Discussion October 2005

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

12 participants
10 discussions

German software licensing law
by MJ Ray 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

Can a software licence in the English language only be valid if it specifies that it is governed by German law? I've been told that the reverse isn't true: an English court would not normally consider a licensing agreement in German only that claimed to be under English law, without some special circumstances. I know even less about German law, so I'm hoping some kind soul on this list knows about this situation. Any pointers or references welcome. This seems to be a common situation with European software. There was also the QPL which was in English and specified Oslo courts, but I care less about that right now. There was a draft of something called the d-fsl published, which was in both English and German and was said to be seeking to satisfy all requirements of German law. Was being in German too part of that? Thanks for reading, -- MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

8 25

EPO Response to EU Parliament Motion on Biotechnology Patents
by Seth Johnson 28 Oct '05

28 Oct '05

(Well, the EPO responded. Would they respond similarly to an EU Parliament motion on software patents? -- Seth) > http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2005_10_27_e.htm "The EPO follows the EUs Directive on biotechnology patents" Munich, 27 October 2005 The European Patent Office (EPO) has noted the concern that several groups in the European Parliament have expressed about the grant of European patent EP 1257168 B1. However, the Office emphasises that it follows an extremely cautious approach in patenting biotechnological inventions. In motions communicated to the EPO, members of the European Parliament have stated that, in their view, the grant of this patent, which is entitled "Method of cryopreserving selected sperm cells", constitutes a violation of the Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (98/44/EC). The MEPs maintain that the patent also covers non-patentable human germ cells. They have therefore announced their intention to contest the grant of this patent by initiating an opposition procedure before the EPO. Other worries expressed in the motions concern the future development of the EPOs practice in patenting human embryonic stem cells. The President of the EPO, Alain Pompidou, has confirmed that such a patent was granted to the US Company XY Inc. of Fort Collins, Colorado, in February 2005, pointing out that the nine-month period during which oppositions to the patent can be filed by third parties will terminate on 2 November 2005: "The European patent grant procedure allows anyone to formally oppose a patent if they are of the opinion that it should not have been granted. This is an inbuilt legal remedy for establishing legal certainty on the patentability of an invention." Opposition procedure In view of the pending case, Mr Pompidou declined to comment on the individual objections expressed in the motions: "We take the concerns voiced by the MEPs very seriously. However, it will be the task of a dedicated EPO body, the opposition division, to consider the case in the light of the formal grounds brought forward by opponents. To date, such a procedure could not be opened as no oppositions have yet been filed." He added that every year around 5% of the patents granted by the EPO are contested in opposition proceedings. In two thirds of these cases, the patent is changed or even revoked in its entirety. The EPO grants patents by applying the European Patent Convention (EPC [http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/index.html]). The EPC forms the legal basis for the Office's institutional structure and its activities and operations. It has been ratified by the 31 member states of the European Patent Organisation (http://www.european-patent-office.org/epo/members.htm), 24 of which are also member states of the European Union. The EPC has enabled the transnational protection of innovations by patents in the European market and is seen by many countries as a model for regional cooperation in the field of intellectual property. Since September 1999, the EPO has applied the EU Directive in its patenting practice. According to Mr Pompidou: "Following a decision of our supervisory body, the Administrative Council, this Directive has been incorporated into the EPC Implementing Regulations. We thus strictly adhere to the provisions of the EPC and the Biotechnology Directive." Strict quality standards and transparency Biotechnology is one of the technical fields in which large numbers of patent applications are filed every year. In 2004, the EPO received 6 581 patent applications in biotechnology and granted some 4 000 patents. "We apply very strict standards in examining these applications", the EPO President said. "The provisions of the EPC and the Directive, together with the case law of the Boards of Appeal, which are the EPO's judiciary, demand a restrictive approach to patenting biotechnological inventions. We are fully aware that this is a sensitive field of technology and also has important ethical implications. However, one should also bear in mind that obtaining a patent does not imply permission to actually use an invention. This is the responsibility of regulatory bodies, not of the EPO." Inbuilt legal remedies Mr Pompidou acknowledged that, despite all the quality controls in place at the EPO, it is impossible to rule out the possibility that some patents do not meet its high quality standards in all aspects. For the current year the EPO expects to receive 190 000 patent applications. In 2004 the Office granted 60 000 patents, each one of them after a rigorous three-step procedure involving a comprehensive novelty search through more than 55 million documents and a thorough examination for compliance of the claimed invention with patent law. "The task of our 3 400 patent examiners is extremely challenging. They work at the forefront of technology and have to take difficult decisions within a complex legal and ethical framework, knowing that there is always a risk of inaccuracy. However, the European patent system takes that risk fully into account and has inbuilt legal remedies to oppose granted patents", the EPO President explained. With the help of the EPOs free patent information services such as epoline® and esp@cenet®, it is possible for anyone to inspect files pending before the EPO at all times: "The patent system provides complete transparency on any case pending or granted. Anyone who wishes to do so can monitor progress on any file at all stages of the procedure and even send us observations without getting legally involved in the case, and we will have to take them to account." Restrictive approach to human embryonic stem cells On the question of human embryonic stem cells, President Pompidou pointed out that the EPO has so far taken a very restrictive approach to the patenting of human embryonic stem cells and cell lines obtained from them. Following the "Edinburgh patent" case, the EPO has not granted patents for such inventions. Moreover, it has raised objections to the patentability of inventions pertaining to human embryonic stem cells in a number of applications that have been examined so far. The EPO's Technical Board of Appeal is called upon to give a first decision on the subject on 18 November. It has the option of referring the issue to the EPO's highest instance, the Enlarged Board of Appeal, for a definitive legal ruling. Information for journalists: 1. European patent EP 1 257 168 B1 was granted on 2 February 2005 to XY Inc., Fort Collins, CO (USA), based on a corresponding patent application filed with the EPO on 22 November 2002. The title is "Method of cryopreserving selected sperm cells". 