Glyn Moody explains "Why ECJ Must be Ultimate Arbiter of the Unitary Patent" and April has disturbing news to share today. To quote: "On Thursday, October 11th, 2012, the Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee of the European Parliament held an exchange of views regarding the Unitary Patent. Despite a rather short debate, some important issues were discussed by MEPs, who focused on the Council's attempt to reduce the role of the European Parliament in the co-decision process. Everything is still on the table, with a real possibility for MEPs to step up and affirm their role on defining the scope of patentability."

"Pressure is required from the public to counter corporate pressure."This whole situation in the EU was explained here days ago and a site fully dedicated to this issue says: "For a couple of years, patents have hit the headlines with companies struggling to buy out portfolios of bankrupted competitors, with more and more ridiculous obvious patents granted by patent offices, or with “trials of the century” going on and on. This inflation of concerns around patents has culminated on August 24th, 2012, with Samsung being found liable for infringing some of Apple's mobile patents by a Californian jury. This over one billion dollars fine has given concrete expression to Steve Jobs' testimony, as laid down in his posthumous biography: “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product, I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”"

The author tied that to the unitary patent debate, which the FSFE's president attends and blogs about.

The EU Commission organizing a workshop on Implementing FRAND standards in Open Source with EPO. Yes, it says Open Source and FRAND as though these are compatible. It ought to say "versus", not "and", and the two terms should be swapped because it's FRAND which attacks FOSS.

Those in power surely cannot be trusted to pass reasonable and fair laws. Pressure is required from the public to counter corporate pressure. ⬆