new materials on CEC vs MS case

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

I did some more researching, found that CEC has a record of promoting
extreme interpretations of TRIPs at WTO, more so than US, ostensibly for
the sake of pharma interests.  Note that Bolkestein is a pharma man.

Bolkestein also intervened this time in favor of the same extreme
interpretations of Art 30 TRIPs as used in pharma WTO case against Canada.

Details are / will be found through the top news item at

        http://swpat.ffii.org/

More hints are needed.  If someone could find a copy of the original
Financial Times article that reported about Bolkestein's intervention
against imposing restrictions on MS "IPR" on protocols that would be
useful.  We know from oral conversations with CEC people that CEC's
concern is about maintaining extreme interpretations of Art 30 TRIPs, but
having it documented in written sources elsewhere is always good.

The EU's legal reasoning used against Canada is as stupefying as their
swpat directive proposal, and that they were successful against Canada's
very well-reasoned viewpoint throws a very bad light on WTO.  The WTO's
dispute settlement panel, like the EU people making cases there, appears
to be completely dominated by the "IP Community" which is digging the
grave of the TRIPs system, as one CEC civil servant impressively explained
in Louvain-la-Neuve, summary available at

        http://plone.ffii.org/events/2004/deso03/

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
300,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/