|Rat 04/12/15||Rat 04/12/13||cons1203||2004-11-30 DE Bundestag Unanimously Criticises Council Software Patent Agreement, Calls for Effective Limitation of Patentability|
The Dutch Presidency has been using diplomatic pressure to bully Poland. Although everyone knows that neither the Polish government nor the Polish industry supports the directive text, the Dutch Presidency insists that, due to some formal reasons, Poland must vote "Yes" or agree to a formal adoption without a vote. However, as has been pointed out before and as verified with the Council's own public information service, any country has the right to demand that the directive text should be treated again as a B item (i.e. as a discussion point).
Laura Creighton, software entrepreneur, venture capitalist and vice-president of FFII, comments:
Othmar Karas, MEP of the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP) and Vice President of the European People's Party (EPP) in the European Parliament, recently lambasted the Council's behaviour as well in a recent press release:
A draft statement of reasons proposed by the Dutch Presidency has to justify this defiance of democratic decision making. It claims that a large number of the European Parliament's amendments "did not reflect established practice" or "would be contrary to the international obligations under the TRIPs agreement".
Hartmut Pilch, president of the FFII, notes:
Jonas Maebe of FFII Belgium adds:
It is not yet known whether Poland will bow to the pressure. Poland's diplomats at the Council have, ever since May 2004, contradicted their government's repeated statements of opposition to the directive draft. They have always insisted on unwritten rules of diplomacy whose violation, they fear, would be disadvantageous to Poland.
Our scenario is similar. We have won in the European Parliament. We are now denied victory by manipulation and irregularities in the Council. The Kuchmas of the EU don't like consultation with national parliaments, recounting in the Council or restarting in the EP, nor any other open approach to problems. The main difference is that they --- hopefully --- aren't considering deployment of troops and use of force.