[Fwd: Re: [Bxl] Harbour contribution in JURI 20030616]

[David GLAUDE <dglaudemailing@gmx.net>]

I was ask to repost this on a list that get's archived...
It is what I remember from live listening from the discussion and voting 
day.
Since we have recording, one could have a confirmation by listening to this.
Having it writen in text help, so if you have time and feel you should 
do something... please do.

--
Don't let the computer/expert control the election
Information for Belgium in french: http://www.poureva.be/

--- Begin Message ---

• From: Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>
• To: David GLAUDE <dglaudemailing@gmx.net>
• Cc: Erik Josefson <erikjosefsson@telia.com>, <bxl@ffii.org>
• Subject: Re: [Bxl] Harbour contribution in JURI 20030616
• Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:44:21 +0200 (CEST)

> >  -- what we need most is the McCarthy speech in which, according to
> >     Bernhard Kaindl's initial notes, she said that "we are not experts,
> >     we are just providing an interpretation framework".
>
> I can confirme she said something like that. I was a bit surprised
> actually. "Let the expert do their work could mean let the EPO (or
> patent expert) do their work." Where they should ask the "Software expert".
>
> Durring the vote she also asked (turning to see behind her) if it was
> normal the green had 4 votes (maybe she was surprise that 1/3 was
> against her).
>
> The president then solved the issue, it was not 4 Green, but 2 Green + 2
> GUE (the other green alike group in parliament).
>
> I don't know if it is typical practice to ask such a question during a
> vote. ;-)

All these confirmations are very helpful.

Resending them to patents@aful.org so they are archived would make them
more helpful.

And transscribing an audio recording on which McCarthy says part of these
things again would solidify the evidence.




--- End Message ---