Re: [Patents] Scientists protest EU software patents (fwd)

[Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>]

El Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 08:01:04AM +0200, Hartmut Pilch deia:
> At
> 
>       http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-998547.html
>       Scientists protest EU software patents
> 
> there is an article about the EU swpat situation which also mentions
> our plans near the end.
> 
>   The  European  Parliament  is  organizing  a  hearing  for  small  and
>   medium-sized   companies  to   discuss  the   patents  issue   on  May
>   8. EuroLinux  and  Foundation for  a  Free Information  Infrastructure
>   (FFII)  are organizing  a conference  on May  7 to  coincide  with the
>   hearings.
> 
>   There  is no  set date  for  when the  proposal could  become a  draft
>   regulation.
> 
> I don't understand the last sentence.   We are dealing with a directive,
> not a regulation.
> 

It's strange. I can only guess two options:

a- it refers to Manders amendments to make the EU directive an EU regulation

b- it refers to the fact that once a directive is issued it must be 
implemented in member states' law. Sometimes, I've heard the UK does not 
write new laws or amend existing laws, simply passes the directive 
text as is and lets the judges build case law (that's the most ambigous
way to implement a directive, but proper from an EU viewpoint, and 
coherent with the UK caselaw system, possibly). So a passed directive 
can be seen from the UK as a draft regulation = draft UK law. In this 
case draft regulation would _not_ mean EU regulation (=  EU law
that does not need to pass through member states governments or parliaments,
and is inmediately binding for EU citizens) but UK regulation pending 
aproval by UK parliament or government or whatever.

I guess b is more likely, but I'm quite ignorant of the UK. 

> The text quotes some UK lawyers saying that nobody knows the outcome yet
> and the anxiety about the proposal is "premature".  This is strange, given
> that a plenary vote is approaching.
>
 
Yes, this looked as premeditated FUD, but maybe I'm too suspicious. 
The basis for the FUD may be that:

a- The dates for vote in plenary and JURI have changed 4 times already
b- Once voted in plenary it still has to be voted by the Council and 
   it might return to Parliament, or some other processes go on that 
   could take longer or shorter. 

None of this is a good reason to think anxiety is premature. It is
premature in the sense that the lawsuits for swpats under the CEC
proposal are not coming tomorrow, but it is certainly not premature in
that any effort to fix the cause of anxiety should target the planned
22.5.2003 vote in JURI Committe (most important) and 18.6.2003 vote in
plenary (last chance for public input to change the result).

-- 
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org