[Fsfe-uk] Re: [Free-sklyarov-uk] Update on software patents

[Philip Hunt]

On Friday 07 November 2003  1:27 pm, James Heald wrote:
> 1. Timetable.
>       2. UK and CEC Positions.
>
>
> 1. TIMETABLE.
>
> The Council of Ministers has now released a briefing sent to "Coreper 1"
> (the member states' ambassadors) on how to proceed with the swpat
> directive: http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/st13/st13955.en03.pdf
>
> The briefing gives two options on the timing for Competitiveness Council
> of Ministers to make a political decision on the direction of the
> Council common text:
>
> (i) The meeting of the Competitiveness Council on November 27th.  This
> is the last date for political agreement, if the Directive is to
> complete its stages before the EuroParl elections next year.
>
> (ii)  Next year sometime.  If waiting for the EuroParl elections doesn't
> matter.

I suspect they will try to go for (i).

> Some have suggested that the council may deliberately decide to wait,
> despite the delay to the directive, because normally the Parliament
> would be bound in subsequent stages by its first-reading decision; but
> after an election, the Parliament (by decision of either the conference
> of Presidents, or a plenary resolution) has the option to re-run the
> whole first-reading process. (Parliament Rule 71.1 line 3).
>       
> http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+RULES-EP+200310
>20+RULE-071+DOC+XML+V0//EN&HNAV=Y
>
> On this scenario, delaying could give time for wait for the waves of
> protest to dissolve and fresh new MEPs ready to be lobbied.

Including lots from the new members, who might not know the history of 
the Software Patents Directive, and thus the pro-patent lobby may find
it easier to pull the wool over their eyes.

> Anyone who is concerned about software patents should go on doing
> everything they can, as soon as they can, as if the decision was on Nov
> 27.  

I've already written to my MP (Nigel Griffiths) telling him my concerns 
and asking him to forward it to the Minister for E-commerce, Stephen 
Timms. I've received a reply from my Nigel Griffiths, but not as yet 
from Stephen Timms. I think another letter from me is in order...

> 2. UK AND CEC POSITIONS.
>
> At the moment the UKPO seems to be trying very hard to avoid issuing any
> detailed systematic point-by-point analysis of the European Parliament
> amendments and what issues they raise.

Is there any particular reason for this? or just to keep people in
the dark?

> It seems possible that the UKPO may be trying to do everything it can to
> keep these more subtle loopholes off the agenda, in the hope that by
> shutting down public discussion of them, they can keep Ministers from
> ever realising that the questions even exist, and ought to be
> politically considered.

Good point.

> To get an idea of how legal many subleties we are talking about,
> consider how many apparently innocuous amendments the European
> Commission staff have red-lined "non-negotiably unacceptable" as their
> preliminary assessment in the Coreper briefing.  These can be seen
> highlighted in side-by-side comparison at:
>
>       http://www.ffii.org.uk/recitals.html
>       http://www.ffii.org.uk/articles.html

The big one is amendment 76 which ensures that patents can't prevent
interoperability:

  Member States shall ensure that, wherever the use of a patented technique   
  is needed for a significant purpose such as ensuring conversion of the  
  conventions used in two different computer systems or networks so as to
  allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is
  not considered to be a patent infringement.


-- 
Phil Hunt, address@hidden