Hi,
I've just stumbled across this letter from Charlie McCreevy to the Chair of Committee on Legal Affairs [1] and wonder as to its meaning.
It seems to be saying that the Parliament can decide to *reject* the proposal, and that if this should happen then he would 'not propose to submit a new directive'. I'm not sure what to make of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter from:
Charlie McCreevy Member of the European Commission
Letter to:
Mr Giuseppe Gargami Member of the European Parliament Chairman Committee on Legal Affairs European Parliament Rue Wiertz 1047 Brussels
Dated 9th March 2005
Dear Chairman,
Following the formal adoption by the Council of its common position on the proposal for the directive on the patentability of computer implemented inventions on Monday 7 March, the Commission has today forwarded to the European Parliament its communication on the Council's common position in accordance with normal procedures.
You will recall that I attended the Committee on Legal Affairs on 2 February to debate this proposal with the Committee. I also attended the meeting of the Conference of Presidents on 3 March and made a statement in the plenary session of the European Parliament on 8 March. I have listened carefully to the views expressed in the European Parliament during the past month. I understand that a *new wind* is blowing.
The matter is now in your hands, The Parliament can *reject* or *substantially amend* the proposal. As I said in the plenary on 8 March, if the Parliament decides to reject the common position, the Commission will respect your wishes. I will not propose to the Commission to submit a new directive.
I should like to underline, in accordance with what President Barroso indicated in his letter to President Borrell of 25 February, that the Commission stands ready to review all the arguments and positions expressed and to work constructively with the Parliament and the Council to find a solution in the interests of all. Should you decide to propose commitments under the framework agreement. Any modifications will need to be careful evaluated given the complexity of the subject matter. You will understand, of course, that the Commission cannot speak on behalf of the Council and I would urge the Parliament to engage constructively with the Council in the future on this dossier. I am ready to help in any way.
Yours Sincerely
Charlie Mc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Adam M
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:09:48PM +0000, Adam Moran wrote:
if the Parliament decides to reject the common position, the Commission will respect your wishes.
This is bull, if they reject it he has no choice Unless he's saying here that he will abandon the current text even if the EP don't get an absolute majority but that seems rather unlikely.
He intends to "respect" their wishes just like an evil genie...
I will not propose to the Commission to submit a new directive.
... "you rejected that patent directive - you mustn't want _any_ patent directive."
Basically, the patent system needs reform, there's only 1 type of reform on offer, if you reject it you're stuck with the old system and we can say it's your fault.
Should you decide to propose commitments under the framework agreement.
This is not a sentence. If you replace the . with , and read commitments as amendments (maybe they're the same thing in legal speak) then it makes some sense...
Any modifications will need to be careful evaluated given the complexity of the subject matter.
So he could be saying here that you're not going to get any anti-swpat ammendments through either.
So again, basically it's pass this version or nothing at all.
If it's not passed then software can continue to be patented on a country by country basis and with no threat of a clarifying directive undoing that, it's almost as good for big businesses. They just have the minor inconvenience of filing the same patent multiple times - no problem for the big patent machines and a huge problem for small companies. Plus McCreevy gets to blame the EP for the lack of a uniform patent system in Europe.
Could the EP introduce their own directive? Is that allowed or does everything have to start from the commission?
F
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:39:22 +0000, Fergal Daly fergal@esatclear.ie wrote:
If it's not passed then software can continue to be patented on a country by country basis and with no threat of a clarifying directive undoing that, it's almost as good for big businesses. They just have the minor inconvenience of filing the same patent multiple times - no problem for the big patent machines and a huge problem for small companies. Plus McCreevy gets to blame the EP for the lack of a uniform patent system in Europe.
The matter is now in your hands, The Parliament can *reject* or *substantially amend* the proposal.
They could reject it and we would be left with what we currently have or they could *substantially amend* it. I think he's saying it's this or nothing but you can change it. The sentence about him understand the *new wind* I think means he realises that in it's current form it will be rejected. I think that they are going to put this through no matter what but they are realising that it won't happen till it gets changed and every agrees with the new text.
