[Patents] re. consultation and conference

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 10:10:25AM +0000, Steve Probert wrote:
> >I do not quite agree with Steve Probert - I thought the rule was as
> >follows:
>  Bernard is most likely quite correct.  The mechanics of the system
> are, as you have seen, very complex.  But the point I was seeking to
> make was that it will require more than just a simple majority to
> defeat the amendment.  I wasn't sure which was the two thirds (14)
> and which was the three quarters (15).  As the difference was only
> one vote, it seemed easier and simpler to err on the side of safety.
> My apologies for any (undue) confusion.

> Steve Probert

Not quite in my opinion.  Simple majority is enough (SOFT solution),
or even only 6 countries are enough if really willing to fight the
issue (HARD solution).
   The real issue is whether official representatives of the countries
are willing to do it, or whether some will, as already happened
previously, try to circumvent their given mission by pretending not to
know how to do it.
   That is why I am being so explicit and detailed.

My point was that there are 2 solutions:

1- HARD solution
   6 countries can decide they will block the whole process unless
other countries join them to defeat any change to European Patent
Convention (EPC) articles EPC 52-2 and EPC 33.


2- SOFT solution
   Early in the meeting, during item 2 of the draft agenda, concerning
the procedure to be used in the meeting, a simple majority of
countries, i.e.  11 countries (or less if some abstain), can do the
following:

   Use articles DRP 32(3) and DRP 38 of the Draft Rules of Procedure
(DRP) to change the rule DRP 32(2) that requires a 2/3 majority for
amendments to the Draft Revison Act (DRA) package, so that rule DRP
32(2), after modification, will only require a simple majority.

  Then, during the meeting, a simple majority can decide to reject the
proposed changes to EPC 52-2 and EPC 33, that were included by EPO in
the DRA package.



This is complex ... but no more than the whole setup.  An the
complexity was deliberately introduced by EPO to force the issues,
without any real discussion and investigation, even though they knew
the issue or 52.2 and 33 to be controversial.

Bernard


-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX