LettreChambreDeputes20040918 - Revision history

158.64.72.230: Fixed second reference to 5

2007-11-28T10:11:26Z

Fixed second reference to 5

158.64.72.230: Added missing tag

2007-11-28T10:09:32Z

Added missing <references/> tag

83.99.49.94: voting procedures footnote

2007-11-28T01:08:52Z

voting procedures footnote

83.99.49.94: Correct footnotes

2007-11-28T01:07:28Z

Correct footnotes

WikiSysop: Make HowTo not a link

2007-11-27T16:35:36Z

Make HowTo not a link

New page

Back : [[Epatent]]

Lettre pour la chambre des députés, sur le modèle de la lettre COSAC des hollandais. Pour le moment, je commence par une copie et traduction au fil de l'eau.

Au fur et à mesure, on changera les paragraphes...

l'idée est de demande à la CHD et au gouvernement de revenir sur le vote et d'adopter une position ferme

SMA : OK?

SMA : on peut aussi s'inspirer du [http://www.ffii.se/kwiki/index.cgi?WPFR welcomepack FFII]
-----

A l'attention de
la Chambre des Députés, Luxembourg
le Gouvernement du Luxembourg

De la part de : LiLux a.s.b.l.

Concernant : le comportement du précédent Gouvernement luxembourgeois et en particulier du Ministre de l'Industrie M. Grethen, et le rôle des chambres nationales dans l'Union Européenne

Luxembourg, le......

We write to inform you of our concerns regarding the way the Dutch EU
Presidency is conducting itself with respect to European procedures and the
Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union. The road
taken by the Dutch government negates the Protocol on the Role of National
Parliaments and weakens European democracy.

On May10th Minister Brinkhorst misinformed the Dutch Parliament about the
Directive on Computer-Implemented Inventions, and voted for the Council's
proposal on May 18th based on that misrepresentation. As a result, the Dutch
Parliament has adopted a motion by MP Van Dam calling the government to
withdraw its vote.

The Dutch Parliament required two sessions of the Committee on Economic
Affairs to come to realize the issues with the Council's text, and how
detrimental it would be for SMEs and innovation. The Directive's text is
overcomplicated, with double negations, duplicitous qualifications
("exceptions" that are always true) and undefined exclusions. The Parliament
fears "excesses" with regards to the patentability of software. Empirical
evidence shows patents on software impede innovation.

The Dutch Parliament concluded that since there was ongoing discussion of the
Directive, the government should abstain from the Council's vote for
political agreement.

Minister Brinkhorst stated in a debate on the matter that for constitutional
reasons the Council's vote cannot be reversed. The State Secretary also
misrepresented the facts in the debate on the Van Dam motion, by calling the
political agreement a "common position," thereby presenting the non-binding
agreement as a binding one. Furthermore, a Brussels Permanent Representative
said the vote cannot be changed [[1]]. In these actions, the Dutch
government has spread critical incorrect information about European Union
democratic procedures three times [[2]].

The Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union assures
Parliaments early access to legislative proposals. The Parliaments of the 10
new members of the Union have not had early access, since the translations of
the EU Council's political agreement have only very recently become
available.

Since the translations became available during the Parliaments' recess
periods, it would be appropriate to add a short extension to the six weeks
period provided under the Protocol, within which national Parliaments may
render their conclusions regarding the Council's political agreement. No
shortening of the six weeks period can be allowed.

Without the six weeks review period, the Parliaments of the new members are
denied the rights the Protocol provides for. There is no ground to deny the
new members these rights, since, so far as we know, there is no jurisprudence
on the Protocol, and no mention of this situation in the Treaty of Accession.
The new members of the European Union must enjoy their full rights to address
the Directive.

Eastern Europe would bear the hardest burden in the outcome of this decision.
SMEs in Europe can little afford to compete in a context that would include
the kinds of patents this Directive will validate. The new Eastern European
members of the Union are hardly in a better position than the rest of Europe.
Eastern Europe will never own its software industry under the Council's text.

