Re: [Excuses]

[Renaud Dans <renodan@bigfoot.com>]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Charles Goyard <charles.goyard@laposte.net> wrote:
 
> Celà dit, ça fait du bien un message optimiste de temps en temps.
> 
> -- 
> Charles 

Sorry, ce n'est pas pour aujourd'hui...(1)

Renaud D.

(1)
Please forward this mail to anyone who can have some influence on DGIM or 
national representatives.

JPS.

--

Dear sir,
Dear madam,

For your information, DGIM at the European Commission is organising a meeting 
on December 21st in Bruxelles after the consultation launched on software 
patents. National representatives have been invited by DGIM. Other DGs will 
be invited as observers and will probably not be allowed to talk, considering 
the administrative tradition of the European Commission.

I have no idea who has been invited precisely. However, as you probably know, 
DGIM is strongly in favour of software patents (see bellow) and is likely to 
invite "pro patents" lobbyists such as
	- representatives national patent offices
	- law experts at the ministries of Justice
	- etc.

If you consider that decisions on software patents should not only involve 
the European "patent corporation", you should make sure that economists, 
engineers aware of software patent issues will attend this meeting as 
national representatives. It would also be very useful to send Law experts 
who do not belong to the "patent corporation" and are able to think about the 
origins and the economic consequences of Law rather than repeating EPO 
litterature.

Regards,

JPS.

DGIM: A DG in favour of software patents, whatever their consequences

1- An independent report ordered to software patent lobbyists ?

DGIM ordered on "independent" report on software patents to... IPI. IPI is 
the patent establishment's mouthpiece, its board and membership being 
primarily composed of IP lawyers, judges, patent agents, and large 
international firms with significant patent holdings. Even worse - IPI admits 
that its mission is to "fund research, the fruits of which will provide 
greatest benefit to the Institute's stakeholders". 
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/14305.html)

Also, Robert Hart, one of the authors of the IPI report, is a famous 
supporter of software patents 
(http://www.softprot.demon.co.uk/indpatent.htm). No wonder then that the IPI 
report fails to take into consideration any scenario which would lead to less 
patents....

2- Potential conflicts of interest ?

Many civil servant in charge of patents within DGIM have very close ties with 
the European Patent Office and national patent offices. Some of them used to 
work for the EPO. This raises concerns of conflicts of interest. The same 
situation also applies to France and Germany
	- in France, the person in charge of software patents at the French Ministry 
of Industry is going to move to the French Patent Office (source: 
Intelligence Online)
	- in Germany, the person in charge of software patents at the ministry of 
Justice, has been hired by the European Patent Office

3- Where are the economists and engineers ?

Many civil servants at DGIM in charge of software patents have a background 
in Law. Many civil servants at DGIM in charge of software patents share a 
very conservative ideology based on the notions of "property" and 
"equivalence principle" which tend to exclude other considerations such as 
economic considerations or human rights. Moreover, many civil servants at 
DGIM in charge of software patents even consider that Europe should always 
follow the US.

The ideology of "property" leads to considering that any form of intellectual 
property is good, so do software patents. The "equivalence principle" leads 
to considering that there is no reason not to grant software patents since 
software technology is like any other technology. The "US centric" attitude 
leads DGIM to often travel and meet USPTO and think in terms of harmonisation 
and differences with USPTO rules. 

Last, but not least, many papers written on software patents by DGIM (as well 
as by certain national patent offices), sound like "copy and paste" of EPO 
litterature without any deep thinking. 

There is therefore little hope that DGIM will do anything but push for more 
patents whatever their economic consequences or the technical 
inconsistencies. In order to get a different decision, it is necessary for 
European states to force DGIM to hire independent economists and engineers 
within DGIM and do the same at the national level to prevent the "patent 
corporation" from taking decision alone. It would also be great if DGIM could 
hire experts in Law with an open mind and the ability to think about the 
origins and the eocnomic consequences of Law (like Prof. Vivant does so well 
for example).

PS. I will provide the sources of each of the statements above to any govt 
representative who asks me (+33-662 05 76 14)


_______________________________________________
Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents

> 
> 
> --  
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-french-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>