[Fwd: [ffii] IE secures Slim Council Majority with help of DE]

[Andraz Tori]

a se da komu iti skozi transcripte in ugotoviti ali je slovenija sploh
karkoli rekla in, če je, potem kaj?

ko se v javnosti (medijih) operira s podatki, je namreč ena
najpomembnejših stvari to, da imaš suvereno znanje o dogajanju,
zanesljive podatke in vire... nič te ne sme presenetiti, ker moraš vse
že vedeti...

čao
andraž
-----Posredovano sporočilo-----
From: PILCH Hartmut <phm at a2e.de>
To: news at ffii.org
Subject: [ffii] IE secures Slim Council Majority with help of DE
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 03:32:00 +0200

First indications are that the Irish presidency has secured political approval
for a new draft of the controversial software patents directive in a meeting
of the Council of Ministers today -- by 4 votes.

Belgium (5), Denmark (3), Italy (10), Spain (8) and Austria (4)
refused to support the new text.

Spain (3) voted against.

That made 30 votes refusing to support the text -- a mere 7 votes
short of the 37 needed to block it.

In the initial round of discussions SE, UK, FR, NL, CZ and HU spoke in
favour of the Irish proposal.

BE, PL, ES, DK, AT, DE, LV and IT expressed reservations.

Summaries/Transcripts available at
 * [6]http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/V002.ogg
 * [7]http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/V003.ogg

However a "compromise" proposed by the Commission was apparently
enough to bring round the German, Polish and Latvian delegations.

That left ES voting against the proposal; and BE, DK, IT and AT
refusing to approve it.

On the key issue of what should and should not count as "technical", and
therefore patentable, the Germans had originally proposed the additions shown
thus:

  2b. A technical contribution means a contribution to the state of the art in
  a field of technology which is *new and* not obvious to a person skilled in
  the art. The technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of
  the difference between the state of the art and the scope of the patent
  claim considered as a whole, which must comprise technical features,
  irrespective of whether these are accompanied by non-technical features,
  *whereby the technical features must predominate. The use of natural forces
  to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information
  belongs to a technical field. The mere processing, handling, and
  presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where
  technical devices are employed for such purposes*.

The Commission compromise was to cut this to:

  2b. A technical contribution means a contribution to the state of the art in
  a field of technology which is *new and* not obvious to a person skilled in
  the art. The technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of
  the difference between the state of the art and the scope of the patent
  claim considered as a whole, which must comprise technical features,
  irrespective of whether these are accompanied by non-technical features.

So the only effect was to insert the word 'new'.

The Commission also proposed changes to Article 4 and Recital 13, but
the effect of these is only cosmetic.

But for whatever reason, this was sufficient to win over the German
delegation, and the Poles and Latvians followed.

Although apparently enough to convince ministers, the text remains as
uncompromisingly pro-patent as the original Irish draft.

To re-instate amendments in the European parliament requires absolute
majorities. This is achievable: many of the amendments did achieve
this level of support in the first reading. But some of the votes are
likely to be very close.

FFII therefore urges supporters to make sure MEP candidates at this
election truly appreciate the depth of concern about this issue.

See also

    http://kwiki.ffii.org/Cons040518En
    http://kwiki.ffii.org/SwpatcninoEn

for more extensive and more up-to-date information.