[ANSOL-geral]Carta enviada aos Parlamentares Europeus membros do JURI

Rui Miguel Seabra rms arroba ansol.org
Mon Jun 2 17:45:01 2003

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

-----Forwarded Message-----

From: PILCH Hartmut <phm arroba a2e.de>
To: news arroba ffii.org
Cc: patents arroba aful.org
Subject: [ffii] letter to JURI MEPs
Date: 02 Jun 2003 17:31:47 +0200

FFII News -- For Immediate Release -- Please Redistribute
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
I just sent the following to JURI members.=20

Dear Members of the JURI Committee, dear Chairman, dear Rapporteurs,

Contrary to their claimed intentions, some JURI rapporteurs are
championing the cause of US-style unlimited patentability in Europe.
The decision which you are preparing to take is not what it seems.

Last thursday night Erik Josefsson from SSLUG, Sweden, sent you a link
to our analysis of the JURI amendment proposals at JURI

        JURI Amendments: Real vs Fake Limits on Patentability

You may be aware of the current agony caused by the gene patent
directive which the EP ratified in 1998.  MEP consciences were swayed
by fake limitations (such as "replicability outside the human body")
at that time.

Whether this time's proposed limits are real or fake is best assessed
using our

        Patentability Legislation Benchmarking Testsuite

It would be great if the protagonists of the proposed software
patentability directive could give clear explanations, preferably in
writing, as to whether the sample claims on this page refer to
patentable subject matter according to their proposed "clarification"
or not.

If not, they aren't really to blame.  The study report from Amsterdam
University (Bakels & Hugenholtz) tells you why the present directive
proposal fails to clarify anything.  But some of your rapporteurs seem
to be confident that they understand the directive proposal better
than Bakels and Hugenholtz.  Don't you think these rapporteurs owe us
an explanation, in terms of example claims, as to what is to be
patentable and what not?

We'd be very happy to talk to you more about this, both at the=20

        public meeting tomorrow at 14-16.00 in LoW N 4.3

where, among others, Mr. Bakels will explain his view.  There will be
one public meeting every tuesday during the upcoming weeks.  Many of
the meeting participants would also be happy to be able to meet you in
private on tuesdays and wednesdays.  Moreover Erik will be available
for private discussions in the Parliament any time this month and can
be reached by phone at +46707696567.

We invite you to not only attend our meetings but to bring speakers of
your choice to these meetings, so as to make sure they are truly
informative and not one-sided.  In view of imminent loss of our
freedom and property through your legislation, we are desperately
trying to bring about a bit of the open and informed discussion, which
your rapporteur has recently been calling for, see


We hope that her call will be followed.  It is never too late.

Yours sincerely

Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation	     http://swpat.ffii.org/
145,000 votes 400 firms against software patents     http://noepatents.org/


News mailing list
(un)subscribe via http://petition.ffii.org/
News arroba ffii.org
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)