Re: [Patents] Commission unable to answer MEPs on Patent Litigation Agreement

[Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>]

> All other questions asked by Rocard and Tarabella have been answered in
> a similar vain, with the Commission saying that it is either not in a
            ----
> position to answer or unable to comment.

A spelling mistake  ... but a really good one, that adds meaning.  :-)

Bernard


* Jonas Maebe <jonas.maebe@ugent.be>, le 21-09-06, a écrit:
> PRESS RELEASE -- [ Europe / Economy / ICT ]
> 
> ========================================================================
> Commission unable to answer MEPs on Patent Litigation Agreement
> ========================================================================
> 
> Brussels, 21 September 2006 -- Commissioner McCreevy proclaims blissful
> ignorance about the consequences of the European Patent Litigation
> Agreement (EPLA). In a series of six non-answers to Members of the
> European parliament, the Commission reveals that until now it is unable
> to comment on cost, judicial independence, jurisprudence and
> treaty-related concerns. Meanwhile McCreevy keeps praising the virtues
> of said draft agreement.
> 
> The latest question filed by Marc Tarabella MEP noted that the current
> draft of the EPLA would allow the European Patent Office's (EPO)
> Technical Boards of Appeal (TBAs) judges to preside European court
> cases. In their EPO function they introduced software patents in Europe,
> and as patent judge they could confirm this practice at the judicial
> level. Currently, software patents are rejected by most national judges.
> 
> Commissioner McCreevy's answer consisted of a boiler plate text about
> the recently held patent policy consultation, and concluded with "The
> Community is not a party to the negotiations and can therefore not
> comment on this issue.". Ten days earlier he nevertheless said in a
> speech that the EPLA needs Community involvement to be effective and
> that the process is actively approached by the Commission.
> 
> A question by Michel Rocard MEP about an analysis from the EPO showing
> significant cost increases for most court cases under the EPLA, was
> answered by McCreevy with "It is consequently not up to the Commission
> to analyse the cost  structures under the EPLA", a statement that
> contradicts the Commissioner's message five days earlier when he said
> "[The EPLA] would offer valuable cost savings."
> 
> All other questions asked by Rocard and Tarabella have been answered in
> a similar vain, with the Commission saying that it is either not in a
> position to answer or unable to comment. FFII president Pieter Hintjens
> points out that it is impossible to conduct an open and informed
> discussion with a Commissioner that deprives the European Parliament of
> facts and figures which he hands out elsewhere.
> 
> "We have had enough of hidden agenda politics, it's time for the
> Commissioner to deliver some facts. The EPLA means higher costs for
> small businesses, and increased litigation risks. More US-style
> litigation is not the solution. We just need a better patent office", he
> added.
> 
> 
> ========================================================================
> Background information
> ========================================================================
> 
> * Questions asked by Rocard MEP:
> http://wiki.ffii.org/Rocard060915En
> 
> * Questions asked by Tarabella MEP:
> http://wiki.ffii.org/Tarabella060908En
> http://wiki.ffii.org/Tarabella060913En
> http://wiki.ffii.org/Tarabella060919En
> 
> * Commissioner McCreevy's speech on the EPLA:
> http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/06/485
> 
> * EPLA analysis showing EPLA will be more expensive for SMEs
> http://wiki.ffii.org/EplaAnalysisEn
> 
> * Permanent link to this press release
> http://press.ffii.org/Commission_unable_to_answer_MEPs_on_Patent_Litigation_Agreement
> 
> 
> ========================================================================
> Contact Information
> ========================================================================
> 
> Benjamin Henrion
> FFII Brussels
> +32-2-414 84 03 (fixed)
> +32-484-56 61 09 (mobile)
> bhenrion@ffii.org
> (French/English)
> 
> Jonas Maebe
> FFII board member
> jmaebe@ffii.org
> (Dutch/English)
> 
> 
> ========================================================================
> About the FFII -- http://www.ffii.org
> ========================================================================
> 
> The FFII is a not-for-profit association registered in twenty European
> countries, dedicated to the development of information goods for the
> public benefit, based on copyright, free competition, open standards.
> More than 850 members, 3,500 companies and 100,000 supporters have
> entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions
> concerning exclusion rights (intellectual property) in data processing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Subscription management: http://www2.aful.org/wws

-- 
             Le brevet logiciel menace votre entreprise
               Software patents threaten your company
    Soutenez la Majorité Économique - Support the Economic Majority
                  http://www.economic-majority.com/

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion