Re: [Patents] JURI report

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> Your text is fine. However, it does not comment on the latest JURI
> amendments.

The detailed comments are referenced in the text. They are at

        http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/juri0304/

This page says clearly what we, McCarthy, Manders and JURI opted for
and gives detailed explanations on what these different proposals
would do.

> This may or may not be a problem. I just fear that MEPs who
> are supportive of the rapporteur can (and will) claim that her
> amendments accomplish the same things as yours. After all, she says they
> do!

> How does this influence our tactics? What should we be recommending to
> our MEPs?

Recommend to talk to us (ffii/eurolinux).

There are of of course many options:

 - resubmit CULT/ITRE amendments
 - submit ffii counter-proposal
 - point out that CEC/JURI proposal is self-contradictory and
   irreparable, must be rejected, and demand opportunity for EP to work
   out a set of requirements, in terms of example patents, to be fulfilled
   by the next proposal from the Commission.

In any case, it is clear that such a confused case with such huge
implications and opinions so widely apart cannot be adequately handled as
item 4 on one plenary session.  So the session must first of all vote for
a motion that provides an adequate framework of decision.

But that's just what common sense tells me.  I do not know what tactics
work or will be used at the EP -- that is mainly for MEPs to chose.

One important thing for people here to do is to provide complete
transcripts of the recordings of the JURI session of 16 and 17, which are
found at

        http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/juri0617/

We badly need them.

-- 
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/