Re: [Patents] Initial notes on Mon 16th JURI meeting

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

>    these notes from the Mon16th JURI meeting  today may likely only be of
> some use
>    for people having one one of the sound recordings we did and which
>    we want to make availabe ASAP.

Indeed extremely helpful.  Please work it out further if you can.

> - Mr. Harbor

Malcolm Harbour

        http://swpat.ffii.org/players/mharbour/

>   - tells about example about software on handy which (he tells) is
>     not transferable to a computer and useable there
>
>   - why handle computer-implemented inventions differenty
>      - is there there difference beween them?? (appears to thing no)
>
>        german version:
>        Warum computer anders behandeln, was ist der Unterschied?

> - Mr. Rothlay:

Willi Rothley, vice chairman of JURI, german social democrat, known for
his involvement in the patent system and work on the gene patentability
directive of 1998 (pushing it to becoming the broadest gene patenting law
of the world).

>   Patentability is nothing new,
>   Wettbererbsrecht - ein Verbieterrecht - maine Erfindung.
>
>   ganz banal er Vorgang - straigth forward
>
>   earlyer: Punch cards - trigger mechanical
>
>   and not it is turned into a computer and so it is
>
>   none of use want to change... (?)

"none of us", I guess.
He, like McCarthy and Wuermeling, wants to follow the EPO and not be
responsible.  This is the often only choice for lawyers who do not
understand the subject matter but still want to stay in charge, by
applying simplistic models which they have learnt a long time ago.

>      Fehler der Kommission:
>
>        Schafft es nicht diesen Beitrag in eine vernünftige beziehung
>        zu bringen.
>
>       Miserabler Text der Kommission

At least he is a true lawyer, like Manders.

>     alle Änderungsanträge des CULT ablehen, alle von Merces Echerer
>     abgelehnt und die der Berichterstatterin angenommen werden.

The McCarthy amendments should, from a lawyer's perspective, be of even
more deplorable quality than what the Commission wrote.  Here he seems to
be opting for tactics, i.e. being nice to his PSE colleague.
Which is also why he names Mercedes Echerer as the author whose amendments
must be refused, and not her PSE co-authors Berenguer and Gebhardt, nor
his lawyer colleague MacCormick.

> - Madame Gorou danach

Perhaps Fourtou ? Garault?

> - Fr. Nebler Stimme:

I guess this is Angelika Niebler, CSU, colleague of Wuermeling

>   Lobt McCarthy wegen einheitlichen Regelung sinnvoll
>   präzisierungen, Klarstellungen, angelehnt an die
>
>   -können es ja in fünf Jahren oder Zehn jahren überprüfen.
>   gute sache
>
> - Hr. Howard
>
>   - Änderungsanträge in eine Richtung bewegen die die Kommission
>     wohlwollend sieht

>   - Kommission muss avi to Artikel 5 sorgfätig prüfen, und

He is evidently talking about program claims and by "the commission" he
means the indprop unit.

One could see easily from the directive proposal that they are rejecting
program claims only involuntarily and hinting that the Council or JURI
should reinsert them.  Which is what McCarthy+PPE are proposing to do.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
145,000 votes 400 firms against software patents     http://noepatents.org/