Re: [Patents] More gossip on the EPO presidential election (fwd)

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> This writer seems to be quite well aware of the relations between EU and
> EPO.  Note that EPO, backed by national governments (patent offices) in
> its Administrative Council and megacorp patent lawyers on its Standing
> Advisory Committee (SACEPO), feels very strong and is pushing the
> European Commission around, offering it the chance of joining the EPO
> and learning. As a reward, they get the missing flying license for
> software patents from the EU.

Here's more on the candidacy from the UKPO:

 Council of European Patent Organisation Fails to Agree New President
 http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/notices/president.htm

This link contains a speech by the UKPO's candidate Brimelow, in which she
promises to strengthen the EPO in its capability to sell first-class
protection to its customers and to assert its interests vis-a-vis the
European Union, stating that the EU countries are no longer the vast
majority in the European Patent Organisation and shouldn't therefore
be telling the EPO what to do.  The EPO needs "freedom to consider policy"
in such important global rounds such as the "Trilateral" (e.g. annual
summit meetings between EPO, USPTO and JPO officials):

     Council of European Patent Organisation Fails to Agree New President

   The Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation could
   not agree a nomination for a President to succeed Ingo Kober at a
   meeting on 20 March 2003. The Council has therefore agreed to rerun
   the process in June with Member States having until 9 May to nominate
   candidates. The UK is pleased that Alison Brimelow, Chief Executive of
   the UK Patent Office, remains committed to her candidacy and the need
   to address the issues facing the EPO. These issues were outlined in
   her speaking note for the presentation made during the meeting,
   namely:

   "Building on Success: the evident and significant success of the EPO
   to date and Trust and responsibility: the phrase is Bob van Benthem's,
   the ideas central to ensuring that the EPO remains successful.

   I start by looking at the needs of the users of the EPO.

   - a system which is relevant to business needs, ie flexible but
   consistent

   - a robust patent when granted: fragile rights are pointless

   - timely delivery; uncertainty costs money and is very difficult for
   third parties who have legitimate interests in the patent system

   - cost effectiveness

   I know from my own experience as the head of an effective Patent
   Office that listening to users keeps services relevant and sustains
   commitment to high quality. The rapid pace of change in our world
   means that listening effectively has to be a core skill of the EPO, in
   partnership with member states who are both shapers and users of the
   system, and provide the lines of democratic accountability of the
   system. This is a partnership which is central to keeping the EPO
   successful and which is going to be in many ways very different from
   the partnership which was needed when the EPO was younger and smaller.

   Now for the EPO's strengths:

   - it has highly competent staff. Without such staff it cannot succeed,
   fulfil its functions or meet user needs.

   - It has good tools, underpinning its performance and making a
   significant and growing contribution to the efficiency of the global
   patent system.

   - It is a world leader

   These strengths enable the EPO to offer a service of high quality and
   consistency, as needed by its users. But it has struggled on
   timeliness (in which it is not alone among major offices). It faces
   new challenges in the Community Patent and with the discussion of
   changes in the global patenting system, changes shaped by the spread
   of IT as the basic tool in the granting of patent rights.

   Which brings me to my second theme: 'Trust and Responsibility', words
   which seem to me to lie at the heart of the relations between Member
   States and the Office, and to be the key to managing the challenges of
   a changing Intellectual property world?

   Europe has a big agenda;

   - the EU body of law in the field of intellectual property is growing
   and the EPO has to help shape it and to comply with it

   - the Community Patent has to be made a reality

   - the EPO needs a coherent voice in EU discussion, recognising that
   for the moment this is no longer an organisation where EU members are
   the large majority.

   All this needs effective partnership between the Office and Member
   States in the Administrative Council. I think a favourite phrase of
   mine: 'no surprises', should characterise the relationship.

   We also need to look at the EPO's global role.

   - There is the Trilateral, where in the EPO Europe has a world class
   player in technical cooperation, but one with no freedom to consider
   policy.

   - There is WIPO, where major reform is under discussion, reflecting
   the fundamental changes in recent years in how the task of patent
   granting is done and the problems caused by the huge growth of demand
   for patents under the PCT.

   We know we need to find a way to speak with one voice. We have begun
   the process. But 30 Member States will have different perspectives and
   priorities. As President I would want to develop with you ways of
   cooperating more effectively, but I would need your active help and
   support.

   Centralising and decentralising are too simplistic a way of looking at
   our problems, both in Europe and globally. The EPO is indeed 'the
   patent granting authority for Europe', and I would add possibly for
   the world. We need to ensure that this service remains focused on what
   Europe needs, because if it is not, Europe will find other suppliers.
   Our greatest threat is complacency and perhaps a belief that past
   performance guarantees future success. I think that as President of
   this great institution, working in partnership, exercising trust and
   responsibility with you, I can ensure that risk is successfully
   avoided."

   Last updated 31 March 2003 [12]top

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-12789608
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
140,000 signatures against software patents      http://www.noepatents.org/