2. Implementation of Directive 98/44/EC Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions was adopted on 6 July 1998. In its decision of 16 June 1999, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation, which supervises the activities of the EPO and is composed of representatives of all the contracting states to the European Patent Convention (EPC), incorporated the relevant provisions of this Directive into European patent law. Though not legally subject to this formal requirement, the European Patent Organisation decided that European patent law needed to be brought into line with the Directive, primarily in order to comply with the requirement for uniformity in harmonised European patent law. 3. Exclusion from patentability of inventions whose exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality The EPC expressly stipulates that the human body, at the various stages of its formation and development, and the simple discovery of one of its elements, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, cannot constitute patentable inventions. However, an element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process may constitute a patentable invention, even if the structure of that element is identical to a natural element. Recital 16 of the Directive and the Guidelines for examination in the EPO state that such stages in the formation or development of the human body include germ cells. Moreover, Rule 23b(1) EPC states that the Directive must be used as a supplementary means of interpretation. This is intended in particular to ensure that the recitals preceding the provisions of the Directive are also taken into account and to promote a uniform Europe-wide interpretation of the relevant provisions. 4. Article 53a EPC, in line with Article 6(1) of the Directive, establishes a general principle of exclusion for inventions whose exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality. Article 6(2) of the Directive lays down an illustrative list of exclusions from patentability which the EPO has implemented by the introduction of Rule 23d EPC. Recital 38 of the Directive confirms that this list is not exhaustive and that any process whose application offends against human dignity is also excluded from patentability. It thus follows from both the provisions of the Directive and of the EPC that, as regards the human body and its elements, the applicable legal framework rigorously ensures that the human body effectively remains unavailable and inalienable and that human dignity is thus safeguarded. 5. Patentability of human embryonic stem cells and cell lines obtained from them Rule 23d(c) EPC implements Article 6(2)c) of the Directive. It stipulates that European patents may not be granted in respect of biotechnological inventions which, in particular, concern uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes. The European Group on Ethics considered in its opinion No. 16 that there was no ethical reason for a complete ban on the patenting of inventions relating to stem cells or stem cell lines, although the normal requirements of patentability would have to be met. The EPO's departments of first instance have a much more restrictive practice on the patenting of human embryonic stem cells and cell lines obtained therefrom. According to the practice of the EPO examining and opposition divisions, Rule 23d(c) EPC excludes from patentability all claims to the industrial or commercial use of human embryos and also all claims to associated products which necessitate the direct and unavoidable use of a human embryo, for example, embryonic cells. Appeals have been filed against several first-instance decisions. The EPO Boards of Appeal will now have to construe the wording of Rule 23d(c) EPC themselves and form their own conclusions on what falls within its scope. In their decisions, the members of the Boards are not bound by any instructions and must comply only with the provisions of the EPC. 6. Abuses and risks of a given technology A patent is an industrial property right for an intangible asset, the invention, which must represent a technological improvement. The right which it accords is to prevent all others - not just imitators but even independent devisers of the same idea - from using the invention for the duration of the patent. A patent does not authorise its holder to implement that invention, but merely entitles him to prohibit third parties from exploiting it for industrial and commercial purposes. In other words, the grant of a patent does not confer a positive right to use the invention without complying with all the applicable rules of the legal system. Regardless of whether or not a patent is granted, the inventor has to respect all legal provisions that might possibly prohibit the working or marketing of the subject-matter of his invention. Patent law is thus not a suitable tool for preventing any abuses or risks associated with a given technology. It cannot serve to replace or render superfluous national, European or international law which may impose restrictions or prohibitions or which concerns the monitoring of research and of the use or commercialisation of its results, notably from the point of view of the requirements of public health, safety, environmental protection, animal welfare, the preservation of genetic diversity and compliance with certain ethical standards. 7. Transparency The practice of the European Patent Office adheres strictly to the legal principles and high standards laid down by the European Patent Convention. The EPO provides for a maximum of transparency and information on its activities. Patent applications are published 18 months after filing or after the priority date. Once a European patent application has been published, the file relating to it is open to inspection. This means that any member of the public can view the communications between the Office, its first and second-instance departments and the parties involved in the procedure. Such file inspections can be made online and are free of charge. Furthermore, all European patent applications and patents can be accessed on the Internet at www.espacenet.com, while any legal and procedural status information can be obtained from the EPOs epoline® server at www.epoline.org free of charge. Procedural information on any patent can be retrieved from the Online European Patent Register. European patent law also provides for a highly developed system of legal remedies. Any person may present observations concerning the patentability of the invention in respect of which the application has been filed. In addition, any third party can file an opposition to a granted patent, without having to prove a direct interest in the case. The possibility of appeal exists both against the decisions of the examining and opposition divisions. Furthermore, proceedings to revoke the patent, even if its validity has been upheld in opposition proceedings and/or subsequent appeal proceedings, can be instituted in any designated contracting state.

