Does EU sw patent process expose constitution

Jonas Maebe, Belgian computer scientist and board member of FFII, explains in an open letter how the experience with the software patent directive has proven the EU and its proposed Constitution to be a dangerous political farce.

"Conclusion

I am sorry to be so pessimistic and to throw this out all over you, even though many of you personally have no fault in all this. I'm also certain you have the best intentions with the proposed Constitution. However, I'm becoming tired:

1. We got almost unanimous support in the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee to restart the directive.
2. This request was confirmed by unanimity in the Conference of Presidents and an overwhelming majority in plenary
3. The Commission declined and until today has not been able to produce any explanation as to why (except for "we want the procedure to continue")
4. We managed to secure a generous blocking minority in the Council (Spain, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Latvia, The Netherlands)
5. This position was confirmed by the German, Dutch, Spanish and Danish national parliaments
6. The Council presidency "takes some shortcuts" and shoves it through as a "non-discussion" item, "so as not to create a precedent which might have a consequence of creating future delays in other processes"

Because democratic ways fail over and over again, the situation has now become so bad that some people even set up a web page where you can pledge money to bribe the Council, because that's the only way they see that's left to get anything done at all. It may seem like a joke, but after everything I've experienced the past one-and-a-half year (since the directive was passed from Parliament to Council), it would not surprise me in the least if they're half-serious.

The Constitution merely enshrines all of the above. Of course it does not codify the fact that the people who lead the European Patent Office should be the same people as those who write the Council version of the directive as it happened last year, but it also does not prevent this. It does not say that the Commission should introduce last minute amendments at Council sessions so as to confuse delegations, but it also does not call a halt to this practice. It does not say political agreements are cast in stone, but neither does it clearly say that they have less legal value than the ticket you get in a supermarket and that they should be treated as such when there is reason to do so.

How on Earth am I expected to still believe in this farce? I really do want to believe. Just give me chance to do so..."

I have to say that being a supporter (with some important reservations) in principle of the idea of an EU constitution (though not necessarily with the small print of the one that has actually been agreed), my observations of the EU processes in practice over the past couple of years lead to me sharing Jonas Maebe's concerns about its operation in practice. The degree to which the decision making processes can be highjacked by a small number of politicians focused almost entirely on their need to be seen to be doing something is unconscionable.