Worst EU lobby awards

[Erik Josefsson <sslug@sslug>]

Har alle stemmt?

   http://www.worstlobby.eu/selectwinner.php

(man måste stemme på både "lobbying" og "access")

//Erik

DG Internal Market
For manipulating a consultation on EU patent policies

Despite the European Parliament’s clear rejection of software patents in 
the summer of 2005, the battle re-emerged this summer when Commissioner 
McCreevy’s proposed a single patent law for the European Union. The 
proposal, among other things, includes a European Patent Litigation 
Agreement (EPLA), developed by the European Patent Office (EPO). Many 
fear that the proposed EPLA would legalise software patents through case 
law. McCreevy’s Directorate-General organised a consultation on the 
proposal this summer, which was marked by a strong bias against critics 
and a disturbing degree of preferential treatment for corporate 
proponents of US-style software patents. In doing so, DG Internal Market 
dramatically failed to respect the Commission’s own minimum standards 
for consultation.

Following the end of the official consultation period (in which all 
stakeholders could submit written submissions), DG Internal Market in 
cooperation with DG Industry carried out an additional round of 
consultation with 600 handpicked small and medium-sized enterprises. 
Many companies that had expressed a keen interest in the issues at stake 
were not informed nor invited. The input from this additional, exclusive 
and secretive round of consultation was included in the Commission’s 
concluding report about the overall consultation; a report which 
opponents of US-style software patents describe as “biased and aimed at 
gaining support for the European Patent Litigation Agreement”. Key 
criticisms on EPO’s patent granting practice, on the currently discussed 
patent reform proposals and on the direction of the consultation 
questionnaire itself, expressed by a very large number of small and 
medium-sized enterprises, were ignored or ridiculed.

During the main hearing on the future patent policy held in Brussels in 
July, representatives of small Germany-based software companies were not 
allowed to speak, despite repeated requests in advance. This refusal 
contrasts starkly with the Commission’s treatment of the Alliance for 
Competitive Technology (ACT), which was invited to ‘represent’ small and 
medium size enterprises. ACT is a Microsoft-backed US-based lobby group, 
with headquarters in Washington DC. Only a minority of its members are 
European firms.

DG Internal Market’s flawed consultation raises the suspicion that it 
was primarily concerned with legitimising its own patent policy proposal 
no matter what.

Vote for DG Internal Market for consulting but only if you say what they 
want.

Links:

Response to the Consultation on the European Transparency Initiative 
Green Paper Application of General Principles and Minimum Standards for 
Commission’s Consultations (Summary in English), PatentFrei, 13 
September 2006

DG Internal Market, not happy with the consultation results, launched a 
parallel consultation via the EICs, FFII, 10 July 2006

Written Question to the European Commission about “Data processing and 
consultation procedure on the Future of patent policy in Europe”, Eva 
Lichtenberger (MEP), 12 July 2006.

EU Commissioner McCreevy: software patents are “a goal worth pursuing”, 
Florian Müller, 9 September 2006

Links to texts in German:

Contribution Stellungnahme zum Grünbuch Europäische 
Transparenzinitiative; Anwendung der Mindeststandards der Kommission für 
die Konsultationen, Patentfrei, 13 September 2006

Softwarepatent-Gegner beklagen Mogelei bei EU-Konsultation, Heise 
Online, 11 July 2006



Comments
Name:

Comment: (max 1024 characters)


Thomas wrote on 21-11-2006:
I didn't know that profit pay taxes !!!! With sofyware patents you will 
stop one day writing programs, because instead you will spent your time 
to deal with reading papers, to know what techniques you are allowed to 
use to set up your program with/without paying fees. Nobody complains 
about that people ask to be paid for their work, but do you need patents 
for that, I donnot. Up to now it worked fine without, didn't it?

Julian wrote on 21-11-2006:
The profits made by these “evil, greedy corporations” pay the taxes that 
pay for the doctors, nurses, hospitals, teachers, schools, unemployment 
benefits, sickness benefit, pensions, childcare, etc, etc, etc that 
so-called self appointed ‘civil society’ groups love to defend. DG 
Internal Market is just trying to make a level playing field where both 
OS and proprietary software can compete and make a profit. Grow up!

Free software wrote on 20-11-2006:
I believe Microsoft has a lot of leverage with Ireland, the corporation 
has big investments there. But I can't understand my government 
(Portugal); it has sold out to Bill Gates for no visible return to the 
country. Where lies the profit?! I won't speculate further...

Jason wrote on 19-11-2006:
McCreevy helped keep Ireland prosperous by courting 'Big Business'. He 
is disposed to seeing software patents a necessary part of keeping the 
wheels turning, rather than an invite to create an abusive, litigious 
monopoly. Well intentioned, but starting from wrong assumptions.

Martyr wrote on 19-11-2006:
This is where own interest of representatives is in serious conflict 
with the interests of everyone, who they represent. Sad they don't 
realize they loose more than they earn.

Graham Bloice wrote on 19-11-2006:
Yet another example of our "representatives" failing to represent us.

Rene wrote on 19-11-2006:
I bet they also know how to grow bananas for our great european republic

François Colonna wrote on 18-11-2006:
for the catastrophic consequences for the software developpment 
community due to its non-democratic policy

jp Pozzi wrote on 06-11-2006:
No comments

El DoRaddo wrote on 06-11-2006:
Manipulation of consultations of future software is a betrayel at our 
future for stupid profits. Whats more important: greedy profits or 
software for the future???