[pp.int.general] Bullshit EU consultation

[Amelia Andersdotter]

Dear Richard,

These questions are not about the nature or scope of patents, 
copyrights, trademarks, design rights, plant variety rights, etc... They 
are about means of enforcement, primarily.

We have mapped the different alternatives for answerings and made 
suggestions to citizens on feedback they can provide here:

http://ameliaandersdotter.eu/ipred-konsultation/

They exist in 4 different languages, two of which you speak. In the explanatory texts it is listed which alternatives you will get depending on what capacity you choose to reply in.

I would for instance recommend you to answer as an "organisation" or as "other" if you wish to present complaints about the patent system specifically (for there is a question on whether or not patents are sometimes used anticompetitively, for which you will get 1000 characters to exemplify or clarify how you find this)

We have recommended citizens to reply as "citizens with copyrights" since it is virtually impossible not to be a citizen with copyright (it is explained in the explanatory text why this is so). However, since you are not an EU citizen it would be inappropriate for you to answer as a citizen with copyrights and you should instead follow one of the options above. However, we have not made specific answering guides for either of those categories, and you may have to extrapolate from our answering guides as appropriate.

best regards,

Amelia


On 2013-01-03 21:56, Richard Stallman wrote:
>      As Amelia (rightly, to my mind) pointed out, while we can agree that the
>      questionnaire is biased, there is no point in ignoring it, since doing so
>      just contributes to make our point ignored.
>
> That makes sense, tactically -- if it is useful to answer the
> questions.  I read through them quickly, and most seemed to be aimed
> at rightsholders, which means that most of us would have nothing to
> say.  Have you found questions on which we would have an answer to
> give?
>
> In any case, it is not straightforward to answer without endorsing the
> toxic assumption in the questions.  I offer two suggestions, but I
> don't know if either of them is actually possible, given the details.
>
> Is there room, in the answers, for a statement like this?
>
>    I object to the bias imposed by covering copyright law
>    and patent law in a single survey under a single name
>    which pretends to cover the two.  Although I have squeezed
>    answers into that misguided framework, that does not signify
>    acceptance of it.
>
> Is it possible for one respondent to submit one answer about copyright
> and one about patents, as a way of insisting that they should not be
> lumped together?
>