[Linuxtrent] patenti software
- From: Thomas <thomas@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: linuxtrent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:31:18 -0500
Forwardo un messaggio appena arrivato in Wsis (fsf) riguardo un
tentativo, più psuddolo del solito, di far approvare la direttiva sulla
patentabilità del software.
E' marcato come urgente
Dear Friends
Over the weekend, a very serious danger appeared concerning Software
patents.
In the CoRePer agenda published last friday :
(http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st15/st15967.en04.pdf)
Point 5 :
Adoption of
(a) the Council's common position with a view to the adoption of a
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
patentability of computer-implemented inventions (cp + s) 11979/04 PI 61
CODEC 962 14574/04 PI 71 CODEC 1225 + ADD1
(b) the draft statement of reasons 11979/04 PI 61 CODEC 962 ADD 1 + COR
1 (de) + COR 2 (es)
An addition available in German contains ( english translation ) :
Number 17 (Page 5) is changed to this text:
"Paragraph 2 was added to make clear, that the *scope of protection
of a patented invention* under certain circumstances and under defined
conditions *can also comprise a computer program, either on its own or
on a carrier*. In the view of the Council, the directive thereby follows
the established practice of the European Patent Office and the Member
States.
The failed attempt to organize a face to face meeting between RMS and
Devedjian ( French minister of Industry )
had however enable us to have a constructive meeting
with the Delivet, the legal counsel of the Minister, and a small french
working group of friends that was setup towards this purpose.
Thanks to the warning of this working group, yesterday, I sent very
early this morning an urgent call
to Delivet and other french high officials not to fall into this gross trap.
It is too soon to know the results of our action.
We hereby call for the activists in all european countries to call and
warn their government contacts about
this last minute and gross manoeuver to get software patents adopted.
Best regards
Francis
see also :
2004-12-13 EU Council Presidency Schedules Software Patent Directive
for Adoption at Fishery Meeting
http://kwiki.ffii.org/Cons041213En
Coreper diplomats will decide on Tuesday and Wednesday whether the
European Software Patents Agreement will be passed by the upcoming
Fishery or Environment Council meetings, the last ones of this year.
Contrary to recent information given by the Belgian government, the
Dutch Presidency is apparently still trying to push through the text
from last May as an A-item, i.e. without discussion and without vote.
The published justifications for throwing away all of the European
Parliament's substantial amendments range from the longtime debunked
(TRIPs requires software patents)
<http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/trips/index.en.html> to the downright
absurd (politicians should not change established practice).
A recently published Council agenda
<http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st15/st15967.en04.pdf> (page
2, item 5) notes that the adoption of the Council's text from May will
be discussed by the Mertens <http://www.ukrep.be/jargon.html> group on
Tuesday. This group prepares the meetings of Coreper, which in turn
prepares the meetings of the Council. The only Council meetings left
under the Dutch Presidency are one on Environment on 20 December and one
on Agriculture and Fisheries on 21-22 December.
The Dutch Presidency has been using diplomatic pressure to bully Poland
<http://kwiki.ffii.org/Nlpl0411En>. Although everyone knows that neither
the Polish government nor the Polish industry supports the directive
text, the Dutch Presidency insists that, due to some formal reasons
<http://kwiki.ffii.org/ConsReversEn>, Poland must vote "Yes" or agree to
a formal adoption without a vote. However, as has been pointed out
before and as verified with the Council's own public information
service, any country has the right to demand that the directive text
should be treated again as a B item (i.e., as a discussion point).
Laura Creighton, software entrepreneur, venture capitalist and
vice-president of FFII, comments:
"Before today it was possible for generous people to look charitably at this
text as an example of a tragic mistake, not malice. But not with this
last-minute maneuvering. Only the most committed opponent to the democratic
process would believe that the proper response to the widespread consensus
that there is something profoundly wrong with the Council's text, is to race
it through with an A-item approval the week before Christmas in a
_Fisheries_
Council Meeting. The bad smell coming from Brussels has nothing to do with
the fish."
Othmar Karas, MEP of the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP) and Vice
President and Economic Affairs Spokesman of the European People's Party
(EPP) in the European Parliament, recently lambasted the Council's
behaviour as well in a recent press release
<http://www.othmar-karas.at/ok.php?ok=new_presse_zeigen.php&id=226>:
"The planned directive on software patents no longer has a majority in the
Council. The political agreement of May is outdated, both because of the
new voting weights stipulated by the Nice treaty and because of the changes
of position in Poland, the Netherlands and Germany."
