NDGAARONDI
November 7th, 2003, 02:07 PM
Hi All
I've been to a conference with a specialised branch of a federal political party and a motion (debate) was passed but the voters seemed to have had little knowledge of what was debated, yet alone understood it!
Here is basically what was said:
Conference Notes:
1. That the European Parliament voted for a directive largely prohibiting the patenting of software, with an exception for sofytware used to control industrial processes (strictly defined).
2. That Party policy is that software should not in general be patentable.
3. That the Parliamentary Party in the European Party voted (against the majority of the ELDR group) for a set of compromise amendments, which would have allowed software, patents subjects to certain safeguards.
4. That the directive is now before the Council of Ministers, who are free to largely rewrite it.
5. That the Parliament will need an absolute majority of MEPs, to modify the Council's draft on second reading.
6. That the European Commission published a report urging the Council to amend the directive to allow softeware patents.
7. That patent experts from the member States met on 23/10/03 and refused to agree a common position, saying that the issue was political and should be settled by politicians.
Conference believes:
1. That software patents stifle innovation and favour large businesses over smaller ones.
2. That software patents hurt Open Source and other non-corporate models for the software industry.
3. That these reasons the Party was and is right to oppose software patents.
4. That the Parliamentary Party in the European Parliament should vote in line with Party policy, unless the unity of the ELDR group or similarly important political interests require otherwise.
5. That the Council is likely to re-write the directive to allow broad patentability of software, forcing the European Parliament to seek to amend it on 2nd reading.
Conference resolves:
1. That a member of the executive of our group should contact Diana Wallis MEP and ask her how the European Parliamentary Party plans to help implement Party policy on software patents.
2. The Chair sign the FFII's petition against software patents on behalf of our group.
------
I tried debating against this since this debate would otherwise not have even got underway and tried using examples of the implications of this such as treaties, WIPO etc.
Do any of you guys thought this motion was wisely accepted by Conference? I would have been more prepared for it but the text of this motion weren't available to me 'til 3 hours before the debate, then an amendment was made, within 1 hour. It was my first speech there when I did argue against it, so looked like everything was against me, oh well.
So my main point is: Is it wise to be in support of redding of software patents?
I thought I'd bring this up here, since I've not been here for a while, and a lot of the threads in the p2politics have got quite legal too :P
Looking forward from any feedback.
Thanks!
I've been to a conference with a specialised branch of a federal political party and a motion (debate) was passed but the voters seemed to have had little knowledge of what was debated, yet alone understood it!
Here is basically what was said:
Conference Notes:
1. That the European Parliament voted for a directive largely prohibiting the patenting of software, with an exception for sofytware used to control industrial processes (strictly defined).
2. That Party policy is that software should not in general be patentable.
3. That the Parliamentary Party in the European Party voted (against the majority of the ELDR group) for a set of compromise amendments, which would have allowed software, patents subjects to certain safeguards.
4. That the directive is now before the Council of Ministers, who are free to largely rewrite it.
5. That the Parliament will need an absolute majority of MEPs, to modify the Council's draft on second reading.
6. That the European Commission published a report urging the Council to amend the directive to allow softeware patents.
7. That patent experts from the member States met on 23/10/03 and refused to agree a common position, saying that the issue was political and should be settled by politicians.
Conference believes:
1. That software patents stifle innovation and favour large businesses over smaller ones.
2. That software patents hurt Open Source and other non-corporate models for the software industry.
3. That these reasons the Party was and is right to oppose software patents.
4. That the Parliamentary Party in the European Parliament should vote in line with Party policy, unless the unity of the ELDR group or similarly important political interests require otherwise.
5. That the Council is likely to re-write the directive to allow broad patentability of software, forcing the European Parliament to seek to amend it on 2nd reading.
Conference resolves:
1. That a member of the executive of our group should contact Diana Wallis MEP and ask her how the European Parliamentary Party plans to help implement Party policy on software patents.
2. The Chair sign the FFII's petition against software patents on behalf of our group.
------
I tried debating against this since this debate would otherwise not have even got underway and tried using examples of the implications of this such as treaties, WIPO etc.
Do any of you guys thought this motion was wisely accepted by Conference? I would have been more prepared for it but the text of this motion weren't available to me 'til 3 hours before the debate, then an amendment was made, within 1 hour. It was my first speech there when I did argue against it, so looked like everything was against me, oh well.
So my main point is: Is it wise to be in support of redding of software patents?
I thought I'd bring this up here, since I've not been here for a while, and a lot of the threads in the p2politics have got quite legal too :P
Looking forward from any feedback.
Thanks!