Re: [Int-koordination] [PP-EU.programme] CEEP - Patents - partial veto

[Martina Pöser <martina.poeser AT bremen.piratenpartei.de>]

Title: AW: [PP-EU.programme] CEEP - Patents - partial veto

Dear Mia, dear everyone,

 

I also understood it like that:

 

For the first veto, we only strike out the sentence at the start and the word "now" later on.

 

For the second veto, we could do it in one of two ways:

 

1. Strike out the whole text under the subheading of "Rebalancing Patents with the Common Good".

 

or 2. Strike out " to reward the inventors of truly outstanding ideas" and remodel the sentence in the following way: "PIRATES believe that patents do not exist to reward the inventors of truly outstanding ideas, not to allow big businesses to stifle competition with an ever-growing tide of trivial and overreaching patents." And leave the rest.

 

A reason to strike everything out may be that it is redundant because it is already said like this in other paragraphs. (says PP-IT) I think there is some redundancy, but it also shows some new aspects with pointing to competition issues and overreaching patents. Therefore I'd argue to go with the second version which leaves as much as possible of the original text intact despite of the veto.

 

Now you can state your opinions! ;-)

 

Best regards,

 

Martina

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: utz55 AT web.de
Gesendet: Fr 29.11.2013 14:44
Betreff: Re: [PP-EU.programme] CEEP - Patents - partial veto
Anlage: inline.txt
An: PP-EU Programme development <pp-eu.programme AT lists.pp-international.net>;

Sorry Martina,

but it would be a sad thing, to delete the whole text, just for this small omission in the beginning. The deleted sentence functions in my opinion rather as historical explanation than anything else.

I would very much promote to keep the rest of the text - because it stays nevertheless complete and functions very well itself.

 

Bestbest :)

Mia
 

-- 
UTZ. film- &  literaturübersetzungen
mobil: 0163-4670249
Email: utz55 AT web.de

 

 

Gesendet: Freitag, 29. November 2013 um 10:39 Uhr
Von: "Martina Pöser" <martina.poeser AT bremen.piratenpartei.de>
An: "pp-eu.programme AT lists.pp-international.net" <pp-eu.programme AT lists.pp-international.net>
Betreff: Re: [PP-EU.programme] CEEP - Patents - partial veto

Dear Aram,

 

I'm a bit unsure how to take the discussion part at the end. If I do not here anything different from you, I will take this as a veto to both parts and will delete the text from the German and international version of the CEEP. As we need to hand the German version in this week-end, we will have to decide asap.

 

Best regards,

 

Martina
 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Aram Gurekian <aramgk AT gmail.com>
Gesendet: Fr 29.11.2013 03:24
Betreff: [PP-EU.programme] CEEP - Patents - partial veto
Anlage: inline.txt
An: pp-eu.programme AT lists.pp-international.net;

Hi all.
@PP-IT we discussed the Patents chapter.

We ask you to delete two parts, by putting our veto on them.
Those sentences are just there to give some context to the Programme, but we think that they undermine the position about patents and we don't agree to them.

1. The first part we ask to delete is the strikethrough text:

"As we have transitioned from the industrial to the information age, global patent law has lost touch with the changing world. Patents now function as a deterrent to innovation rather than as an incentive. The patenting of knowledge in areas like genetics and biotechnology, as well as software, renders it a tangible threat to the future of our society."

The information era just emphasized problems that were already in the patent laws.
Stating that now they function as a deterrent to innovation would imply that previously they worked as an incentive and did not slow innovation.
This is not true, take Watt's engine patent as an example that probably delayed the raise of the industrial age: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/anew01.pdf


2. The second part is the paragraph:

"Rebalancing Patents with the Common Good

PIRATES believe that patents exist to reward the inventors of truly outstanding ideas, not to allow big businesses to stifle competition with an ever-growing tide of trivial and overreaching patents.

We therefore want to halt the continued and increasing abuse of patents."
 

Since we think that the phrase "PIRATES believe that patents exist to reward the inventors of truly outstanding ideas" is at least debatable and we want to veto it, the concepts that would remain in the paragraph are repeated through the entire chapter and lost their relation with the title anyway.
Therefore we think it would be better to delete that whole short paragraph.
 

We are open to discussion, of course.
 

Best regards,
 

Aram (on behalf of the PP-IT CEEP workgroup)