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

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

Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
> 
> 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.

I think you're forgetting 

c- that this was written by a journalist, who is trying to paint a
broad-brush background in evocative nontechnical language, rather than
making sure everything he writes is technically 100% correct.

In UK journo-speak any old rubbish that comes out of Brussels == more
regulations.

> 
> > 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.
> 

In the context of the previous line , "We are not going down the U.S.
route, I don't see that happening... It's premature to come to any
conclusion about where this is going," the lawyer probably just means

c- I don't have the first idea what's in this directive, but I have a
warm and fuzzy trust in the EPO, that they aren't just going to blindly
mess things up as badly as the US.  In any case there's no point in my
spending my extremely expensive time reading the thing now until they've
actually finished the law and passed a decent finalised version, and
knowing Europe that will probably take years...

But even if that is unfair to the lawyer, the point he does make is that
the current draft is still wide open for amendment; the implication (for
us) is of course *not* to be complacent, but rather, that there is still
everything to lobby for.


> 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).


Is there any other source for the 22 May JURI date other than the
parliament's Observatory website ?

I had kind of assumed that that was just a misprint for the 22 April
meeting.

The vote for approval of the amended draft appeared to be on the order
paper for JURI today.  

Can anybody confirm *definitively* that final vote on JURI is not be
until next month, and with certainty that the directive was not actually
voted on at JURI this afternoon ?