Re: [Patents] JURI amendments for 22/4 now up (in Italian)

[James Heald <j.heald@ucl.ac.uk>]

Hartmut Pilch wrote:
>
> It is quite sad to see that Diana Wallis of the british libdems, which
> have a clear anti-swpat statement in its programmatic document
> makeitpolicy.org.uk, has not come forward in support of any amendment
> proposals and must therefore be assumed to be going with the leading
> pro-swpat people from the "liberal" fraction in JURI.
>
> Recently in Germany the "Liberal" party (fdp.de) criticised the EuroDMCA
> for not going far enough and asked for a SuperDMCA, calling itself the
> "Party of Property" (Partei des Eigentums).  Since "property" and
> "freedom" in this context are directly opposed poles, one could rename
> their party from
>
> Freie Demokratische Partei
> Free Democratic Party
>
> ==> Propietary Plutocratic Party (PPP)
>
> Which apparently also applies to the party of DeClercq.  A party for the
> appropriation of democracy to a few people speaking in the name of big
> business, and for occasionally freedom, as long as these few are among the
> prime beneficiaries of the proposed freedom, otherwise for unfreedom of
> the masses and welfare (free lunch) for the plutocrats.


On the other hand Elly Plooij (ELDR, NL) seemed to do a very good job in
steering the ITRE discussions, so don't be too quick to write off all the
liberals.

Questions:

1.  Has anyone been in contact with, or had a reply from, any of the UK
Liberal Democrat MEPs ?

2.  As a random member of the public, is it any use at all trying to contact
MEPs or their staff by email; or is it necessary to send a fax instead to
have any chance of one's message being looked at ?