A draft statement of reasons <http://kwiki.ffii.org/Cons041203En>
proposed by the Dutch Presidency has to justify this defiance of
democratic decision making. It claims that a large number of the
European Parliament's amendments "did not reflect established practice"
or "would be contrary to the international obligations under the TRIPs
agreement <http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/trips/index.en.html>".
Hartmut Pilch, president of the FFII, notes:
"The Dutch presidency seems to be avoiding conflicts by preparing an
explanatory document that explains as little as possible. They do not
explain which kinds of patent claims should be acceptable and which not,
which interests are served thereby and which not and why. They merely
point to the European Patent Office as the authority. One may wonder
whether this is the intention of a qualified majority. Also, the Dutch
presidency adds the TRIPs fallacy. They could just as well have added a
statement that the earth is flat."
Jonas Maebe of FFII Belgium adds:
"One group of amendments from the European Parliament is dismissed by the
Council with the simple justification that they "did not reflect
established practice". Let's hope for the Council's sake that the European
Parliament does not ever again get the idea that they can submit proposals
which actually change things."
It is not yet known whether Poland will bow to the pressure. Poland's
diplomats at the Council have, ever since May 2004, contradicted their
government's repeated statements of opposition to the directive draft.
They have always insisted on unwritten rules of diplomacy whose
violation, they fear, would be disadvantageous to Poland.
Further Reading
* 2004-12-12 Code Liberty: Confusion Reigns on Council Position as
Adoption is Announced <http://codeliberty.org/?fullstory=00012>
* 2004-12-07 Belgium confirms abstention regarding Council text from
May <http://kwiki.ffii.org/Belg041207En> (and remarks that the
common position will not be finalised under the Dutch presidency
<http://kwiki.ffii.org/Delay041207En>)
* 2004-07-02 Motion by the Parliament of The Netherlands
<http://kwiki.ffii.org/NlVote040701En>
Comments
Rebentisch
As we found out it is no ius nondum to change your council voting
<http://kwiki.ffii.org/ConsReversEn>. In fact there is no formal
obligation to stick to a "political agreement" that is obsolete.
Adoption of obsolete agreements in fact contradicts the whole concept of
*political agreements* as an informal part of the decision making
process. However the Nl presidency insists on non-existing council
rules. They did pressure opposed to the very will of Tweede Kamer, their
own parliament <http://kwiki.ffii.org/NlVote040701En> which following
misconduct of Brinkhorst et. al. called upon the NL-Government to stop
support of the May agreement <http://kwiki.ffii.org/NlMot040701En>.
Tweede Kamer 2004-07-02
considering that the minister of Economic Affairs misinformed the
Parliament about the nature of the planned proposal shortly before the
Council meeting, as a result of which the Parliament was unable to
fulfil its controlling task as it should;
considering that a directive about the patentability of software must
lead to harmonisation of legislation within the EU in order to prevent
excesses with regard to the patentability of software;
EXPRESSES its [the Parliament's] opinion that the political agreement as
reached at the Competitiveness Council of 17 and 18 May 2004 offered
insufficient guarantees to prevent excesses with regard to software
patentability;
CALLS UPON the government to convey this opinion of the Parliament to
the other (EU) member states;
CALLS UPON the government to act according to this opinion in further
discussions of the Council proposal, and from this present moment,
abstain from supporting the current Council proposal,
So the NL presidency acts against the very opinion of the Nl parliament.
Please consider that the "abstention" *was a compromise* with the NL
parliament reached by the NL government. The NL support in May was
against ealier agreements with Tweede Kamer. Tweede Kamer was enraged by
continuous misinformation by the NL Government.
Random comments from mailing lists
We could see our fight in terms of Ukrainian presidential election.
Yanukovych was picked as a candidate by the current president, Kuchma,
in return for guarantees to the president and his allies of immunity
from prosecution for all his crimes, committed while in power, as well
as protection of their assets gained through manipulated privatisation.
He was voted down by more then fed-up people who had enough. And they
were denied their victory by a group of crooks.
Our scenario is similar. We have won in the European Parliament. We are
now denied victory by manipulation and irregularities in the Council.
The Kuchmas of the EU don't like consultation with national parliaments,
recounting in the Council or restarting in the EP, nor any other open
approach to problems. The main difference is that they --- hopefully ---
aren't considering deployment of troops and use of force.
--
Per iscriversi (o disiscriversi), basta spedire un messaggio con OGGETTO
"subscribe" (o "unsubscribe") a mailto:linuxtrent-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
