Re: [Patents] "harmonisation" alliance

[Jozef Halbersztadt <halber@idea.net.pl>]

PILCH Hartmut wrote:

> Someone proposed a wording which I rejected:
>
>  
>
> > patentability because we don't have harmonized practice throughout
> > Europe.
> >    
>
> I would say "The rules of patenatability should be set by the European
> Parliament rather than by the European Patent Office."
>
> If only the practise is not harmonised, as you write correctly, then
> that means that there is a need of enforcing the law.  Which would be
> a matter of the executive rather than the parliament.
>
> The "harmonisation" talk is mainly a pretext for DG Internal Market to
> enlarge its competences beyond the scope agreed upon by the member
> states, and for the EPO to whitewash its illegalities.  We should
> never endorse the harmonisation newspeak of this alliance of political
> crooks.
>
>  
"Harmonisation" isn't an "invention" DGIM. The source is more 
fundamental. And honest.

Jozef Halbersztadt

CONSOLIDATED VERSION
OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Article 94 (ex Article 100)
The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission 
and after
consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social 
Committee, issue directives
for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative 
provisions of the Member
States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the common 
market.
Article 95 (ex Article 100a)
(...)4.? If, after the adoption by the Council or by the Commission of a 
harmonisation measure,
a Member State deems (...)
5.? Moreover, without prejudice to paragraph 4, if, after the adoption 
by the Council or by
the Commission of a harmonisation measure, a Member State deems (...)
the adoption of the harmonisation measure, it shall (...)
7.? (...) national provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure, (...)
8.? (...) been the subject of prior harmonisation measures, (...)
10.? The harmonisation measures referred to above shall,