1 0

[johns@fsf.org: European Report Threatens Consumers' Rights]
by Andres K. Foerster 28 Oct '05

28 Oct '05

----- Forwarded message from John Sullivan <johns(a)fsf.org> ----- To: info-fsf(a)gnu.org From: John Sullivan <johns(a)fsf.org> Subject: European Report Threatens Consumers' Rights EFF urges a fresh inquiry into the ramifications of DRM. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has criticized a European Commission group for assuming that digital rights management (DRM) is the only way to foster development of the home audiovisual market. Read the full release at EFF[1]. [1] http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_10.php#004064 -- John Sullivan Program Administrator | Phone: (617)542-5942 x23 51 Franklin Street, 5th Fl. | Fax: (617)542-2652 Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA | GPG: AE8600B6 _______________________________________________ info-fsf mailing list info-fsf(a)gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-fsf ----- End forwarded message ----- -- AKFoerster LPIC-1

1 0

EU Parliament Moves Against EPO "Designer Baby Patent"
by Seth Johnson 27 Oct '05

27 Oct '05

(This is significant not only in the subject matter of the motion, but as a confrontation of the problematic relationship between the EU Parliament and the EPO, wherein the EPO is not actually subject to EU Parliament oversight -- being "not a person" before the EPC is not really the key, so much as having patent policy developed, judged and executed independently of the representative legislative organ. -- Seth) > http://wiki.ffii.org/EpBio0510En 2005-10: European Parliament to vote resolution against EPO-granted "designer baby patent" -> [ Priorities | News ] The EPP (conservative) group in the European Parliament has introduced a motion calling the Parliament to file an opposition against a patent granted by the European Patent Office. The Legal Service of the EP is against this, contending that the EP is not a person in the sence of the European Patent Convention. Greens are in favor. * EP resolution to be voted 2005-10-26 (http://www.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade3?TYPE-DOC=MOTION&REF=P6-RC-2005-0551&…) The motion was introduced by Klaus-Heiner Lehne MEP (http://wiki.ffii.org/KlausHeinerLehneEn) and somewhat amended through compromises with other party groups. In an unusual alliance on patents, both Lehne and the Green group are in favor of filing an opposition at the European Patent Office, whereas other MEPs such as Rainer Wieland (from Lehne's CDU group) would rather pass a resolution that calls on the Commission to file an opposition. The Parliament's Legal Service also believes that the Parliament is, unlike the Commission, not a legal person in the sense of the European Patent Convention. The vote is scheduled for tomorrow wednesday 2005-10-26 at noon. The question of whether to file opposition in the name of the EP may be subject to oral amendments in the last minute. Apart fom this, the resolution text seems to be settled. Timeline 2005-10-27 Preliminary report: Most of the Motion was carried. Additionally, and oral amedment saying "The EP decides to ask the European Commission to file an objection to patent EP1257168 without delay" was also carried. 2005-10-26 2005-10-25 Debate in JURI -- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.

