Protagonists of the Council's and the Parliament's version will debate.
As we did not provide enough time on April 14, such a debate has not really happened yet.
Much of today's hardware is really a kind of write-only software, similar to architecture, where the material medium is completely modelled and a construction plan can be safely expected to work. Where the forces of nature are not yet reduced to reliable computational models, experiments are often carried out in batches of thousands per day, potentially leading to dozens of patents in one day, most of which are not practised but only stockpiled.
Under such conditions, a system of hardcoded broad claims (patents) is likely to perform less well than a system of narrow and informally accruing claims.
This panel will examine our hypothesis that the duality of patents vs copyright law is a thing of the past and future lies in an integrated system based on copyright-like principles, possibly combined with some sui-generis system for special niches.
While comedies such as "Yes Minister" poke fun at the circumvention of democracy by civil servants at the national level, the EU seems to have added an extra layer of circumvention. A lare series of legislative proposals that promote the interests of ministerial bureaucracies at the expense of citizens and SMEs have been laundered through the EU's legislative processes. Checks and balances have been largely put out of function at this level, and political newspeak known from dictatorial states has become entrenched and is regularly used to evade whatever informed discussion may still be taking place. The European Parliament's strong stance on the Software Patent directive is seen by many as an exceptional phenomenon, and has made some conflicts highly visible that otherwise are difficult to study. As symbolised in the celebration of September 24th as "EU Democracy Day", it may be even be interpreted as a possibly important fork in the path of the EU toward the development of sane legislative processes.