 |
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION 
|
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION
|
|
BLOGROLL OPML:
|
|
|
|
Search in IPJUR.COM
|
BLOG@IP::JURPatent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.
Thursday, February 03, 2005JURI voted on Procedures to deal with Draft Directive on CII.The Legal Auffairs Committee ("JURI") has voted on the proceedings how to further deal with the Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Groklaw writes:"[...]It's true. JURI has voted to restart the procedure regarding software patents. From scratch. I heard it first from an email, and now Heise has it up online. Here is the FFII press release. Jan Wildeboer tells me that by invoking Rule 55 of the Rules of Parliament, JURI is now asking for a completely new directive. He says the proposed directive on so-called "computer-implemented inventions" was under heavy fire from the beginning of the intense meeting. By throwing away almost all amendments of the Parliament, the Council tried to push through a "compromise" that was not ultimately accepted, making a restart the only viable way left. So, says Jan, the proposed directive is /dev/null. [...]"I think the best thing would be if the EU Commission simply cancels the Draft Directive (they have the power to do so). Any anti-patent Directive would be worse than no Directive at all. [UPDATE_0] 2005-03-03 18:30 From EUROPARL News Report:"[...] Although a large majority of the committee called for a fresh proposal under Rule 55, some MEPs, notably Klaus-Heiner LEHNE (EPP-ED, DE), stressed that the Commission is still at liberty to decide what to do. That observation was made in reply to Mr Rocard's impassioned plea against a new referral, which he feared would result in a long delay in the adoption of legislation which is necessary - even if unacceptable in its current form. While some Members clearly thought that the proposal has no future, others argued that a compromise solution can be found, as long as the Council and Commission are willing to work on a fresh draft, incorporating the Parliament's first-reading amendments. [...]"
|