1 0

food data
by Graham Seaman 17 Oct '05

17 Oct '05

Hi, I'm trying to get hold of data on food composition (like the American USDA data at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR18/sr18.html , but European). This is because the UK government requires payment of a license to use such data in programs, making free software using this data impractical (eg. a program for diabetics to assess carbohydrate intake). I would like to know if other European countries have a more sensible policy. Thanks Graham

1 0

licensing/copyright question
by Thomas Linden 17 Oct '05

17 Oct '05

Hello, I've got a complicated issue regarding a software I wrote. The software in question is a commandline firewall configuration tool for openbsd including webbased gui. It was a commercial project, but I never had a written contract with the company I wrote it for. They paid me a little bit for it, but at the end of the last year they stopped paying. Some months later I abandoned the project and stopped working on it. The company is no more interested in the project. The question now is, who owns the copyright on the software? From my point of view it is me, but I'm unsure. And, would it be legal to publish the software as opensource (say GPLed)? I'm located in germany, so german law applies. Thanks in advance, Thomas Linden -- \|/ -O- Thomas Linden (http://www.daemon.de/) /|\

3 2

Stockholm Challenge Award 2006
by Yong Liu 17 Oct '05

17 Oct '05

*Please circulate widely and apologies for cross-posting* I hope this will be of interest to you.If you have questions or comments, please contact Earl Mardle at earl.mardle(a)stockholmchallenge.se or Ulla Skid��n at ulla.skiden(a)stockholmchallenge.se. Best, Yong Liu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Stockholm Challenge Award 2006 is open for entries <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/news_right.asp?IdNr=150>THE STOCKHOLM CHALLENGE AWARD 2006 invites excellent ICT projects from all over the world to compete for the prestigious Challenge trophies. The Challenge is searching for the best initiatives that accelerate the use of information technology for the social and economic benefit of citizens and communities. The objective is to help local entrepreneurs, who work to close the digital divide, by bringing in research communities, development organisations and strong corporate initiatives. THE AWARDS WILL BE HANDED OUT IN SIX CATEGORIES <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=9>in the City Hall - on May 11, 2006. Special focus will be on projects in countries and regions with the greatest needs. There will also be an international Challenge conference in Stockholm on issues related to the role of ICTs in global development work. *THE AWARD IS OPEN FOR ENTRIES until December 31st 2005*. The application form <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/omtavling_index.html>is easily accessible on the home page. The Stockholm Challenge is headquartered at the IT University <http://www.it-univ.se/?lang=en>- a joint initiative by KTH<http://www.kth.se/eng/>(The Royal Institute of Technology) and Stockholm University <http://www.su.se/english> . It is managed by a consortium that also includes the City of Stockholm, Ericsson and Sida, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. For more information, please contact: Project Manager Ulla Skid��n ulla.skiden(a)stockholmchallenge.se Telephone: + 46 8 7904469 Cell: +46 70 678 72 82 www.stockholmchallenge.se <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/> *Rules for participation in the Stockholm Challenge Award 2006<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=3> * These are the basic rules for the participation in the Stockholm Challenge Award. All competing projects must: 1. Include ICT Illustrate how ICT is used to create new or better traditional services and/or products, which are beneficial for human and social development. 2. Be implemented All competing projects must be up and running. They should be implemented/piloted since no less than three months. The Stockholm Challenge Award does not accept drafted concepts and ideas only. The jury will only evaluate and compare projects that can show measurable outcomes and impact. 3. Be linked to and/or supported by an established private or public organisation. 4. Be verifiable, i.e. able to present credible references. 5. Be free from religious, political or other personal beliefs. *To be noted:* *Projects that have won one of the Challenge categories in previous years cannot enter the competition again.* *All applications must be in English* *Evaluation criteria<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=4> * Innovation, creativity and the convergence of ICT with many different disciplines are some of the qualities that are looked for in the competing projects. The jury, a group of international senior experts, base their evaluation on the following criteria, most of which all Challenge projects should meet: *Innovation* Competing projects should illustrate new and innovative ways of using ICT to improve the living and economical conditions especially of those with great needs. *Convergence* The addition of ICT as a tool to traditional development work can improve and widen the scope of the project impact. Projects should show successful convergences of different disciplines and sectors. *Inclusion* It is favourable for the competing projects to show that they bring individuals, groups and local organisations into larger communities �C national and global - such as medical, government, educational and cultural networks, as well business environments. *Equal Opportunity* It is important that the initiatives counteract inequality related to the likes of gender, origin, age, physical and/or mental disabilities. *Sustainability* An important factor is sustainability. Not only economic sustainability, i.e. how long the project will last and bring benefits to its users. Sustainability also includes the contribution of the project to a sustainable society and environment at large. *Opportunities <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=2>* To enter a project in the Stockholm Challenge Award is not only to participate in a prestigious international ICT competition - it is also a way to join networks of some of the best ICT entrepreneurs and pioneers in the world. Testimonials from many of the projects, which have competed in their respective categories over the years, say that it is the inspiration, the new ideas, contacts and partners that are the greatest rewards for a Challenger. The Stockholm Challenge represents excellent marketing through the exposure to media, and to private and public organizations that are involved in ICT work and implementations. It gives promotional opportunities for entrepreneurs, universities, cities, cities and regions. The Stockholm Challenge Final Events include a Best Practice Exhibition and a Conference. It is a meeting place for some the world's most successful IT entrepreneurs. Winners and finalists of the Stockholm Challenge are global role models for cities, companies, organisations, schools and others who are involved in adapting and spreading the use of ICT.