Rob
PS I hope this doesn't sound too naive.
On Mar 12, 2005, at 01:39, Fergal Daly wrote:
Could the EP introduce their own directive? Is that allowed
No. The EP cannot initiate legislation.
or does everything have to start from the commission?
Yes. Everything has to start from the Commission.
Welcome to the "democratic" European Union.
Alex
o what about ammendmets? If the EP get acsolute majority support for a no swpat ammendment (unlikely), what options do the EC then have? Are they forced to accept it or can they just drop the whole thing?
F
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 10:45:12AM +0800, Alex Macfie wrote:
On Mar 12, 2005, at 01:39, Fergal Daly wrote:
Could the EP introduce their own directive? Is that allowed
No. The EP cannot initiate legislation.
or does everything have to start from the commission?
Yes. Everything has to start from the Commission.
Welcome to the "democratic" European Union.
Alex
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
On Mar 12, 2005, at 22:10, Fergal Daly wrote:
o what about ammendmets? If the EP get acsolute majority support for a no swpat ammendment (unlikely),
Wouldn't be so pessimistic about that :)
what options do the EC then have? Are they forced to accept it or can they just drop the whole thing?
A "conciliation" process is initiated between the EU, Council and Commission. This takes 6 weeks. The text resulting from conciliation is then presented to the EP, which must vote either "yes" or "no" to the whole text, no amendments are possible. If yes, it's adopted, if no, it's totally scrapped.
Alex
Hi,
Thanks for the decryption.
11/03/05 17:39 Fergal Daly wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:09:48PM +0000, Adam Moran wrote:
Should you decide to propose commitments under the framework agreement.
This is not a sentence. If you replace the . with , and read commitments as amendments (maybe they're the same thing in legal speak) then it makes some sense...
Sorry. I mistyped this [ Charlie McCreevy's ] sentence.
It reads:
"Should you decide to propose amendments, the Commission will take the utmost account of them, in full respect of our commitments under the framework agreement."
I wonder if this 'framework agreement' is the same thing as the 'conciliation process' ?
12/03/05 14:19 Alex Macfie wrote:
A "conciliation" process is initiated between the EU, Council and Commission. This takes 6 weeks. The text resulting from conciliation is then presented to the EP, which must vote either "yes" or "no" to the whole text, no amendments are possible. If yes, it's adopted, if no, it's totally scrapped.
-- Adam M
On 11 Mar 2005, at 17:09, Adam Moran wrote:
I've just stumbled across this letter from Charlie McCreevy to the Chair of Committee on Legal Affairs [1] and wonder as to its meaning.
It seems to be saying that the Parliament can decide to *reject* the proposal, and that if this should happen then he would 'not propose to submit a new directive'. I'm not sure what to make of it.
I don't claim to be as attuned to the politics as some on this list, but I suspect this is a veiled threat, in effect he is creating an all or nothing choice for the EP, either they accept the current Directive text, or they get no Directive at all (and European software patent law remains inconsistent).
Ian.
-- Founder, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ CEO, Cematics Ltd http://cematics.com/ Personal Blog http://locut.us/~ian/blog/
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:45:19PM +0000 or so it is rumoured hereabouts, Ian Clarke thought:
or nothing choice for the EP, either they accept the current Directive text, or they get no Directive at all (and European software patent law remains inconsistent).
But isn't this a better position than that defined by the current state of the directive?
Conor
On 11 Mar 2005, at 19:27, conor.daly@cod.utvinternet.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:45:19PM +0000 or so it is rumoured hereabouts, Ian Clarke thought:
or nothing choice for the EP, either they accept the current Directive text, or they get no Directive at all (and European software patent law remains inconsistent).
But isn't this a better position than that defined by the current state of the directive?
Perhaps from our perspective, but not necessarily from the EP's perspective, since they may think there is an inherit benefit in "harmonisation" of European patent law which would be lost if the Directive is dropped.
Ian.
-- Founder, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ CEO, Cematics Ltd http://cematics.com/ Personal Blog http://locut.us/~ian/blog/