<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.13" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>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 <FONT color=#ff0000>software patentability</FONT>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>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).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>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 <EM>political</EM> 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!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>I think it is a wonderful
argument for PP as a poliotical organisation striving for EP
membership:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>"Is this something a court
can decide, or is legislator involvement required?" That question has already
been answered by the European Commission!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>(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).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>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!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>reinier</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>