FISH AND MICROCHIPS


The Register reports that the EU is due to give its final approval to the Software Patent Directive tomorrow (Tuesday). Bizarrely though, it will be the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee that will take the decision. The reason for this is that the Competition Commission, which would ordinarily be responsible for the Directive, does not meet again during 2004 and the Dutch are keen to have this Directive down on their tally before they relinquish the Presidency of the EU.

A fish comments: "... but will the Competition Commission be setting EU fishing quotas?"

The IPKat says that this all sounds a bit fishy (yum). What’s the point of having a scrutiny process if, when the specialists can’t make it, ministers with entirely unrelated portfolios can do the job instead.

More evidence of the fish/computer nexis here, here and here
FISH AND MICROCHIPS FISH AND MICROCHIPS Reviewed by Anonymous on Monday, December 20, 2004 Rating: 5

2 comments:

  1. The whole legal process of acceptance (writing the text, voting in the Council etc.) for this Directive project is fishy.
    It only shows how easy you can lobby for suitable legal rules in EU if you are a big company or a bunch of big fishes.
    will see
    Have a nice day
    Tomasz

    ReplyDelete
  2. Comment update:
    Check this out:
    http://kwiki.ffii.org/Cons041221En

    "Today Poland saved European democracy"

    I`d like to say I`m not against patent law at all. I am against so called "disproportionate law". Such law is present Directive' COM 2002/0047 (COD) "On the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions" (Software Patent Directive).

    Have a nice day
    Tomasz

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.