[Fsfe-ie] McCreevy: Commission will take "utmost account" of Parliament amendments

[Fergal Daly]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:09:48PM +0000, Adam Moran wrote:
> if the Parliament decides to reject the common position, the Commission 
> will respect your wishes.

This is bull, if they reject it he has no choice Unless he's saying here
that he will abandon the current text even if the EP don't get an absolute
majority but that seems rather unlikely.

He intends to "respect" their wishes just like an evil genie...

> I will not propose to the Commission to submit a new directive.

... "you rejected that patent directive - you mustn't want _any_ patent
directive."

Basically, the patent system needs reform, there's only 1 type of reform on
offer, if you reject it you're stuck with the old system and we can say it's
your fault.

> Should you decide to propose commitments under the framework agreement.

This is not a sentence. If you replace the . with , and read commitments as
amendments (maybe they're the same thing in legal speak) then it makes some
sense...

> Any modifications will need to be careful evaluated given the complexity
> of the subject matter.

So he could be saying here that you're not going to get any anti-swpat
ammendments through either.

So again, basically it's pass this version or nothing at all.

If it's not passed then software can continue to be patented on a country by
country basis and with no threat of a clarifying directive undoing that,
it's almost as good for big businesses. They just have the minor
inconvenience of filing the same patent multiple times - no problem for the
big patent machines and a huge problem for small companies. Plus McCreevy
gets to blame the EP for the lack of a uniform patent system in Europe.

Could the EP introduce their own directive? Is that allowed or does
everything have to start from the commission?

F