[ILUG] MEPs responses

[Barry O'Donovan]

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.

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

-- 
Regards,
Barry O'Donovan
http://www.barryodonovan.com/
http://www.ihl.ucd.ie/	

Public key: http://www.barryodonovan.com/gpg.asc

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.linux.ie/pipermail/ilug/attachments/20050317/06d0f342/attachment.pgp