Re: [Patents] CULT, ITRE, JURI, ...

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

To take your questions in reverse order:

The (currently forecast) schedule for what happens next can be found at

http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/oeil/oeil_ViewDNL.ProcedureView?lang=2&procid=5974

The rules of procedure for the European Parliament are on the web at
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PROG=RULES-EP&L=EN&REF=TOC


The forecast timetable is rather less accurate than a weather forecast
-- the expected future dates have already been put back several times.

But at the moment, JURI is scheduled to vote on the various amendments
to Arlene McCarthy's draft report on 22nd May.  Very quickly after that,
the relevant EU Commissioner has the chance to formally state whether
the Commission agrees with or disagrees with each of the changes to the
directive recommended by the finalised report (EP rule 66).  JURI then
votes -- perhaps the very next day -- to adopt the report as a whole, or
not.

The JURI report and proposed amendments then go to the full parliament
for debate, further amendments, and a final vote (this is currently
forecast for the 18th June).

JURI is not in general more powerful than ITRE or CULT; it's just that
in this case it has been chosen as the lead ('responsible') committee,
while the reports of ITRE and CULT are only 'opinions'. The amendments
suggested by CULT and ITRE will be considered and voted on by JURI; but
the final report that JURI agrees is what then goes forward as the basic
foundation text for any further amendment in the full parliament. (EP
Rule 162).

On other matters CULT or ITRE might have been chosen as the
'responsible' committee, with JURI asked only for an 'opinion'.  But
because in this case the matter is seen as most importantly a "single
market" issue, it is JURI (full title the 'Legal Affairs and Internal
Market' committee) which has the lead role.

There is then a short time when further amendments can be proposed, for
the full Parliament to consider.  Such amendments may only be tabled by
"the committee responsible [ie JURI], a political group or at least
thirty-two Members". (Rule 139)

Parliament then votes on the amendments, and then finally on the full
amended proposal (Rule 67). 

If the Council and the Commission accept the Parliament's revisions, the
directive has then effectively been passed.  Otherwise there is one more
round of ping-pong between the two.

=======

By submitting the petition, the European Parliament' Petition Commission
is now entitled to take action in response to it. (EP rules 174-176). 
Typically this would be to refer it to a particular committee to see
whether any new or different law is required.  However as CULT, ITRE and
JURI are already considering software patentability, in practice the
petition commission is likely to take no action.

The importance of the petition is that it clearly demonstrates just how
large is the number of people, mostly with a relevant technical
background, who think that software patentability is not some wonderful
gift from the EPO, but would have real and dangerous bad results.


Best regards,

   James.


taavid@hot.ee wrote:
> 
> Like I understand, CULT and ITRE came up with (quite normal I think) 
> amendments to directive proposal in January.
> 
> Then A. McCarthy (JURI) suggested, that all should be patentable.
> 
> In the April, Eurolinux Petition was sent to European Parliament. What has 
> this petition achieved so far? Has there been official responses to that?
> 
> JURIs members submitted amendments. There are some people who think 
> patenting software shold be limited but more people think otherwise? And 
> JURI is more "powerful" than CULT and ITRE? What happened with their 
> amendments? Are they included in amendments that JURI will discuss and vote?
> 
> And what will happen within next few months?