[Upd-discuss] Did You Say "Intellectual Property"?It's,aSeductiveMirage by Richard M. Stallman

[Seth Johnson]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
>       :-)  Now look at the
>     developments on the EU SW Patent front!
> 
> The main development is that the European Council cheated so as to
> reject the parliament's amendments, and now we have to convince over
> half the members of parliament to show up and vote no in the month of
> July.  The deck is stacked against us.


Yes, but our efforts have exposed their duplicity and cheating. 
One reasonably definitive outcome is that the issue was addressed
much more forthrightly in India.  No, of course victory is not
assured in the EP.

The main problem with the EU SW patent fight was simply that when
the Council finally acted, our side did not lay claim to the
punchline of the confrontation, namely that the EPO's caselaw is
the problem.  When the Council passed their draft, attention was
on us, and we needed to make clear at that moment and not later
that that was the reason for the opposition to the CII Directive
as it stands.  Not doing that, means the same divisive
indirection and duplicity games will be played against us again,
in as you say, a much more difficult scenario in terms of votes.

I still think it's possible to succeed.  Rocard is pretty solid,
and I get the impression that the "technical effect" concept's
fallacy is becoming more understood.  Plus, there's India's not
acting on making their patent law accommodate the pro-sw-patent
practice.  Plus we'll continue working on getting US voices on
board with a solid position.  I think a good message from the US
contingent to EU officialdom can steer things pretty well.


Seth


-- 

RIAA is the RISK!  Our NET is P2P!
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.