Cablegate Reveals US Pressure for EU Patent (Unitary Patent) Alongside ACTA, More Pro-Patents Lobbyists Observed
Bradley Manning, by Daniel Joseph Barnhart Clark
Summary: US politicians who are funded by taxpayers are seen pushing the agenda of big corporations into Europe, elevating the risk of software patents there
WIKILEAKS has been releasing many Cablegate leaks over the past week. One that caught our attention which also relates to Techrights mentions the EU patent mess (going under many names that keep changing to confuse critics) just before it talks about ACTA. To quote this item from a year and a half ago:
EU Patent breakthrough -------- ------- ----- ¶2. (U) On December 4 the EU Competitiveness Council battled toward a so-called 'general approach' on a future patent system, together with an agreement on the basis of a draft regulation for European Union patents. The issue has bogged down the European Commission and the Council for over 40 years. Today, the cost of getting an EU-wide patent is eleven times that of getting the same protection in the U.S. The Council conclusions also contain the main elements of a single European Patent Court that will try cases on both the EU patent and existing European patents. In today's system, patent processes for one and the same invention must be conducted separately in each Member State. The establishment of a single court could mean annual savings of up to USD 42 billion for European companies. ¶3. (U) Leading the objections to the Swedish EU Presidency's proposal for a general approach was Denmark. The Danes, though, finally withdrew their legalistic objections after it became clear that changes to the Swedish proposal would not be acceptable. The Swedish 'general approach' on the EU patent regulation means a real breakthrough. The all important issue of translation will now be left for agreement at a "later" date. ¶4. (U) The agreement paves the way for further discussion, under Spanish and other Presidencies, towards a future patent system. This would be based on two main pillars. Firstly, a unified patent litigation system with exclusive jurisdiction for civil litigation related to patent infringements and validity of EU and European patents. There would be a court of first instance comprised of a central division as well as local and regional divisions (in member states). There would also be a court of appeal. ¶5. (U) Comment. This is a major accomplishment of the Swedish Presidency. It was the top EU Presidency priority of Trade Minister Bjorling. The issue has been blocked for over 40 years. Sweden made a serious effort to break the deadlock during its EU Presidency in 2001. Although the tricky language question remains, it is likely that it will be possible to solve that piece separately. This breakthrough on a European patent is a welcome addition to the Swedish list of accomplishments during the Presidency, which includes the Lisbon treat...
Let’s remember that some pro-patents people tried to daemonise Richard Stallman for warning about this. We named some German patent lawyers who did this; they really want software patents (more so than any other EU-based lawyers we have seen so far) and among them there is also a soccer lobbyist pretending to be a patents expert and occasional Mono apologist (Mono is mostly history based on the news as the most exposure it receives is from blogs). He is pretending to be the opposition while patent lawyers pretend to be the voice of German people. Watch this pro-software patents lobbyist being called “anti-software patents campaigner” in this article which says: “They are not the only ones: Apple’s Hague-based action has also spurred some interesting questions in the patent community about the role of IP in competitive products. In a blog posting, prominent EU anti-software patents campaigner Florian Mueller suggested that the patents cited in Apple’s Hague complaint should not have been granted in the first place.”
Microsoft also hired front groups to pretend to represent small business. Writers who describe this lobbyist as “anti-software patents campaigner” are either dishonest or gullible and they ought to be corrected. █