And it looks like he'll reject any amendments:
http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200507/5d049d10-690a-4977-b116-4295c1a42937...
It also looks like the pro-patent lobby may push for a rejection of the draft (which is bad):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/04/AR2005070400...
I believe there may be a vote to drop the directive in advance of the vote on amendments. What a mess!
Malcohol.
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 15:12, Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
And it looks like he'll reject any amendments:
The thing that really pisses me off is the claim people opposing patents are part of some "anti free-market" thing. That is a totally absurd, by definition of a patent - while a free market in software won't exist until copyright law is also abolished, those opposing patents are on the free-market side!
Propaganda 101 I guess - accuse your enemies of your crimes.
On Jul 05, 2005, at 22:12, Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
And it looks like he'll reject any amendments:
http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200507/5d049d10-690a-4977-b116 -4295c1a42937.htm
It also looks like the pro-patent lobby may push for a rejection of the draft (which is bad):
No, it's good. The proposal isn't perfect, and it's going to be rejected by the Council anyway. It also shows that the pro-swpat lobby are running scared --- they know they can't win this.
So if the directive falls at the first hurdle of the vote, we can claim victory.
Alex alex@cgce.net -- Interpol and Deutsche Bank, FBI and Scotland Yard Flensburg and the BKA, have our data. Kraftwerk, Computerwelt (translated)
--- Alex Macfie alex@cgce.net wrote:
It also looks like the pro-patent lobby may push for a rejection of the draft (which is bad):
No, it's good [...] we can claim victory.
It is better than a bad directive. However, assuming it is voted down, then we're back with "software as such" (aren't we?) and I expect patent litigation to be fought and sometimes won because of the ambiguity of that phrase.
I wouldn't be too keen on claiming a victory. I won't be suprised if a media campaign attempts to blame our side for *obstructing patent harmonisation in Europe*.
Malcohol.
___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
On Wednesday, July 6, 2005 at 09:48 +0100, Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
--- Alex Macfie alex@cgce.net wrote:
It also looks like the pro-patent lobby may push for a rejection of the draft (which is bad):
No, it's good [...] we can claim victory.
It is better than a bad directive. However, assuming it is voted down, then we're back with "software as such" (aren't we?) and I expect patent litigation to be fought and sometimes won because of the ambiguity of that phrase.
The serious danger, as I see it, is that they will have failed to comprehensively forbid pure software patents. This means that the supporters of software patents will still be able to push individual governments to pass laws favourable to them, and the EPO will presumably be able to continue their practice of issuing software patents of dubious legality.
So this is better than having the so-called "common position" passed, but not as good as having the Buzek-Rocard-Duff amendments passed.
I wouldn't be too keen on claiming a victory.
I would. Admittedly, a qualified victory, but we would have managed to avoid the horrors of unrestricted software patents.
I won't be suprised if a media campaign attempts to blame our side for *obstructing patent harmonisation in Europe*.
Bah, we'd get that in some form if the Buzek-Rocard-Duff amendments passed as well. The only way to avoid having the pro-swpat lobby criticise us would be to roll over!
Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
It also looks like the pro-patent lobby may push for a rejection of the draft (which is bad) [...]
Wouldn't it be better than passing a bad directive? If the pro-patent lobby are pushing for rejection, maybe that means they're worried the directive will be amended our way? I guess we'll know what the outcome is very soon, anyway.