http://kwiki.ffii.org/Cons040521En
It seems that Poland has clarified that they abstained on Tuesday, and given this, Denmark, who were rather shamelessly bullied into a "yes" vote by the Irish Presidency, could have caused the qualified majority to fail had they abstained.
Very interestingly, according to that press release (and it is the first mention I have heard of it), there are ongoing attempts in the Dutch parliament to retract their vote, and if this succeeds, the qualified majority could still fail.
Could it be true that Tuesday's battle is not yet lost? Does anyone have more information on this?
Ian.
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:10:33PM +0100 or so it is rumoured hereabouts, Ian Clarke thought:
parliament to retract their vote, and if this succeeds, the qualified majority could still fail.
Could it be true that Tuesday's battle is not yet lost? Does anyone have more information on this?
Is this a good thing or not? My understanding is that, if it fails, the status quo stands, while if it succeeds, the second reading at the EP has a chance to redo the amendments and solidly forbid swpats for good. Of course, it could get abandoned after the EP second reading too...
The status quo AIUI is that computer software patents are not allowed but that it still requires fighting existing wrongly granted ones so that we are currently in the position of having swpats...
Conor (confused...)
Conor Daly wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:10:33PM +0100 or so it is rumoured hereabouts, Ian Clarke thought:
parliament to retract their vote, and if this succeeds, the qualified majority could still fail.
Could it be true that Tuesday's battle is not yet lost? Does anyone have more information on this?
Is this a good thing or not? My understanding is that, if it fails, the status quo stands, while if it succeeds, the second reading at the EP has a chance to redo the amendments and solidly forbid swpats for good. Of course, it could get abandoned after the EP second reading too...
I don't really know, perhaps if it fails then the EC has to go and think about it some more (which would be good, given that Tuesday's vote only went through because it was so rushed and delegates barely seemed to understand what they were voting for).
The status quo AIUI is that computer software patents are not allowed but that it still requires fighting existing wrongly granted ones so that we are currently in the position of having swpats...
AFAIK the current situation is that many software patents have been granted, but because they are against the letter and spirit of current EU law, they aren't worth the paper they are written on (ie. it isn't whether the patent has been granted that really matters, but whether it is enforcible). This is untidy but better than patents being explicitly permissible.
Ian.
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:40:00PM +0100 or so it is rumoured hereabouts, Ian Clarke thought:
Conor Daly wrote:
The status quo AIUI is that computer software patents are not allowed but that it still requires fighting existing wrongly granted ones so that we are currently in the position of having swpats...
AFAIK the current situation is that many software patents have been granted, but because they are against the letter and spirit of current EU law, they aren't worth the paper they are written on (ie. it isn't whether the patent has been granted that really matters, but whether it is enforcible). This is untidy but better than patents being explicitly permissible.
but it still carries the possibility of a legal threat which might cause a cave-in.
Conor