tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7106451461924136277..comments2024-03-19T08:36:55.274+00:00Comments on The IPKat: European Parliament blames EU Council's "horse trading" as they delay unitary patent proposals until SeptemberVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1938739497319095582012-08-13T19:58:39.340+01:002012-08-13T19:58:39.340+01:00One point.
The indignation of the European Parlia...One point.<br /><br />The indignation of the European Parliament is in large part based on the Council departing from the Trilogue agreement of last November - right? <br /><br />But the UK Government has denied being party to such an agreement. The statement that the only thing holding up agreement was the Central Court site has been repeatedly denied by the UK government. Was the UK Government represented in the Trilogue discussions? Was its agreement needed or not? If not, UK is hardly to be blamed for making its point in Council, where its agreement <b>was</b> needed.<br /><br />And a thousand ineffectual curses on whoever decided that Ipkat needed to use captchas! I have completely given up checking before postingTim Robertsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68095227625147958462012-07-19T02:42:18.459+01:002012-07-19T02:42:18.459+01:00Protocol? It is ultimately also about democratic s...Protocol? It is ultimately also about democratic scrutiny. and checks&balances. When Member states reopen a Trilogue there is no agreement anymore.Tabesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13242661057308840634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60501450450726664602012-07-13T07:53:45.861+01:002012-07-13T07:53:45.861+01:00This was no mere matter of protocol. The British, ...This was no mere matter of protocol. The British, of all people, shouldn't be surprised that a parliament is somewhat touchy about its prerogatives. Just ask Charles I...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81819223859516291392012-07-12T11:50:52.795+01:002012-07-12T11:50:52.795+01:00@Amerikat:
The reason that you wouldn't have ...@Amerikat:<br /><br />The reason that you wouldn't have seen much challenge or discussion at the debate in JURI was that the Trilogue had already happened. A text had been agreed. Otherwise you might have seen all sorts of amendments being put up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87544564290446297132012-07-12T11:12:36.724+01:002012-07-12T11:12:36.724+01:00Unfortunately, I am not in the least surprised tha...Unfortunately, I am not in the least surprised that the European Parliament should focus more on protocol and personality than on whether Articles 6-8 are objectively a good idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-36786014907096550692012-07-12T11:06:08.931+01:002012-07-12T11:06:08.931+01:00Oh dear.
1. Noble objective.
2. Badly-structure...Oh dear. <br /><br />1. Noble objective.<br />2. Badly-structured law rushed through inadequate political system.<br />3. Desire to show progress on anything leads Euro-politicians (Presidency of Council) to scrape the barrel. Unwitting victim - technical IP legislation.<br />4. European Parliament more interested in challenges to their power than in the substance of law.<br />5. Process not best suited to this type of law, which is essentially non-political and technical. Purpose of patent law should be to facilitate international market place (per Chief Judge Rader), so it is essential to take account of views of practitioners, yet these views seem to be dismissed by politicians (except, to his credit, David Camerson) as special pleading by interest groups. Wrong mindset by politicians for this type of legislation. <br /><br />Time for some radical changes to the constitutional arrangements for making legislation in the EU? Include revising chamber in this process (a la House of Lords)?Markhttp://www.ipdraughts.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48686664735652913102012-07-12T10:46:48.435+01:002012-07-12T10:46:48.435+01:00Call me cynical, but I think Big Dave is ahead of ...Call me cynical, but I think Big Dave is ahead of us in all this. He knew what he was doing with his suggestions. He wants the EP on his back. It will convince many in the English electorate to vote for him. That's more important to him that Articles 6-8.<br /><br />And yes, of course the EP in the autumn will push through, as Annsley sees already. For them, what's most important is the pre-eminence of the Parliament, for them the only democratic piece in the jig-saw. They pay lip service to European "competitiveness" but have no idea what that entails.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the Chinese watch and marvel, how Western democracy works.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-36118187979151891562012-07-12T10:35:12.275+01:002012-07-12T10:35:12.275+01:00"We are the Parliament. We are the Parliament..."We are the Parliament. We are the Parliament. We are the only ones that have been directly elected… The legitimate law makers are the Council, not patent lawyers. It is not up to the patent lawyers to come up with the law."<br /><br />What does Mr Lehne do for a living again? Hmmmm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-39361503712660210352012-07-12T09:20:38.466+01:002012-07-12T09:20:38.466+01:00How can anybody be surprised by this outcome? Not ...How can anybody be surprised by this outcome? Not only was the "suggested" removal of Arts. 6-8 highly dubious in substance, but the way in which the heads of government unilaterally made their move was certain to raise hackles at the EP. And the fact that Mr. Cameron was the driving force behind this move doesn't help things either: the main center-right grouping there, the EPP, certainly hasn't yet forgiven him from taking the British Conservatives away from it. The large majority of the EP will thus relish the opportunity to humiliate him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com