[pp.int.general] PP "amicus curiae brief" about sofwtare patents to EPO

[Glenn Kerbein]

I'm gonna make this short and sweet:
http://stopsoftwarepatents.eu/
You can thank the FSF.

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> I heard that some of you are aware that there is (until 30/4!) an
> opportunity to file "third party statements" to the Enlarged Board of
> Appeal of the European Patent Organisation in the context of a
> "referral" by the EPO president of a number of questions on the limits
> of software patentability.
>  
> I am aware of several people working on such a "third party statements",
> aka under the (American) designation "Amicus Curiae Brief" (literally:
> friend of the court).
>  
> Afaik, most people concentrate on the legal and/or economic (business)
> aspects of software patents. Wouldn't it be appropriate of the PP
> addresses the /political/ aspect - which is imho that the European
> Parliament in 2005 rejected a proposal for a software patents directive.
> While - strictly speaking - the rejection itself could only be construed
> in the sense that the particular proposed regulation was not approved,
> there is no doubt that in 2002 a decision has been made by the European
> Commission and the European Council that the *legislator* should decide
> on software patentability limits!
>  
> It is like an escalation. If you (formally) escalate a decision in an
> organisation, there is no way back: if e.g. the decision is made that
> one is not satisfied with a decision of a manager, and a manager higher
> in the organisational hierarchy is invoked, there is no way to return to
> the manager that made the decision in the first place. A basic rule of
> organisational hygiene.
>  
> I think it is a wonderful argument for PP as a poliotical organisation
> striving for EP membership:
>  
> "Is this something a court can decide, or is legislator involvement
> required?" That question has already been answered by the European
> Commission!
>   
> (Insiders will explain that a purpose of the directive was (also) to
> create jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, effectively
> enabling harmonisation enforcement - but such a detail is irrelevant for
> political purposes).
>  
> Note that the EPO accepts submissions in all three official EPO
> languages, so if you are better in German or French, go ahead! I gather
> that several PP supporters (at least in Sweden among the Ung Pirat) are
> political scientists (unlike myself), so you may have even better
> arguments why courts can not obviate political decison making!
>  
> reinier
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

-- 
Glenn "Channel6" Kerbein
Pirate Party of the United States
"Burn, Hollywood, Burn"