Re: EU Votes Tomorrow on Right to Express Logic Freely in Code

The latest seems to be that they will vote to throw the Directive
out.  I, who always look for the moment of insight and awareness,
when everything turns around in an instant, wonder whether
somebody could make this the moment that a clear pitch would
bring all parties around.  I mean, it's pretty plain that they're
backing down simply because Rocard's message has such simple
clarity at this point and because the fact that the pro-sw-patent
folks have been both deceived and deceptive is also clear.  It
basically comes down to: The pro-sw-patent folks have really been
trying to codify the EPO case law rather than having an honest
discussion of the matter on its own terms.  At that point it
becomes a simple question for the MEPs of who's really staking
out an honest and forthright position here?

A pitch that doesn't put across the above message, but plays on
the situation instead, saying in practical and empathetic terms
what the confusion really is, might convert the situation (I
would summarize it as the pro-sw-patent folks holding onto the
notion that there is abstraction in patents; but failing to
recognize that pure abstraction at the level of logic, math and
geometry is just not the same -- but there could be other
somewhat empathetic couchings that might also fly).  I really
wish we could have this issue confronted forthrightly, and
suddenly begin a new march in the dazzling light of reason once
again.  To seize victory out of the situation would be so
*helpful* to us.  But of course, according to reasonable
calculus, that's not to be advised.  A real statesperson might
pull it off, but they'd really need to have an assured way to
gauge the MEPs' response.

It seemed to me that the speeches by Rocard, et al. this morning
really almost did that already.  Watch them and think about them
this way.  All told, the positions put across really seemed to me
to devolve into a kind of obviousness as far as who was really
right, who was standing on principle and honesty, even while the
pro-sw-patent spokesperson presented the best fake and
indirecting case possible with all the panache and audacity
necessary for that to get as far as it could ever hope to go. 
This is probably why the call has shifted to dropping the
Directive entirely, over the course of one day.  Here are some
links to the debate this morning, followed by a Reuter's article
announcing the new plan to drop the Directive entirely.

Debate streams:
rtsp://streamebs.cec.eu.int/VoD/20050705/en/085651-092705_1120553811_1120555625_.rm
rtsp://streamebs.cec.eu.int/VoD/20050705/en/092701-095709_1120555621_1120557429_.rm
rtsp://streamebs.cec.eu.int/VoD/20050705/en/095708-102711_1120557428_1120559231_.rm
rtsp://streamebs.cec.eu.int/VoD/20050705/en/102710-105716_1120559230_1120561036_.rm
rtsp://streamebs.cec.eu.int/VoD/20050705/en/105711-112722_1120561031_1120562842_.rm
rtsp://streamebs.cec.eu.int/VoD/20050705/en/112716-115730_1120562836_1120564650_.rm


Reuters article:
> 
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-07-05T211406Z_01_KNE576495_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-TECH-EU-PATENTING.XML

EU assembly to throw out patent bill
Tue Jul 5, 2005 10:13 PM BST
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS                   

By Huw Jones

STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - The European Parliament will vote
to kill an EU bill to patent software-related innovations, party
officials said on Tuesday, shrugging off a warning from the
European Commission that it would not submit fresh legislation.

The issue has drawn heavy lobbying both by large technology
companies such as Microsoft, Nokia and Siemens, who want better
protection but opposed this version of the bill, and by advocates
of narrower scope for patenting, who argued that wide patenting
hurts smaller firms.

The bill aims to harmonise how patents on "computer-implemented
inventions" are applied across the EU.

But at party meetings on Tuesday evening, members of the
assembly's two dominant groups, the PSE socialists and the EPP
centre-right, both decided to throw out the patent bill in a
plenary vote on Wednesday, saying it would be safest to kill a
bad bill that pleased nobody.

"The EPP party meeting has just voted to reject the common
position tomorrow morning," the group's spokesman Robert
Fitzhenry told Reuters.

Tony Robinson, spokesman for the PSE, said the group will also be
voting to scrap the bill.

The two groups combined have 468 deputies, easily passing the
threshold needed to kill legislation in the 732-member assembly.
Earlier in the day, the smaller ALDE liberal group, with 89
members, said it would also vote to reject the bill.

