-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Most unfortunate :(
I guess we'll be having fun lobbying the MEP's again to vote no shortly.
Cheers, Niall
- ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Hi John,
News just in is that the Irish proposal on software patents was passed, this is a dark day for innovation in the European Software industry, not to mention for democracy in the EU.
This is an (apparently successful) attempt by the pro-patent lobby to torpedo the whole directive on software patents, since they are well aware that the European Parliament is extremely unlikely to vote for this version when it is returned to them (because it removes all of their amendments and safeguards).
Their strategy seems to be that having effectively killed this directive, they will now pursue the introduction of software patents through less transparent means, doing everything they can to minimise democratic scrutiny of their actions.
In short, a small cabal of unelected beaurocrats are seeking to rewrite European law to increase their own powers and appease their friends in industry. They are doing so against the express wishes of the EU's democratically elected representatives in the European Parliament. To achieve this goal they are using every trick in the book to minimise or evade democratic scrutiny and accountability.
Kind regards,
Ian.
_______________________________________________ fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
- ------- End of forwarded message -------
On Tue, 18 May 2004 20:21:17 +0100 "Niall Douglas" s_fsfeurope2@nedprod.com wrote:
Most unfortunate :(
I guess we'll be having fun lobbying the MEP's again to vote no shortly.
Cheers, Niall
- ------- Forwarded message follows -------
Hi John,
News just in is that the Irish proposal on software patents was passed, this is a dark day for innovation in the European Software industry, not to mention for democracy in the EU.
This is an (apparently successful) attempt by the pro-patent lobby to torpedo the whole directive on software patents, since they are well aware that the European Parliament is extremely unlikely to vote for this version when it is returned to them (because it removes all of their amendments and safeguards).
Their strategy seems to be that having effectively killed this directive, they will now pursue the introduction of software patents through less transparent means, doing everything they can to minimise democratic scrutiny of their actions.
In short, a small cabal of unelected beaurocrats are seeking to rewrite European law to increase their own powers and appease their friends in industry. They are doing so against the express wishes of the EU's democratically elected representatives in the European Parliament. To achieve this goal they are using every trick in the book to minimise or evade democratic scrutiny and accountability.
Kind regards,
Ian.
fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
- ------- End of forwarded message -------
Important to note, two things: - the resolution will now go back to parliament (so it can still change) - it's a slightly less bold version than the one they started it. There are some safeguards against pure software patents (but probably not enough). So there is still hope in ending with a decent proposol.
greets, Wim
A Qua, 2004-05-19 às 15:38, Wim De Smet escreveu:
Important to note, two things:
- the resolution will now go back to parliament (so it can still change)
Yes. But the process is more limited in terms of time and in which amendments can be voted.
- it's a slightly less bold version than the one they started it. There
are some safeguards against pure software patents (but probably not enough). So there is still hope in ending with a decent proposol.
You've been reading Bolkenstein's press release. That's not true. There's no safeguard in requiring an "inventive step" or a "technical contribution if you don't define those terms. Those terms are already used today in EPO's practice. Have you seen any safeguard against pure software patents there?
On Wed, 19 May 2004 18:20:13 +0100 João Miguel Neves joao@silvaneves.org wrote:
A Qua, 2004-05-19 às 15:38, Wim De Smet escreveu:
Important to note, two things:
- the resolution will now go back to parliament (so it can still
change)
Yes. But the process is more limited in terms of time and in which amendments can be voted.
True, but no need to get hysterical about the whole thing.
- it's a slightly less bold version than the one they started it.
There are some safeguards against pure software patents (but probably not enough). So there is still hope in ending with a decent proposol.
proposal*
You've been reading Bolkenstein's press release. That's not true. There's no safeguard in requiring an "inventive step" or a "technical contribution if you don't define those terms. Those terms are already used today in EPO's practice. Have you seen any safeguard against pure software patents there?
In today's system, pure software patents are explicitly banned. People do get them but that doesn't mean they're valid. Now while the changes to the original proposal obviously won't go far enough, I was just pointing out that there is some awareness of the problem at the higher end. I agree with you that it's not a good proposal, but if the EP fights it again the EC will have to come to some kind of compromise with them. Hopefully this would turn out for the best for us.
greets, Wim
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 10:37 +0200, Wim De Smet wrote:
end. I agree with you that it's not a good proposal, but if the EP fights it again the EC will have to come to some kind of compromise with them. Hopefully this would turn out for the best for us.
Don't you get it? This was the compromise version...
Rui
On Thu, 20 May 2004 10:17:40 +0100 Rui Miguel Seabra rms@1407.org wrote:
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 10:37 +0200, Wim De Smet wrote:
end. I agree with you that it's not a good proposal, but if the EP fights it again the EC will have to come to some kind of compromise with them. Hopefully this would turn out for the best for us.
Don't you get it? This was the compromise version...
Rui
I'm convinced that more changes are possible in second reading. At least that's what I've been told. So I think this is not the final version yet.
greets, Wim
Wim De Smet wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 10:17:40 +0100 Rui Miguel Seabra rms@1407.org wrote:
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 10:37 +0200, Wim De Smet wrote:
end. I agree with you that it's not a good proposal, but if the EP fights it again the EC will have to come to some kind of compromise with them. Hopefully this would turn out for the best for us.
Don't you get it? This was the compromise version...
Rui
I'm convinced that more changes are possible in second reading. At least that's what I've been told. So I think this is not the final version yet.
greets, Wim
At second reading, we want MEPs to commit to putting back in all of the amendments which the Council has just taken out.
It's not easy, but if we work hard enough it's entirely achievable.
Dear James,
At second reading, we want MEPs to commit to putting back in all of the amendments which the Council has just taken out.
It's not easy, but if we work hard enough it's entirely achievable.
I thoroughly agree. While it is easy to get frustrated at the Council's seeming permissiveness on this, we mustn't forget that only a week ago they were talking about this as an A item that could already have been law by now. The fact that one government rejected these proposals (in the council which is usually very isolated from the grass roots) in a short period of time shows that the lobby's united front is actually crumbling.
On this note, I have gone back to the parliament amendments to see who voted for what. I was thinking I could turn this into a database for voters to survey their local candidates before the election. Also we can target our efforts towards the "swing" voters in the larger parties who maybe persuadable- many of them could be have been misled by the lobby last time but it will be less easy now.
I do share however share everyone's dismay at the lack of democracy in this debate thus far- and indeed what can only be described as contempt for the wishes of the public at large.
Sincerely,
Christian