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

[Muriel <muriel.pirata AT gmail.com>]

Dear all,

I agree with Martina's 2nd proposal about the second veto.

Best regards,

               Muriel


2013/11/29 Martina Pöser <martina.poeser AT bremen.piratenpartei.de>:
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PP-EU.Programme mailing list
> PP-EU.Programme AT lists.pp-international.net
> http://lists.pp-international.net/listinfo/pp-eu.programme
>