<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.10.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Fatti, non pippette!
<BR>
<BR>
<B>European patent controversy heating up again</B><BR>
<BR>
<I>PES, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups in European Parliament file <A HREF="http://www.socialistgroup.org/gpes/media/documents/25004_25004_MOTION_EUROPEAN_PATENT_FUTURE_060920.pdf">motion for resolution</A> — Proposal calls for “balance between the interests of patent holders and the broader public interest in innovation and competitive markets” — Commissioner <A HREF="http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/florian-mueller-blog/mccreevy-helsinki/">McCreevy’s preference</A>, the EPLA, is seen as weakening EU democracy, increasing litigation costs and “exposing SMEs to greater risks” – McCreevy to speak in parliament next week, vote to take place in mid-October</I><BR>
<BR>
Brussels (21 September 2006) — More than a year has passed since the European Parliament’s historic rejection of the Commission’s and Council’s software patent bill. Now the hot potato is back in the parliament’s oven: on October 11 or 12, the EP is set to vote in Brussels on two competing motions for a resolution on future European patent policy. Next week, internal market commissioner McCreevy will speak in the EP in Strasbourg and outline his patent policy plans, which have already come under fire.<BR>
<BR>
A <A HREF="http://www.socialistgroup.org/gpes/media/documents/25004_25004_MOTION_EUROPEAN_PATENT_FUTURE_060920.pdf">joint proposal of three groups</A> — PES, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL — calls for “balance between the interests of patent holders and the broader public interest in innovation and competitive markets”. The motion criticizes McCreevy’s preferred measure, the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA), as weakening EU democracy, compromising judicial independence, increasing litigation costs and “exposing SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises] to greater risks”. The proposal also warns against the effect the EPLA would have on the scope of patentable subject-matter, and a decision of the European Patent Office (EPO) to uphold a Microsoft software patent (on clipboard data formats) is mentioned as an example.<BR>
<BR>
Conversely, the chief negotiators of the EPP-ED and ALDE groups want the chamber to support McCreevy’s push for the EPLA.<BR>
<BR>
The spokeswoman of the <A HREF="http://www.socialistgroup.org/gpes/index.do?lg=en">PES</A> on legal affairs, <A HREF="http://www.spe.at/berger/">Maria Berger</A>, and former French prime minister <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Rocard">Michel Rocard</A> explained: “We are all for improvements to the European patent system, but we must continue the search for solutions within the framework of the EU. That includes the need for democratic control and truly independent courts.” The two socialist MEPs insisted that “there has to be a comprehensive strategy for lower costs and higher quality if patent policy is supposed to foster Europe’s economy in general and SMEs in particular. Merely expanding the system itself, which is the spirit of the proposed EPLA, gets us nowhere.”<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.gruene.at/personen/eva_lichtenberger/">Eva Lichtenberger</A>, Austrian <A HREF="http://www.greens-efa.org/index.htm">Green</A> MEP and member of the Legal Affairs Committee, said: “If McCreevy were to succeed with his plans for the EPLA, he would hurt the EU institutions and Europe’s SMEs at the same time. Even some large players such as Nokia and GlaxoSmithKline don’t seem to consider the EPLA to be a good idea. It’s high time for the Commission and for certain conservatives to stop this constant, anachronistic push for ever more patents.”<BR>
<BR>
For the <A HREF="http://www.guengl.org/showPage.jsp">GUE/NGL</A> group, Italian MEP and former Space Shuttle astronaut <A HREF="http://www.umbertoguidoni.it/index.asp">Umberto Guidoni</A> issued a warning: “After the failure of the software patent directive, the EPO has come up with another proposal backed by McCreevy, and it’s even more undemocratic and dangerous than the previous one. EPLA is about much more than software patents. Still, software patents are one of the key motivations behind it. The Parliament made it very clear last year that we largely disagree with the EPO’s granting practice in certain areas. That’s why we don’t want a new court that would be <A HREF="http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/The%20EPLA%20Road%20to%20SwPats%20v1.3.pdf">controlled by basically the same people as the EPO</A>.”<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>