|
Dear EU Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries,
At the Agricultural Council's meeting next Monday, the Directive' COM 2002/0047 (COD) "On the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions" (Software Patent Directive) is likely to be inserted into the list of A-items in the last minute.
This list should not be accepted.
Please object when the Council President asks for confirmation of the agenda (at the beginning), and demand the removal of the software patent directive from the list of A items.
The Council's rules of procedure demand that the provisional agenda be sent 14 days in advance. In this case, the software patent directive was set on the agenda less than one day before the session.
According to Article 3 Items 7-8 of the Council's Rules of Procedure, it is enough if one country objects to this late tabling, but support for removal may be expected from several countries.
The proposed text does not enjoy a qualified majority. It has been inserted into the agenda on the basis of deceptive tactics by the European Commission and questionable interpretations of the Council's Rules of Procedure.
- Commissioner McCreevy has asked the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee to postpone its discussions about return to a First Reading until after February 2nd, when he intends to come for talks to the European Parliament. At the same time, Mr. McCreevy's Directorate for the Internal Market is pressing for rapid creation of facts in the Council, so that by the time of the meeting the European Parliament will already have lost its opportunity for return to 1st reading under Rule 55.
- The Dutch government has been obliged by its parliament to withdraw support. A proposal can not be adopted without a vote, and if it is voted, the Dutch representative must abstain. If the Dutch representative does not abstain, minister Brinkhorst may face a motion of distrust and be dismissed. This means that, given the continued opposition from Spain, Italy, Belgium and Austria, even without Poland's abstention, the current Council Proposal no longer enjoys a qualified majority.
- On 19th of May and on 16th of November the Polish government has stated that it can not support the Council proposal. However the Polish EU minister, who is not in charge of the dossier, has so far, under pressure from the Council presidency, been reluctant to execute the decisions of the Polish government.
- The Council proposal has been criticized by all groups of the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag) as being deficient. As the inter-group resolution of the 30th of November 2004 points out, it does not satisfy the demands for clarity and balance that a proposal with such significance must fulfill.
- The Latvian Government has raised concerns in a unilateral statement about the proposed text. The French and Hungarian governments have also expressed reservations. In Slovenia, Slovakia, Portugal and Hungary the position industry and government takes in public is also not in line with their votes in council.
- The new vote is needed because the Rules of Procedure of the Council demand a qualified majority at the time of the formal adoption of a Common Position. A political agreement can only be adopted, if it is supported by a qualified majority of governments at the time of the vote. "Adoption as an A-item" means "adoption without discussion", not "without vote". There can be no adoption without vote.
- The change in voting weights on 1 November means that the Council proposal now lacks a qualified majority if either the Netherlands or Poland abstain.
- The explanatory documents for the Council draft were made available only in early December. This text rejects essential amendments by the European Parliament, arguing that they are "incompatible with the TRIPs treaty" or that they would not reflect "established practice". These arguments are new, not covered by any "political agreement" and in clear contradiction to the resolution of the German Parliament and can not be adopted without a vote.
- The Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the Treaty of Amsterdam explicitly encourages participation by national parliaments in the EU legislative process. It does not exempt the Council of Ministers. Accordingly, attempts to thwart the integration of the positions of several national parliaments (NL and DE) at this stage would be illegitimate.
- The fact that just the delay provided by the Polish official in charge has resulted in over 25000 thanking signatures shows that the decision is not only procedurally illegitimate but also unpopular, and does not help the credibility of EU insitutions.
The software patent directive is creating great difficulties for the
Council because the Council has been nominating the goats to be the gardeners. The "Intellectual Property (Patent) Working Party" consists of the very national patent administrators who in personal union also run the European Patent Office. They have been unwilling to deal constructively with the questions at hand. They have ignored the substantial amendments of the European Parliament without justification and without addressing the problems of economic policy which the Parliament tried to address. They have in fact merely restated their previous agreement of November 2002, in which they had recited recent doctrines of the European Patent Office.
These doctrines, in effect,
authorise the monopolisation of business methods, algorithms, data
structures and process descriptions in the same way as in the USA, without
any effective limitation.
The gap between these doctrines and the Parliament's proposal is so wide that it will be impossible to overcome it within the procedure of a second reading. The Council has yet to begin a real first reading and to deliver a text which at least shows some willingness to face the issues. Now is the opportunity to take this first step. If it it is not taken in the Council's first reading, then the directive is unlikely to get anywhere in the next steps of the co-decision procedure.
In Summary:
The Council is interpreting its rules in an anti-democratic spirit, and, in
doing so, creating new harmful precedents for the EU.
It is inappropriate for the current Council Proposal to be passed as an A-item,
and there is no need for you as a minister of agriculture or fishery to stand for
this with your name. Please ask the concerned minister to take the full
responsibility into his hand and to credibly address the issues.
Yours sincerely,
(signed by 5154
FFII supporters through a web form, including publicly visible signatories and signators on an additional web form)
Please find further information at
If you are not a minister of Agriculture of Fishery, you might want to
|
