Software patent consultation
Subject: Software patent consultation
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:06:26 +0100
From: Thierry.Stoll (thierry.stoll at cec.eu.int)
To: Mr. Pilch (phm at a2e.de)
CC: Claire Bury (claire.bury at cec.eu.int), Eurolinux (eurolinux at eurolinux.org)
Dear Mr. Pilch,
Thank you for your e-mail timed at 03.03 28 February 2001 to Mr Bolkestein
and copied to the Commission Services responsible for the above subject, in
which you make a number of points on the subject of the Commission's
approach to the question of software patenting.
As to your first point, concerning publication on our webpage of responses
to the consultation, we have, in accordance with our stated policy,
published those submissions which included express consent to do so,
including those forwarded to us from Eurolinux. In this connection, I would
draw your attention to the statement on DG Internal Market's website which
says:
"In line with the notice at the top of the Commission's
webpage mentioned in the first paragraph, comments sent to
consultation@eurolinux.org and forwarded
to the Commission are published below only where their authors have
expressly agreed to such publication by the Commission."
We have of course also published Eurolinux's official submission, including
the annexes, and we have provided a link from DG Internal Market's website
to http://petition.eurolinux.org/consultation. I therefore believe that we
have done everything we undertook to do in full transparency.
While the Commission can appreciate the reasons for the Alliance's desire
that all submissions should be published, we now have no option but to
assume, in accordance with the guidance given on our web site, that those
correspondents who did not give their explicit consent to publication wished
not to have their submissions published. To go back on this would amount to
a breach of confidence. More generally, I would comment that it is by no
means normal for all submissions to be published in the course of
consultations carried out by the Commission, and I do not believe that this
fact affects the validity of the consultation process as a whole.
Consultation on this subject in its broadest sense has effectively been
ongoing since at least 1996, when a questionnaire drawn up by the Commission
sought views on guidelines published in the United States and Japan relating
to examination of software-related patent applications. The 1997 Green Paper
on the Community patent and the patent system in Europe raised the
possibility of harmonisation at Community level on the patentability of
computer programs and software-related inventions, and sought views on the
need for such action, as well as on the desirability of deleting Article
52(2) of the Munich Convention. This was followed up by the Communication of
February 1999 which concluded already at that time that there was a need for
clarification of the law given that there were more than 13,000 European
patents covering software. This communication looked forward to the proposal
of a draft directive to harmonise national laws and action to modify the
Munich Convention. Finally, the consultation paper of October 2000 sought
views on a number of specific questions relating to the basis of any
possible harmonisation measures. At all stages, interested parties have had
every possibility of communicating their views to the Commission. In the
light of this, it is difficult to sustain the point of view that there has
not been enough consultation.
The Commission has undertaken to come to a position on this question as soon
as possible after the results of the latest consultation are published. This
commitment was given at least in part in response to strong pressure from
the Member States, who, at the recent diplomatic conference, had been
supporting deletion of Article 52(2) of the Munich Convention, and only
withdrew the proposed amendment on the condition that the Commission would
itself produce a proposal. Most recently at the occasion of the Internal
Market Council on 12 March, ministers reconfirmed their desire to see rapid
Commission action in this area. The Commission now intends to act on that
call.
Yours sincerely,
signed
Thierry STOLL
Subject: Re: Software patent consultation
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:26:48 +0100
From: Stefane Fermigier (sf at fermigier.com)
To: (To and CC same as above)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 03:06:26PM +0100, Thierry.Stoll@cec.eu.int wrote:
> Subject: Software patent consultation
> Dear Mr. Pilch,
> "In line with the notice at the top of the Commission's
> webpage mentioned in the first paragraph, comments sent to
> consultation@eurolinux.org and forwarded
> to the Commission are published below only where their authors have
> expressly agreed to such publication by the Commission."
This notice *was not* in the original call for comments, and was added
afterwards, after we made some publicity asking people to send their
opinion through our relay.
> We have of course also published Eurolinux's official submission, including
> the annexes, and we have provided a link from DG Internal Market's website
> to http://petition.eurolinux.org/consultation. I therefore believe that we
> have done everything we undertook to do in full transparency.
I personnally was shocked to see how opaque your so-called 'public'
consultation process was.
> While the Commission can appreciate the reasons for the Alliance's desire
> that all submissions should be published, we now have no option but to
> assume, in accordance with the guidance given on our web site, that those
I repeat: theses guidelines were added after the consultation's launch.
> February 1999 which concluded already at that time that there was a need for
> clarification of the law given that there were more than 13,000 European
> patents covering software. This communication looked forward to the proposal
There is no need for "clarification". There is a need to put these illegal
13,000 European patents in the sewer.
> the Member States, who, at the recent diplomatic conference, had been
> supporting deletion of Article 52(2) of the Munich Convention, and only
> withdrew the proposed amendment on the condition that the Commission would
> itself produce a proposal. Most recently at the occasion of the Internal
> Market Council on 12 March, ministers reconfirmed their desire to see rapid
> Commission action in this area. The Commission now intends to act on that
Where are the minutes of this meeting ?
And BTW, why is IM dealing with this at all, and not IS ?
S.
--
Stéfane Fermigier: Nuxeo, AFUL, Portalux. Tel: 06 63 04 12 77 (mobile).
"Amazon: we patent the dot in .com"
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
Henvendelse vedrørende websiderne til<www_admin>.
Se PHP kildetekst for , top, bottom
|
Senest ændret 2008-01-01, klokken 22:01
Denne side vedligeholdes af Anne.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
