Tom Potts let ALUG know that the swpat directive has been put up to the Ag and Fish council again, after Poland blocked it in December. Link-heavy page is at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050121034203123
MJ Ray wrote:
Tom Potts let ALUG know that the swpat directive has been put up to the Ag and Fish council again, after Poland blocked it in December. Link-heavy page is at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050121034203123
Just been on the phone to DEFRA, and it seems that the contact details for Margaret Beckett (our minister in question as far as I can work out) is:
secretaryofstate@defra.gsi.gov.uk
I suggest we fill her mailbox with a storm of protest.
Cheers, Phil.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Philip Hands phil@hands.com writes:
MJ Ray wrote:
Tom Potts let ALUG know that the swpat directive has been put up to the Ag and Fish council again, after Poland blocked it in December. Link-heavy page is at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050121034203123
Just been on the phone to DEFRA, and it seems that the contact details for Margaret Beckett (our minister in question as far as I can work out) is:
secretaryofstate@defra.gsi.gov.uk
I suggest we fill her mailbox with a storm of protest.
What exactly does Agriculture and Fisheries have to do with software patents? Surely that council is responsible for agriculture and fisheries?
Thanks, Roger
(who is woefully ignorant of European politics.)
- -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
On 21-Jan-2005, Roger Leigh wrote:
What exactly does Agriculture and Fisheries have to do with software patents? Surely that council is responsible for agriculture and fisheries?
Precisely. So pushing an addition to an existing bill, long after discussion for the bill closes and a day before the vote, they tag some patent law into it hoping that the council won't know enough to question it.
Ben Finney wrote:
On 21-Jan-2005, Roger Leigh wrote:
What exactly does Agriculture and Fisheries have to do with software patents? Surely that council is responsible for agriculture and fisheries?
Precisely. So pushing an addition to an existing bill, long after discussion for the bill closes and a day before the vote, they tag some patent law into it hoping that the council won't know enough to question it.
If I did this with a printer on a shopping trolly after I had been through the checkouts everyone would recognize it for what it is.
Somehow because it happens in a non-commercial setting those involved seem to think it is legitimate. It is theft of proper representation at least, surely?
Sam
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 16:36 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
Precisely. So pushing an addition to an existing bill, long after discussion for the bill closes and a day before the vote, they tag some patent law into it hoping that the council won't know enough to question it.
If I did this with a printer on a shopping trolly after I had been through the checkouts everyone would recognize it for what it is.
Somehow because it happens in a non-commercial setting those involved seem to think it is legitimate. It is theft of proper representation at least, surely?
The above isn't really a correct representation of what happened. The Council think they have political agreement on the issue, so it doesn't matter what committee it goes in front of - agriculture, fisheries, silly walks, any of them. If it's a A-item it's adopted without discussion or vote. There's nothing particularly underhanded or dodgy about that - they already had a vote on the issue.
The problem the Council have is that the agreement they think they have is, in reality, non-existent. Sufficient countries now disagree that the measure cannot be passed. Without political agreement, adding it as an A-item (to any agenda) is obviously difficult. I think they know that if there were further discussion, any agreement they had would be seen to be non-existent.
What is encouraging is that there are countries standing against this legislation - Poland and Holland - even though they are under a lot of political pressure. It seems, though, that this Council deadlock will only be resolved if the Parliament restart the process.. :/
Cheers,
Alex.