[Patents] re. consultation and conference

[Stefane Fermigier sf@fermigier.com]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:43:33AM +0000, Steve Probert wrote:
> >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.
> 
> That's fine.  But don't forget that the forthcoming conference in Munich is
> not only about the software exclusion.  There are a lot of other amendments
> associated with various reforms of the EPC.  The individual details of the
> whole package were worked out some time ago,  and it took a lot of effort to
> get agreement on some of the amendments.  That was the most appropriate time
> for the contracting parties to decide what to do about Art 52, and a simple
> majority decided then to remove the computer program exclusion.  I don't 
> need
> to remind subscribers to this list how the UK voted at that time and, more
> importantly, why it voted that way.
> 
> The rules of procedure were also agreed in advance of the Diplomatic
> Conference in order to ensure that any controversial issues were sorted out
> in the various committee stages.  Unpicking the rules of procedure now might
> jeopardise the whole package - similar to your hard option.  I'm not
> suggesting that your soft option would not work - it might.  But I very much
> doubt whether the delegates will do anything that might jeopardise the whole
> package of reforms just to overturn something that has already been agreed 
> by
> a simple majority.  If someone with the opposite view suggested holding the
> entire conference hostage over one issue like this, you'd accuse them of
> trying to deliberately force the issue.  And others on this list would use
> even stronger language!
> 
> Steve Probert

I fully understand the issue, but I interpret it as a trap, a way to turn a
needed 2/3 or 3/4 majority to vote for a specific change in the EPC into a
simple majority. I don't think that it the way it was supposed to be.

        S.

PS: could you please write using < 80 columns text ?

-- 
Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: 06 63 04 12 77 (mobile).
<www.portalux.com>: le portail Linux / logiciel libre.
"Amazon: we patent the dot in .com"