[FR Francais] [ES Espanol] [PT Portoges] [DE Deutsch] [PL Polsky] [NO] [SV Svenska] [DA Dansk] [CS Czesky] [NL Nederlands] [IT Italiano] [translatable text] [howto help] [Addenda]
Google
Logic Patents > Letters > Urgent Appeal
LettersUrgent AppealThe TextQualified?ParliamentWay OutJunker

Urgent Call to National Governments and Parliaments
Commemorate Banana Union Day

Europe's governments are about to put their stamps under a directive proposal for unlimited patentability and unfettered patent enforcement of "computer-implemented" algorithms and business methods. The agreement by the Council of Ministers of 2004-05-18 discards well-deliberated decisions of the European Parliament and the EU's consultative organs without any justification and without democratic legitimation. The majority was secured by deceptive packaging and by questionable diplomatic maneuvering at the decisive session. The undersigned, who represent the leaders of software innovation and informed discussion on software innovation policy in Europe, ask the responsible politicians to pull the emergency brake and to reorganise the process of competitivity legislation in the Council.
Recipients:
Heads of 25 governments and parliaments, other concerned politicians
Subject:
Software Patent Directive: Request to reopen Council Discussion
Qualified? Way Out Parliament see annex A
  1. The Competitiveness Council session of 18 May 2004 reached a qualified majority for a version of the software patent directive 2002/0047 COM (COD) that would impose unlimited patentability and unfettered patent enforcement of "computer-implemented" algorithms and business methods on Europe. There is a general consensus among economists and software professionals that such a regime, as exists in the USA, is disastrous for innovation, competition and growth of the information-based economy.
  2. The proposed text is designed to mislead ministers about its real effects. It consists of many sentences of the form or "software is ... [ rhetorically bloated emphasis ] ... unpatentable, unless ... [ condition, which, upon closer scrutiny, turns to be always true ]". Fake limits of this type pervade the proposal and especially the central provisions which were used for persuading the ministers (see annex A).
  3. The moderators of the Competitiveness Council session pushed the participants toward accepting the proposal by deception, pressure and surprise tactics, thus even making it questionable whether a valid majority was achieved. It can be said with certainty that only a minority of governments really agrees with what was negotiated, but several governments were misrepresented by their negotiators, who broke intra-ministerial agreements or even violated instructions from their superiors (see annex B).
  4. the Council's proposal is largely identical in wording and spirit to the texts from the Commission and the JURI Committee, which the European Parliament has already rejected by means of a series of amendments. The Parliament's amendments reflected the demands of the vast majority of software innovators and innnovation policy researchers in the EU, including the authors of studies ordered by the Commisson as well as the members of the EU's consultative organs (see annex C).
  5. The Council has ignored and rejected all the work of the Parliament and the consultative organs of the EU without any justification and without democratic legitimation. The text is not presented as a means of achieving any policy objective, but rather as a "compromise" between governments. It was negotiated under a veil of secrecy between anonymous ministerial officials, most of whom are in charge of running national patent offices and thereby part of a community with a vested interest in unlimited patentability.
  1. ask the Council Presidency to withdraw the voting on the software patent directive (2002/0047 COM (COD)) from the agenda of the next Council session where it is awaiting formal approval.
  2. take the dossier out of the hands of the patent bureaucracy, and restore true political scrutiny of the impact of the proposed text. The designation of representatives in the Council working party should be publicly presented and debated (in Parliaments where the institutional framework allows).
  3. urge other governments to do the same and ultimately to reform the EU Council so as to prevent catastrophes such as the present one from happening in the future.

Sign
Support Now
The main text is submitted together with the Call for Action II with logos of signatories. In addition, the following annex documents are submitted.

[ Letters and Appeals against Patent Inflation  Urgent Call to National Governments and Parliaments | Fake Limits on Patentability in the Council Proposal | Council 2004-05-18: an Unqualified Majority | Analysis and Opinion Behind the Parliament's Decision | Steps Out of the European Software Patent Deadlock | Draft Letter to Luxemburg Head of State Concerning Software Patent Directive ]
Valid XHTML 1.0!
http://swpat.ffii.de/letters/cons0406/index.en.html
© 2005-04-16 (2004-06-25) Hartmut PILCH
english version 2004-05-24 by Hartmut PILCH