[ILUG] MEPs responses

[Justin Mason]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Barry O'Donovan writes:
> I just got an e-mail for Gay Mitchell. He will be supporting Simon 
> Coveney's position which means he will be opposing the patentability of 
> software.

Excellent news!  Coveney's position --
http://www.kde.ie/patents/statements/coveney.php -- is quite clear, too:

  'My position is a clear one; that the development of new software
  applications should not be patentable and instead should be covered by
  existing copyright law. Therefore what is required from the Commission
  and the Council is clear and unambiguous language as to what will be
  patentable and what will be covered by copy right law.'

- --j.

> That's now 7 against, 3 under consideration and 6 unknown.
> 
> http://www.kde.ie/patents/mep-status.php
> 
> Regards,
> Barry
> 
> On Wednesday 09 March 2005 13:49, Colm Buckley wrote:
> > Today's news...
> >
> > I'm slightly worried about today's communication from Eoin Ryan; he's
> > forwarded a statement from Brian Crowley MEP, who is the chairman of
> >
> > the UEN group (of which Fianna Fáil MEPs are members):
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Response from Mr. Brian Crowley M.E.P. on the issue of software
> > > patentability and the EU Directive COD/2002/0047
> > >
> > > The Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament decided at
> > > the end of January this year to send proposals back to the
> > > Commission to ask for a new proposal. The Conference of Presidents
> > > of the European Parliament agreed in February to endorse that
> > > request from the Legal Affairs Committee.  The Commission is
> > > anxious to draft a new proposal as they believe there is political
> > > agreement in the Council of Ministers to go ahead on the original
> > > proposal.  It should be remembered that 50% of the amendments which
> > > were proposed by the European Parliament at First reading had been
> > > accepted by the Commission.  We now await a decision of the Council
> > > of Ministers on whether they agree to a new proposal or not.  This
> > > is expected shortly.
> > > ---------------------------------
> >
> > (I assume he meant "not anxious" where he said "anxious", otherwise
> > it doesn't make sense.)
> >
> > His comment about 50% of the amendments being accepted is
> > disingenuous; no significant amendments to the *substance* of the
> > directive were accepted.  I'm not sure whether this statement
> > indicates willingness on the part of Fianna Fáil to roll over and
> > accept the Commission's proposals, but it's certainly not as robust
> > as I would like.  I would suggest that Fianna Fáil MEPs are most in
> > need of constituent lovin' on this issue.
> >
> > The responses I got from other MEPs...  Proinsias de Rossa is
> > definitely on board; he understands the issue and is determined to
> > fight McCreevy on this.  Avril Doyle's responses have been polite but
> > noncommittal; I don't know precisely where she stands.  Mairead
> > McGuinness is more positive; she seems to understand that this
> > directive would be catastrophic and will attend the second reading.
> >
> > The email I sent this morning:
> > > Friends -
> > >
> > > I hope you're not tired of hearing from me on this issue.  I know
> > > that many others will have been writing to you on this topic, and I
> > > hope you will understand how important this issue is.
> > >
> > > Thank you for forwarding Commissioner McCreevy's remarks to me; I
> > > also watched his speech on the EP live Internet video.
> > >
> > > The summary of our ongoing problems:
> > >
> > > 	* Council have not addressed the fact that the "common position"
> > > was adopted against Council's own standing orders.  In particular,
> > > the request from Denmark to have the proposal moved from the A
> > > agenda to the B agenda should not have been ignored.  As previously
> > > indicated, the proposal as it stands no longer enjoys qualified
> > > majority support in Council, so the "common position" is a farce -
> > > the proposal only exists because it has not been voted upon.  It is
> > > not acceptable for Council to make decisions "for institutional
> > > reasons".
> > >
> > > 	* McCreevy's "dare" to Parliament to reject the proposal is
> > > insulting; he is relying on the fact that an absolute majority will
> > > be required, and assuming that Parliament will not be able to make
> > > up the numbers.  The only appropriate response from Parliament is
> > > for an overwhelming rejection of the directive; and it is vital for
> > > the maintenance of the democratic process that this be done. 
> > > Council should not be allowed to use procedural technicalities to
> > > override the will of Parliament.
> > >
> > > 	* Despite Commissioner McCreevy's attempts to reassure Parliament
> > > over the substance of the proposed Directive, it is the
> > > overwhelming opinion of experts in the European software industry
> > > that adoption of this Directive will lead to their being at a
> > > severe disadvantage compared to their competitors in the United
> > > States.  The European Union should not be pursuing such a course;
> > > rather, a directive on patentability should clearly and
> > > unambiguously exclude computer software methods and algorithms from
> > > the realm of the patentable.  As previously mentioned, patenting of
> > > software is much more akin to the patenting of the plotline of a
> > > novel, or of the composition of a painting, than to the protection
> > > of any inventions.  Copyright law is more than sufficient to
> > > protect the creators of computer software, and patents in this area
> > > are just a high barrier to the market.
> > >
> > > Please feel free to contact me if you need any clarification or
> > > assistance with any of the issues.  Further information is also
> > > available at the web sites http://www.ffii.org/ and
> > > http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ - for an example of how
> > > Commissioner McCreevy has damaged Ireland's reputation by
> > > persisting with this issue, see in particular the web page
> > > http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=397 - I
> > > think the author goes too far, but he's far from alone in holding
> > > this opinion.
> > >
> > > 	Colm
> >
> > 	Colm
> >
> > --
> > Colm Buckley / colm at tuatha.org / +353 87 2469146 /
> > www.colm.buckley.name
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFCOcJKMJF5cimLx9ARAnJfAJ93qdW9flDM/6YcHgGmyNhTtPXyewCfUUgG
DwMkmNnnmmgK0Ti3PiNvIsc=
=ba+2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----