[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive]
 
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group - http://www.sslug.dk Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Forum   Calendar   Search
MhonArc Date: [Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next]   Thread: [Date Prev] [Thread Index] [Date Next]   MhonArc
 

Re: [ITPOLITIK] UN Summit Tones Down Open-Source Stanc



On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 12:41, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:
> >>>>> "Carsten" == Carsten Svaneborg <Carsten> writes:
> 
> Carsten> Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:
> >> Det er ikke sikkert, at det bliver så nemt at ændre konventionene til det,
> >> de vil have. Især ikke nu, hvor det har være behandlet i parlamentet og
> >> der har været opmærksomhed omkring det.
> 
> Carsten> Jeg tror stadig at flertallet af de Europæiske regeringer er for
> Carsten> softwarepatenter,
> 
> Men er det et 2/3 flertal?
> 
> Carsten> og f.eks. i Danmark havde de flertal for direktivet,
> Carsten> og kunne sikkert også få det for en ændring af patentkonventionen
> Carsten> svarende til hvad direktivet gik ud på - dvs. at tillade patententering
> Carsten> af software.
> 
> Men der var kun et af partierne (V), der stemte mod ffii anbefalinger og et
> der undlod at stemme (C). Skal sådan en traktatændring ikke i sidste ende
> behandles i folketinget?

lidt hjaelp for at forstå:


-----Forwarded Message-----

> > There is inconsistency in Bolkestein threats.
> > 
> > The conflict is between people like us who are trying to limit
> > patentabilty and those from exclusion right management who are trying to
> > expand their field of business through extension of patentability. Their
> > representatives in the world of politics are individuals like patent
> > offices administrators. With expansion of patentability on software they
> > tried to act directly in late 1990s. In 2000 they we stopped and
> > demolished by the first petition. 50 thousand signatures were enough to
> > wake up politicians in countries like France and Germany.
> > 
> > Then Bolkestein gave them his hand. But the Europarl refused and voted
> > for real limits of patentability. I do treat his threats as blackmail.
> > The Parliament should give up because there is plan B beyond European
> > Union. In fact plan B a phantom that is politically unrealizable.
> > Theoretically lobby of patents expansionist can amend the European
> > Convention but they are in weaker position as in 2000. Nobody can expect
> > that we are not able to mobilise public opinion in national frames.
> > Bolkestein might be not fully conscious of the situation. Patentabity
> > issue is to him a marginal problem. Even at 10 November Council he has a
> > half of dozen more points higher on his agenda.
> 
> I think there is a big danger in being over-complacent.
> 
> As N. noted in an earlier post, the "patent policy working
> party" is a personal union -- a personal union that Anthony Howard at 
> the EC would certainly feel an honorary member of, even if not one de jure.
> 
> At the last meeting (August) of the UK Patent Office focus group on 
> swpat, Peter Hayward reported back that he had been surprised, but there 
> had been a very high level of agreement round the table at the previous 
> meeting of the working party -- "all the countries are now seeing 
> eye-to-eye on this".
> 
> There is going to be a revision of the European Patent Convention 
> anyway, for which the amendments have already been negotiated, to admit 
> the EU as a member state in its own right.  It would be very easy to 
> slip in the UKPTO proposal on Article 52 at the same time.
> 
> Finally, I think it is a mistake to think that because such an amendment 
> was not passed in 2000, it could not be passed in future.  What happened 
> in 2000 was a stay of execution, not a change of mind by the patent 
> offices.  Their politiicans asked them to try the democratic EU route. 
> They tried it, they may consider it failed.  Now I see no reason why 
> they would not try the EPC route again.
> 
> Note that some of the countries outside the EU -- eg Switzerland -- were 
> furious that sw patentability was not approved in 2000.  Even if some 
> countries vote against swpat, to block it enough countries are required 
> to get to at least 1/4 of the EPC member states.
> 
> Either way it goes -- whether by the parliamentary route, or the 
> intergovernmental route -- we need to convince ministers in national 
> governments that there is another view beyond that of their patent 
> offices, and that on this issue they need to overrule their patent 
> office civil servants.
> 
> We have somewhat less that 5 weeks, and need all the focus and all the 
> help we can get.

//Erik



 
Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Index   Calendar   Search

 
 
Questions about the web-pages to <www_admin>. Last modified 2005-08-10, 20:22 CEST [an error occurred while processing this directive]
This page is maintained by [an error occurred while processing this directive]MHonArc [an error occurred while processing this directive] # [an error occurred while processing this directive] *