McCarthy complains about 2003/05/07-8 conference

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

MEP Arlene McCarthy is complaining that our conference in Brussels was
a closed and undemocratic discussion designed to exclude important players
like her.

She repeated these complaints both in front of journalists, and also in
JURI discussions.

One journal, Computerwoche, quoted her as warning that extreme opposition
viewpoints such as ours were the result of closed undemocratic discussions
and that she would make sure such opposition viewpoints would be rejected:

   http://www.computerwoche.de/index.cfm?pageid=254&artid=48887

Below are the main extracts of a letter which McCarthy sent to me with cc
to Daniel Cohn-Bendit on monday, embedded in my response.

The enclosed msword document and more documentation is being published at

        http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2003/europarl/05/contrib/amccarthy/

Note that

  -- the conference was on 7.-8. (not 6.-7.)

  -- McCarthy had certainly been aware of it for at least three weeks
     due to the invitations and posters of Greens/EFA, which point
     to exactly the same events, and due to ffii webpages, which her
     office closely monitors.

  -- In the case of some predecessor conferences, e.g.

        http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2002/ifri0206/
        http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2002/ivir0208/

     McCarthy had been directly contacted long in advance but had
     not responded.

  -- I responded to McCarthy's letter positively by urging her to come
     and speak or to distribute materials at the conference (see below),
     but didn't receive a reply.

  -- McCarthy's assistant Emmy Bandy did appear at the Dorint on May 7th
     but did not distribute anything written.  However she orally spread
     the rumor that she "had heard that tomorrow's hearing has been
     cancelled".

  -- McCarthy's position paper which she wanted us to forward to the
     participants (see web page) reiterates positions which we have shown
     to be false in

        http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/amccarthy0302/

     and doesn't try to address our criticism (of which McCarthy
     is nonetheless well aware).

     McCarthy has displayed a regular pattern of avoiding dialog.
     Especially during the months where she was preparing
     her draft report, she was completely inaccessible to MEPs and
     in fact to anyone, except a few EPO, UKPO and patent owner
     lobby people, who are obviously the sole source of her report.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 17:14:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Hartmut Pilch
To: Arlene McCarthy
Cc: DCohnBendit
Subject: Re: From Arlene McCarthy MEP

> Dear Hartmut

> Thank you for your invitation sent at 02:39 on the morning of the 5th
> May to participate in the event on Software Patents to be held on 6th
> and 7th May.

> It is regrettable, discourteous and contrary to the most rudimentary
> principles of democratic debate that you have once again failed to
> include me as the Parliament's rapporteur to address your meeting on
> this important subject.

> It is obvious that you have been planning this event for some time and,
> had you extended the same courtesy and notice to me as you must have
> done to your other invited guests, some of whom are coming from the USA
> and clearly needed a good deal of notice, I too could have set aside
> time to attend.

I invited Commissioner Thompson just last friday at noon and he agreed to
attend on friday afternoon.

This is of course quite inappropriately short notice and I can't expect
that everybody will be able to find the time.

We have been setting this up very hastily, and most other MEPs, except for
very few who have been in close contact with us or some of our friends,
were also notified only this morning.  Even Michel Rocard was notified
by us only this morning.

> When I invited you to my hearing in November 2002, you were given
> adequate notice and information as regards your participation. The
> summary of your intervention was also included on the Parliament's
> website. I would have hoped that you could have provided me with the
> same courtesy.

I would very much like to do whatever I can to give you adequate space in
this meeting, if you can still manage to find a time slot during the two
days.

> I can only conclude that your consistent failure to give me adequate
> notice of your events, resorting only to last minute emails, reflects a
> deliberate intention to exclude me from having a voice in your debates.
> Whereas I continue to be interested in having dialogues with interested
> parties.

Perhaps we got a wrong impression then.  We organised this whole meeting
because we perceived a lack of dialogue and would do everything to bring
more of it about.

Since the November 26th meeting and that of April 2002 (of the
Intergroup), both of which you did not attend, we had the impression that
you were unlikely to attend, and I'd be unbelievably happy to learn that
all this has only been a misunderstanding.

> In the spirit of openness and democracy, I would be grateful if you
> would circulate the attached briefing to your conference participants,
> or failing this, to provide me with the contact lists of your
> participants so that my office may circulate it.

Indeed I will do that, and I will also be happy to circulate any other
messages which you may want to send to the participants.  Moreover, I
am very sorry for the discourtesy.

Yours sincerely,

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-12789608
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
140,000 votes 400 firms against software patents     http://noepatents.org/