Hearing on future EU patent policy The European Commission will hold a public hearing on future EU patent policy on 12 July 2006. This is the second step of the public consultation launched in January 2006 with the aim of collecting stakeholders' views on the patent system in Europe and seeking views on what measures could be taken in the near future to improve this system.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/796&...

Commission consultation on copyright levies The questionnaire on "Copyright levies in a converging world" is submitted for public consultation to ensure that later Commission proposals are technically viable, practically workable and based on a bottom-up approach. Stakeholders and Member States already provided valuable input in the

Civil society groups from around the world met in Brussels 20/21 March to discuss the politics and ideology of intellectual property. Speakers included representatives from WIPO and the EU, former US Patent Commissioner Bruce Lehman, consumer and development campaigners and noted IP academics Peter Drahos and Susan Sell.

The conference tried to step back from immediate IP controversies and take a look at the rhetoric and politicking behind the framing of IP debates and legislation. Jamie Love set the tone for the meeting by looking at the loaded terms used by proponents and critics of stronger IP rights, contrasting positive language such as "innovation", "value" and "wealth creation" with negative descriptions such as "monopoly", "privilege" and "exploitation".

The practical politics of the recent software patent debate were laid

EDRI-member FIPR (the Foundation for Information Policy Research) has published a strong analysis of the proposed new EU intellectual property enforcement directive. According to FIPR, the proposed new directive is pushed by the UK Presidency, but will undermine basic freedoms. It will force all EU member states to criminalise incitement to infringe patents or copyrights. The directive is promoted by big drug companies and the music industry.

FIPR writes: "If passed, the police will have more powers against copyright infringers than they have against terrorists. At present, the EU cannot freeze assets if a suspected terrorist financier is a European citizen. Yet the Government wants to empower IP lawyers to seize the assets of EU citizens accused of aiding and abetting infringement -- such as the parents of children who might have downloaded music files."

Microsoft has launched a second appeal case against the anti-trust decision by the European Commission in March 2004. On 10 August 2005 Microsoft filed a new complaint at the European Court of Justice (First Instance) in Luxembourg, asking for annulment of the decision to open up the Windows source code enough to create interoperability and allow open source vendors to distribute Windows source code.

"We are taking this step so the court can begin its review now of this issue, given its far-reaching implications for the protection of our intellectual property rights around the world," said Microsoft spokesman Tom Brookes. The hearing won't begin until 2006.

In December 2004, the Court of First Instance entirely dismissed Microsoft's first legal objections to the sanctions and ruled that the Commission's decision does not "cause serious and irreparable damage" to Microsoft. In March and again in June 2005, the Commission rejected a proposed license scheme because Microsoft did not agree to license the protocols for use in open-source products.

The long running legal fight between the German software company Nutzwerk (Leipzig) and the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII, best known for its extensive lobby against software patents) has culminated in the takedown of the FFII.org website on 1 August 2005. Technically, the website itself wasn't removed, but in a far more radical move, the German company Teamware removed the DNS-registration of the website, making it invisible to the rest of the world. Nutzwerk justified the takedown claim to Teamware by referring to an intermediate Hamburg court injunction that ordered FFII to remove some specific phrases and an insultory headline about Nutzwerk. The line was: 'Nutzwerk: Zuck und Nepp mit Softwarepatenten' (which roughly translates as 'gamble and fake with software patents').

On 19 July 2005 a group of Italian small and medium sized businesses (SMEs) and business associations sent an open letter to the Minister of Innovation and Technologies, Mr. Lucio Stanca. In the letter, the businesses call for a thorough reform of the European Patent Office. The letter was sent after the European Parliament rejected with a striking majority the proposed directive on the patentability of computer implemented inventions, better known as the software patent directive. Signers include Assoprovider, Assosoftware, CIRS, Registro Informatici, Zucchetti and others.

The letter welcomes the rejection of the Directive and, in what can probably be interpreted as a touch of irony, agrees with the official press release of the Ministry, which expressed 'regret' for the rejection, since "Europe needs a clear legal framework on this issue". At the same time, the Ministry agreed that "no directive is better than a bad directive". The Ministerial press release closed with the hope that the 'ideological positions' that had emerged in the past could be put aside in order to reach a general consensus across Europe on this sensitive topic.

Behind closed doors most EU member states have already rejected almost all the amendments on the software patent directive put forward by the European Parliament. On 20/21 June the EP commission on legal affairs (JURI) will vote on the 256 proposed amendments and on 6 July the EP will vote in plenary. In order to immediately proceed with the directive after the plenary vote, the member states are already deciding their joint position.

The Foundation for a free information infrastructure has obtained the minutes from a secret meeting on 27 May 2005 from the representatives of the member states. The Luxemburg presidency explained the nature of the meeting: to find out "which amendments a member state can not accept and which amendments could be acceptable as a compromise."

FFII reports: "Some delegations even mention the potential use of meaningless or even confusing (but non-limiting) amendments for 'negotiation situations' with the EP. The European Parliament has only two choices if it wants to have some say in the rest of the process. The first possibility is approval of all key amendments which limit the scope of the directive. Just one of those may be enough to reach Conciliation (the official discussion between the EP, Council and Commission after the Council's second reading), but is insufficient for a strong negotiation position. If Parliament wants to continue the procedure, without such a steadfast position it could just as well save time by simply approving the current Council text. The second possibility is outright rejection."

The not for profit association FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) is assembling all forces for a climax in the battle against the patentability of software programs. On 6 July 2005 the European Parliament will vote in plenary on the proposed directive on computer-implemented inventions. It is the second reading. In the first reading Parliament rejected the Commission proposal with a large majority, but that protest was largely ignored by the ministers of competitiveness from the member states. In the second reading an absolute majority of all MEPs is required to reject or amend the proposal, i.e. 367 votes, irrespective of absences or abstentions. In order to make sure enough MEPs are present, FFII is calling on all supporters to contact their national Europarl representatives.