[vertaling] [Fwd: [ffii] Commission unable to answer MEPs on Patent
Wiebe van der Worp
wiebe at vrijschrift.org
Thu Sep 21 13:11:57 CEST 2006
Onbescheiden vraag: zijn hier mensen die in zo'n bericht de tanden
willen zetten (vertalen dus)? Het lijkt mij zinvol als dit soort
berichten als FFII Nederland naar buiten gaat maar tijd ontbreekt
leert ervaring terwijl we een behoorlijk goed gevulde perslijst hebben
opgebouwd door de jaren.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ffii] Commission unable to answer MEPs on Patent Litigation
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:40:05 +0200
From: Jonas Maebe <jmaebe at ffii.org>
To: news at ffii.org
PRESS RELEASE -- [ Europe / Economy / ICT ]
Commission unable to answer MEPs on Patent Litigation Agreement
Brussels, 21 September 2006 -- Commissioner McCreevy proclaims blissful
ignorance about the consequences of the European Patent Litigation
Agreement (EPLA). In a series of six non-answers to Members of the
European parliament, the Commission reveals that until now it is unable
to comment on cost, judicial independence, jurisprudence and
treaty-related concerns. Meanwhile McCreevy keeps praising the virtues
of said draft agreement.
The latest question filed by Marc Tarabella MEP noted that the current
draft of the EPLA would allow the European Patent Office's (EPO)
Technical Boards of Appeal (TBAs) judges to preside European court
cases. In their EPO function they introduced software patents in Europe,
and as patent judge they could confirm this practice at the judicial
level. Currently, software patents are rejected by most national judges.
Commissioner McCreevy's answer consisted of a boiler plate text about
the recently held patent policy consultation, and concluded with "The
Community is not a party to the negotiations and can therefore not
comment on this issue.". Ten days earlier he nevertheless said in a
speech that the EPLA needs Community involvement to be effective and
that the process is actively approached by the Commission.
A question by Michel Rocard MEP about an analysis from the EPO showing
significant cost increases for most court cases under the EPLA, was
answered by McCreevy with "It is consequently not up to the Commission
to analyse the cost structures under the EPLA", a statement that
contradicts the Commissioner's message five days earlier when he said
"[The EPLA] would offer valuable cost savings."
All other questions asked by Rocard and Tarabella have been answered in
a similar vain, with the Commission saying that it is either not in a
position to answer or unable to comment. FFII president Pieter Hintjens
points out that it is impossible to conduct an open and informed
discussion with a Commissioner that deprives the European Parliament of
facts and figures which he hands out elsewhere.
"We have had enough of hidden agenda politics, it's time for the
Commissioner to deliver some facts. The EPLA means higher costs for
small businesses, and increased litigation risks. More US-style
litigation is not the solution. We just need a better patent office", he
* Questions asked by Rocard MEP:
* Questions asked by Tarabella MEP:
* Commissioner McCreevy's speech on the EPLA:
* EPLA analysis showing EPLA will be more expensive for SMEs
* Permanent link to this press release
+32-2-414 84 03 (fixed)
+32-484-56 61 09 (mobile)
bhenrion at ffii.org
FFII board member
jmaebe at ffii.org
About the FFII -- http://www.ffii.org
The FFII is a not-for-profit association registered in twenty European
countries, dedicated to the development of information goods for the
public benefit, based on copyright, free competition, open standards.
More than 850 members, 3,500 companies and 100,000 supporters have
entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions
concerning exclusion rights (intellectual property) in data processing.
FFII Press Releases.
(un)subscribe via http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/news, or
contact media at ffii.org for more information.
More information about the Vertaling