[pp.int.general] stop about the EU Constitution!

[David Golden]

Carlos Ayala wrote:

> We should carefully read Lisboa Treaty

[it is truly mind-numbing, I for one have little desire to read it from
cover to cover, fortunately the issue I mentioned occurs in the first
few pages :-) ]

BTW, a "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Feedoms", sometimes called the "European Convention on Human
Rights" [ECHR] also exists [1].   It's also different to the EUCFR and
UDHR:  http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
(The lisbon treaty involves both the ECHR and the EUCFR, why I mention it)

> beginning with the "intellectual property" endorsement,

*** Anyway, further reference for that:

The Lisbon treaty definitely recognises the EUCFR (the document that
says "Intellectual property shall be protected."):

See either
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.asp?lang=en&id=1296&mode=g&name=
("consolidated version" - the Lisbon treaty is a series of amendments
to earlier treaties, the "consolidated version" merges the changes and
renders it somewhat easier to follow, and hey, it's "only" 479 pages or so!)

or, the raw deal:
http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:FXAC07306:EN:HTML
- get the PDF, then, early on, page 13 or so, see:

"""
AMENDMENTS TO THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND TO THE TREATY
ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
...
GENERAL PROVISIONS
...
8) Article 6 shall be replaced by the following:

Article 6

The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles
set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union of 7 December 2000, as adapated at Strasbourg, on 12 December
2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties".

"""


So as I see it, the american constitution says the american government
*may* grant monopolies to "promote the progress of science and useful
arts", the  Lisbon Treaty would (circuitously) amount to saying the EU
(perhaps with the exception of the UK and Poland given "Protocol No 30 -
on the application of the charter of fundamental rights of the european
union to poland and to the united kingdom") *must* "protect intellectual
property", whatever that's supposed to mean given the vagueness of the
idiotic term "intellectual property" (and what it means to "protect" "it").

In the USA one could argue that if copyright or patent are shown to not
actually promote the progress of some "science or useful art", that's
sufficient grounds for the government not to grant them in that field.
However, with the Lisbon Treaty, "intellectual property" is just to be
taken as axiomatic?