[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: "Simon Duke" <research@feedinfo.com>
- To: "'Hartmut Pilch'" <phm@a2e.de>, <patents@aful.org>
- Subject: RE: [Patents] why EU junk legislation survives
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 13:00:41 +0200
- Importance: Normal
Yes Indeed.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : patents-owner@aful.org [mailto:patents-owner@aful.org]De la part de
Hartmut Pilch
Envoye : lundi 14 avril 2003 11:57
A : patents@aful.org
Objet : Re: [Patents] why EU junk legislation survives
> >Also here in Italy the directive has not been discussed in the
> >parliament but delegated to the government that analyzed it in separate
> >specialized commissions and then approved it.
>
> Sounds similar to the UK, where it was delegated to the Patent & Trademark
> Office (PTO) and would have been implemented via a "negative statutory
Has the UKPO been renamed to UKPTO ?
> instrument", which basically means passed into law without any need for
> parliamentary approval.
> However, there was such protest at the original PTO draft (in which one
> was supposed to obtain one's "fair dealing" rights by applying in
> writing to the Secretary of State) that they suspended its introduction
> until the end of March (a time which has passed and still no amended law
> has emerged).
Does this mean that the original draft is now in force ?
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)