Europe needs a sensible patent system. The Council's misleading text is no
contribution to that. Critical amendments contributed by the European
Parliament, including a key definition clarifying the term 'technical,' were
discarded by the Council for the dissembling language that they favor [[3]].

The Council worked entirely on the basis of text developed in the JURI
committee [[4]]. They simply discarded clear language such as 'programs are not
inventions' of the European Patent Convention and clarifications like 'data
processing is not a field of technology' and 'publication and distribution of
software is never a patent infringement' of the Parliament.

We believe the Directive must be discussed as a B-item in the Council, not
allowed to pass as a mere formality under the A-item agenda points. The
Netherlands has adopted a motion showing a lack of faith in the vote. There
has been discussion all over Europe regarding the misleading nature of the
Directive and the problematic conduct of the vote. A large group of Ministers
joined in supporting Germany in including a critical text that was dropped at
the very moment of the vote, putting those Ministers, including a substitute
Danish Minister, in a difficult position. The Directive should not be handled
by non-involved ministers [[5]].

Every Parliament in the European Union has the right to debate the Directive
on Computer-Implemented Inventions, and to render their opinions. Any Council
member may unilaterally act to transfer an A-item decision indicating a mere
formality to the list of B-item agenda points [[5]]. Every member of the
Council has the right to change their present vote [[2]]. Any Council member
may unilaterally block any proposed shortening of the six weeks review
period. All of the national members of the European Union have the freedom
and the right to engage in any decision that determines their future.

The proceedings surrounding the Directive on Computer-Implemented Inventions
are a particularly transparent instance representing democratic deficits in
the European Union. The misrepresentations of the procedure and of the status
of the Council's political agreement, and the failure to apply the Protocol
on the Role of National Parliaments to the new members of the Union in the
deliberations, are not only signals of a failure to conduct the deliberations
on the Directive in an open and accountable manner. They also represent a
necessary and worthy occasion to set the right precedent for democratic
process.

Please require the Council and the Dutch Presidency to make clear that
democracy is here to stay in Europe.

Voorzitter vaste Kamercommissie Europese Zaken, we hope you will forward this
letter to the COSAC members as well.

On behalf of Vrijschrift/FFII,
Sincerely,

Ante Wessels
Arend Lammertink, Ir
Harmen van der Wal, Mr.

cc: Voorzitter vaste kamercommissie Europese Samenwerkingsorganisaties
ANP

[[1]] Detailed analysis (Dutch):
Octrooien op software werpen hun schaduw vooruit
http://www.vrijschrift.nl/Members/awessels/vrijschrift.nl_misleiding-kamer.pdf

[[2]] Lopez report
http://fajardolopez.com/informes/Fajardolopez.com_18th-May-EU-Council-voting.pdf

This opinion was confirmed by the Council itself: "PUBLIC
INFORMATION" <public.info@consilium.eu.int>

[[3]] http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0507/

[[4]] See Kauppi comment at:
http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0507/, and Tauss on the Danish
Parliament's level of participation at:
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/tauss040602/

[[5]] See for this the Council Political Agreement Reversal HowTo:
http://www.vrijschrift.nl/Members/awessels/vrijschrift.nl_change-the-vote-howto.pdf

@@ Line 109: / Line 109: @@
 the very moment of the vote, putting those Ministers, including a substitute
 Danish Minister, in a difficult position. The Directive should not be handled
-by non-involved ministers <ref>See for this the Council Political Agreement Reversal HowTo:
+by non-involved ministers <ref name="cpar">See for this the Council Political Agreement Reversal HowTo:
 http://www.vrijschrift.nl/Members/awessels/vrijschrift.nl_change-the-vote-howto.pdf</ref>.
@@ Line 115: / Line 115: @@
 on Computer-Implemented Inventions, and to render their opinions. Any Council
 member may unilaterally act to transfer an A-item decision indicating a mere
-formality to the list of B-item agenda points [[5]]. Every member of the
+formality to the list of B-item agenda points <ref name="cpar"/>. Every member of the
 Council has the right to change their present vote <ref name="voting"/>. Any Council member
 may unilaterally block any proposed shortening of the six weeks review

