Re: [Patents] Will JURI vote on CULT and ITRE amendments ?

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

Hartmut Pilch wrote:
> 
> > This is somewhat important for the lobbying strategy, because if the way
> > the ITRE committee went is an indication, some of the amendments by
> > Echerer, McCormack et al may be too strong to get passed (ie
> > patentability only for control of forces of nature). But the weaker ITRE
> > position (control of forces of nature - OK; data processing - not OK;
> > everything else - let's see where the caselaw goes) may be able to
> > secure a majority.
> 
> It probably depends less on the positions than on a lot of invisible
> networks of trust.  Few people really take care to read the positions
> anyway.

You're right that the most active interest will probably be taken by
only a small proportion of the committee, with the rest of the members
following the 'experts' they most trust. 

Also you are probably right that few people will probably read the
*statements* attached to the Opinions from the other two committee.

But I think the *amendments* from CULT and ITRE will probably be looked
at very closely -- after all, the JURI members will have to explicitly
vote for or against each one (and typically a lot of amendments seem to
get approved from the Opinion reports).  

Also, the drafters of the two Opinions have attendance rights at the
JURI discussions on their reports, and should be expected to make a
strong case for them.

That's why I think it's important to be aware that there are more
options for JURI than just McCarthy vs McCormick.

McCarthy is going significantly against the recommendations of the two
earlier committees, and although I am sure you have much better
politicial information than me, I don't think JURI will necessarily make
it easy for her.

If Elly Plooij's amendments get passed by the committee as a fair
compromise, that would seem to me to be a Good Thing.