law in line again,
be this could be better handled by the planned european patent court
in luxembourg which I think is neccesary for the european community
patent which has been brought forward lately.

> > are being granted now. No directive does not help us. It's great news
> > that the current directive, which did not help has been sent back for
> > modification.

Are you talking on the proposal on a directive for the patentability of
comupter-implemented inventions?


Note: The data right of forecasts on this page seems to be old but this was
the last plan to get the amended directive proposal into effect.

Just for completeness - it's not yet a directive, it's still "only" a
proposal for
a directive and I would think it's good to not change it into a directive,
not even only in my mind.

Second, on 'sent back for modification' - AFAIk it's not this way.

The 1st reading in the pleary has been delayed again and not more, I think.

You find more detail on what I mean with "1st reading" when reading:

> I don't think that's necessarily a plausible direction - the JURI has
> been asked to look at this, and it will be their recommendations that
> will be voted on. It's not possible to suggest our own directive; the
> only hope is to influence JURI as I understand it.

There is no need and I don't think it's very feasible to still try to
JURI on the directive proposal with the reference COD/2002/0047
(see 1st URL in this mail for it) because it's not JURI's turn now.

JURI has played it's role until the report A5-0238/2003 was tabled:


But this has happened on June 17th and since the parliament(the 625 european
parliamentarians) have the next turn so they decide what happens next and
JURI anymore.

> You're right in that a directive of some sort will be passed; the

Not neccesarily, it *can* be turned down, but a majority of the MEPs
would have to agrree. If more english MEPs could get an understanding
that it's not good for europe, it could be a final step, but we are far from
it of course.

Instead *in my dream* the EP could start an resolution to the commission
to force the EPO the put examination guidelines into force which prevents
it from granting patents on software and put an european patent observatory
in charge to continously monitor the work of the EPO and report it to the
parliament/plenary regulary - like the European Central Bank does.

> crucial thing now will be to maintain the momentum and keep pushing the
> boundary back as far towards what it should be as possible.

I'd say it's essential to convince as many individual MEPs as possible in
week after the plenary that a directive like the proposed one would
put the mostly small european software companies at a drawback
against non-european multinationals.

BTW: Don't try this with McCarthy or Fourtou, it's likely just a huge
waste of time. (Only not if would you expect that you can turn Bush to
become a pacifist, prohibit landmines for US troups and reduce US
CO2 emmissions)

to change over islam


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]