A version of the bill agreed by the 25 member states of the EU
left the assembly members divided and unable to muster the
qualified majorities needed to amend it.

"The rejection is the fallback option that everybody can
understand in political terms and does not run the risk of the
bill turning into a dog's breakfast (a mess)," liberal group
spokesman Neil Corlett told Reuters, a view echoed by others.

If the bill is not amended or killed, the member-state version
would become law.

"Since it is not sure that we can get a really good directive,
then I would rather have no directive at all than one which could
be misused to legitimise too much patenting," Eva Lichtenberger,
a member of the Green party, told Reuters.

The Greens and their allies in the assembly number 42.

Lichtenberger hoped the debate will now turn to the possibility
of an EU-based patent. Europe-wide patenting is currently handled
by the European Patent Office with no recourse to a single court,
forcing firms to defend them in each country -- a costly
exercise.

HEAVY LOBBYING

The lawmakers came under intense lobbying from large technology
companies who said the bill, with the changes sought by the
European Parliament, would expose their products to copycat
versions from China. The legislation was also opposed by groups
seeking to limit the scope of patents they say stifle innovation
and shut small firms out of markets.

Campaigners handed out leaflets on the train used by lawmakers
from Brussels to Strasbourg on Monday after bombarding
parliamentarians with e-mails in recent weeks.

The bill's sponsor in the parliament, French socialist Michel
Rocard, rejected criticism.

"I call upon our multinational corporations to make the effort
and adjust. It won't be as tough as they seem to think it will
be," the former French prime minister told the legislature
earlier on Tuesday.

But later in the day, as momentum grew to kill the bill, Rocard
was preparing the ground for its collapse.

"It's better to have no directive than the wrong one," he told
reporters. "Rejection is much more preferable than accepting the
common position. A law not based on consensus works badly while a
consensual law works better."

Party sources said the common stance of the member states was
also breaking down, making broad consensus on the bill even more
difficult to obtain.

NO NEW BILL

At a debate on the bill on Tuesday morning, Britain's Andrew Duff
of the liberals said killing the bill would also be
unsatisfactory.

"To fail to legislate at all would leave the industry to the
mercy of the European Patent Office, the courts and panels of the
World Trade Organisation. That could be a costly, legalistic and
confusing situation," Duff said.

Several members called for the European Commission, which
proposed the legislation, to revisit the drawing board and come
back with a fresh draft.

However, the Brussels executive rejected drafting a new proposal
and Economic Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia warned that
allowing the bill to fail would hurt the EU aim of increasing the
25-nation bloc's economic competitiveness.

"The Commission believes that the common position meets the
requirements of introducing predictable framework that promotes
and rewards innovation," Almunia told lawmakers.



Seth Johnson wrote:
> 
> This is such a critical vote, and while it's still not clear
> whether the set of amendments put forth by Rocard, designed to
> assure a clear exclusion of software from patentability, will
> garner the necessary 367 votes, it is nevertheless very clear
> that the pro-software patent forces are running scared.  They are
> also showing their true colors in advance of the vote in a way
> that they didn't for the First Reading of September 2003.
> 
> If we win the Second Reading vote, the EU Commission and Council
> evidently plan to drop the Directive entirely.  In my estimation,
> the effort will still be profoundly successful.  The tricks have
> been played out, and the nature of the issue is now much more
> clearly understood.  Our forces will be marshalled, as well, and
> we'll likely see more and more sideliners come out with strong
> support.  As that happens, we'll also see the issue discussed in
> its own nature, rather than according to blind, jingoistic
> appeals to property rights to information as the source of
> innovation.
> 
> If they keep the Directive, then the EPO's practice will
> naturally undergo reconsideration, despite their not presently
> being subject to effective EU oversight.  If they don't keep the
> Directive, then a successful Second Reading vote will still stand
> as a strong historical register.
> 
> If we don't win this Second Reading vote, then we will finally
> taste the effects of software patents, as the EU's explicit
> exclusion of software from patentability is basically the only
> reason why we have not seen more software patent cases
> prosecuted.
> 
> Seth

-- 

RIAA is the RISK!  Our NET is P2P!
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.