1 0

Free Software promotional materials
by Stephan Uhlmann 17 Oct '05

17 Oct '05

Hi, in preparation of the Software Freedom Day I'm currently looking for some ready-to-print material for Free Software promotion. That means flyers, posters, leaflets explaining the idea in general. Preferably short, easy to grasp and visually appealing. :) Any hints welcome. Thanks, Stephan

4 9

FSF Europe Newsletter
by Free Software Foundation Europe 09 Oct '05

09 Oct '05

1. IPRED2 - the new attack against freedom 2. Stichting NLnet donate 150,000 EUR to support GPLv3 activities 3. Alessandro Rubini in Slovenia 4. Stefano Maffulli at the OpenOffice.org Conference in Slovenia 1. IPRED2 - the new attack against freedom The European Commission has recently published it's draft for a second directive on the enforcement of "intellectual property rights." The text proposes criminalising most infringements of patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and also criminalising the aiding, abetting, or inciting of such an infringement. By requiring that jail sentences, large fines, and other harsh punishments be available for these new crimes, this directive could create enough fear to prevent citizens and companies from participating in the production and distribution of software, and to an extent, the use of software and the publication of information. It would also turn patent, trademark, and copyright laws into affordable weapons for well-funded companies to use on competitors. Ciaran O'Rioran has put together a page in which he explains how this directive could be abused to harm Free Software and what can be done against it. http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ 2. Stichting NLnet donate 150,000 EUR to support GPLv3 activities Stichting NLnet, a non-profit foundation based in The Netherlands, announced to donate 150,000 EUR to support the GPLv3 activities of the Free Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation Europe. This is an important contribution, and NLnet hopes to encourage other grant-making organisations to help fund this unique project. 3. Alessandro Rubini in Slovenia In Portoroz in Slovenia, Alessandro Rubini participated in a business conference about Free Software. He gave a talk about the the use of Free Software in business and participated in a round table discussion about how the government should help Free Software companies grow. Apart from these official appearances, he spent most of the time in Slovenia establishing contacts with other Free Software advocates from both Slovenia and Croatia. 4. Stefano Maffulli at the OpenOffice.org Conference in Slovenia At the OpenOffice.org Conference in Koper - Capodistria, Stefano Maffulli spoke at the round table that closed OOoConf2005. The debate ranged from the decision of Massachusetts to use OpenDocument Format to the next advancements in OpenOffice.org. The Conference was very well managed and the hospitality of LUG Trieste and LUGOS (Slovenia) was wonderful. You can find a list of all FSF Europe newsletters on http://www.fsfeurope.org/news/newsletter.en.html