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:09, 28 November 2007
Line 146:		Line 146:
	cc: Voorzitter vaste kamercommissie Europese Samenwerkingsorganisaties		cc: Voorzitter vaste kamercommissie Europese Samenwerkingsorganisaties
	ANP		ANP
		+
		+	<references/>

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 political agreement a "common position," thereby presenting the non-binding
 agreement as a binding one. Furthermore, a Brussels Permanent Representative
-said the vote cannot be changed <ref>Detailed analysis (Dutch): Octrooien op software werpen hun schaduw vooruit http //www.vrijschrift.nl/Members/awessels/vrijschrift.nl_misleiding-kamer.pdf</ref> . In these actions, the Dutch government has spread critical incorrect information about European Union democratic procedures three times <ref>Lopez report
+said the vote cannot be changed <ref>Detailed analysis (Dutch): Octrooien op software werpen hun schaduw vooruit http //www.vrijschrift.nl/Members/awessels/vrijschrift.nl_misleiding-kamer.pdf</ref> . In these actions, the Dutch government has spread critical incorrect information about European Union democratic procedures three times <ref name="voting">Lopez report
 http://fajardolopez.com/informes/Fajardolopez.com_18th-May-EU-Council-voting.pdf. This opinion was confirmed by the Council itself: "PUBLIC
 INFORMATION" <public.info@consilium.eu.int></ref>.
@@ Line 116: / Line 116: @@
 member may unilaterally act to transfer an A-item decision indicating a mere
 formality to the list of B-item agenda points [[5]]. Every member of the
-Council has the right to change their present vote [[2]]. Any Council member
+Council has the right to change their present vote <ref name="voting"/>. Any Council member
 may unilaterally block any proposed shortening of the six weeks review
 period. All of the national members of the European Union have the freedom

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Back : [[Epatent]]
-Lettre pour la chambre des députés, sur le modèle de la lettre COSAC des hollandais. Pour le moment, je commence par une copie et traduction au fil de l'eau.
+Lettre pour la chambre des députés,  sur le modèle de la lettre COSAC des hollandais. Pour le moment, je commence par une copie et traduction au fil de l'eau.
 Au fur et à mesure, on changera les paragraphes...
@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 political agreement a "common position," thereby presenting the non-binding
 agreement as a binding one. Furthermore, a Brussels Permanent Representative
-said the vote cannot be changed [[1]]. In these actions, the Dutch
+said the vote cannot be changed <ref>Detailed analysis (Dutch): Octrooien op software werpen hun schaduw vooruit http //www.vrijschrift.nl/Members/awessels/vrijschrift.nl_misleiding-kamer.pdf</ref> . In these actions, the Dutch government has spread critical incorrect information about European Union democratic procedures three times <ref>Lopez report
-government has spread critical incorrect information about European Union
+http://fajardolopez.com/informes/Fajardolopez.com_18th-May-EU-Council-voting.pdf. This opinion was confirmed by the Council itself: "PUBLIC
-democratic procedures three times [[2]].
+INFORMATION" <public.info@consilium.eu.int></ref>.
 The Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union assures
@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 contribution to that. Critical amendments contributed by the European
 Parliament, including a key definition clarifying the term 'technical,' were
-discarded by the Council for the dissembling language that they favor [[3]].
+discarded by the Council for the dissembling language that they favor <ref>http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0507/</ref>.
 The Council worked entirely on the basis of text developed in the JURI
-committee [[4]]. They simply discarded clear language such as 'programs are not
+committee <ref>See Kauppi comment at:
 inventions' of the European Patent Convention and clarifications like 'data
 processing is not a field of technology' and 'publication and distribution of
@@ Line 106: / Line 109: @@
 the very moment of the vote, putting those Ministers, including a substitute
 Danish Minister, in a difficult position. The Directive should not be handled
-by non-involved ministers [[5]].
+by non-involved ministers <ref>See for this the Council Political Agreement Reversal HowTo:
 Every Parliament in the European Union has the right to debate the Directive
@@ Line 142: / Line 146: @@
 cc: Voorzitter vaste kamercommissie Europese Samenwerkingsorganisaties
 ANP