1 0

Statement of the Free Software Foundations Europe & Latin America to the 2005 WIPO general assemblies
by Georg C. F. Greve 02 Oct '05

02 Oct '05

[ http://fsfeurope.org/projects/wipo/statement-20050930.en.html ] Statement of the Free Software Foundations Free Software Foundation Europe Free Software Foundation Latin America towards the 2005 WIPO general assemblies Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Free Software Foundations Europe and Latin America, let me express my congratulations to you and your colleagues on your chairing this historic general assembly. The Free Software Foundations are globally active centres of expertise acting in a network of sister organisations based in India, Latin America, Europe and the United States of America. Our area of expertise are the issues raised by a digitised society and economy, questions which are addressed effectively by Free Software; as defined by the freedom of unlimited use for any purpose, the freedom to study, the freedom to modify and the freedom to distribute. Through the Free Software Foundation Europe the FSFs participated in all sessions of the Development Agenda IIM process and also followed the broadcasting treaty negotiations with great interest. Our comments relate to both activities. Mr Chairman, much has been said and written about the knowledge society that humankind is about to enter. Looking at the regulatory initiatives, one stumbles upon a paradox: While society is getting ready to unleash human creativity as it has never done before, regulatory proposals seek to create new barriers. The Broadcasting Treaty is a good example of such a new barrier for which the potential benefits and costs seem unequally matched in disfavor of humankind. The result of ignoring the wisdom of approaching crucial legal regulation can be seen in another area: software patents have been introduced without evaluation, and according to the findings of several renowned institutions we now have to realise that they are harmful to competition and stifle innovation. For your information: these institutions include Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Boston University School of Law, Price Waterhouse Coopers, US Federal Trade Commission and Deutsche Bank Research. The situation has degenerated to the point that a vice president of IBM, Mr Wladawsky-Berger, likened software patents to weapons of mass destruction in a New York Times interview. Similar experiences seem possible with the Broadcasting Treaty. Erecting additional barriers and raising all barriers by introduction of criminal sanctions against commercial infringement at a time when humankind is still struggling to fully understand the implications of the digital age would be hasty and unwise. Mr. Chairman, the traditional toolset of WIPO revolves centrally around limited monopolies, such as Copyrights, Patents or Trademarks. These have often been treated on the basis that more is always better, an approach that ignores both Liebigs law of the minimum as well as Shelfords law of tolerance: Not only will increasing the dose of the non-limiting factor have no positive effect, an overdose can be toxic. Finding the proper balance between too little and too much is the challenge that lies before any regulation. Given the fundamental impact of all regulations made on WIPO level, wisdom would suggest a conservative approach: New regulations should only be introduced if scientific evidence and evidence from a public review period conclusively show it to have a positive effect. Old regulations should be reviewed periodically as to whether they are still up to the needs of the time, or whether they require adjustment. In the light of the wisdom of Liebig and Shelford, agreeing to the creation of a WIPO Research and Evaluation Office (WERO) would seem trivial, so would the search for alternative means of fostering creativity. As the secretariat and member states correctly pointed out repeatedly in the past: WIPO exists to promote creativity. At the time of its inception, most alternative means of fostering creativity were not yet concieved, in particular those related to digitalisation. Now that they exist, what would seem more natural for WIPO than exploring them? The discussions around the Development Agenda have proven to be most difficult, also because of procedural discussions, which indeed took the majority of the time spent in the IIM process. After these had been largely resolved, substantive discussion took place, cut short by the need to come to a formal outcome that could be presented to this general assembly. Not continuing what was begun, or changing from a horse to a mule midstream, as the honored Indian delegate so eloquently put it, would be wasting the time and effort spent on this initiative by all sides, North and South. For this reason we strongly support the notion of letting the IIM process finish what it began. Mr Chairman, Thank you for your attention. Statement by Mr. Georg C.F. Greve <greve(a)fsfeurope.org> Free Software Foundation Europe, President

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Discussion October 2005