Hearing reveals hermetic discourse within german EPP group

-> [ deutsch ] [ Heise report | notes | Lehne | Kauppi | FFII/EPP Conference | FFII/EPP discussion paper | News ]

2nd June 2005 -- The European People's Party (EPP) organised a hearning in the European Parliament in connection with the expert conference organised by parts of EPP together with FFII and CCIA. The session was dominated by German players, and the distance between the German EPP representatives and the Finnish shadow rapporteur Piia-Noora Kauppi, who attempted to reconcile different positions, was conspicuous. Efforts at objective discussion failed, as many of the invited experts limited themselves to eloquently reiterating long-refuted belief statements. Judging from the final statement by the German EPP coordinator Klaus-Heiner Lehne, these statements must have left a strong impression.

The discussion was chaired by Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Mayer MEP (EPP Germany, Vechta). He successfully kept the discussion within the timelines. The invited experts were independent patent attorneys, the European Patent Office, patent attorneys from Nokia, Siemens and Scania, representatives of the German Internet economy, a European SME organisation, Microsoft lobbyist Hugo Lueders, the American scientist Brian Kahin and a few others. From the audience numerous enterpreneurs and scientists raised questions. !MEPs kept a low profile, limiting themselves to "soft ball" type questions, such as those thrown by Wuermeling to Lehne. The audience focussed on the contradictions which they found in the arguments of the invited experts, and thereby further broadened the space that was already overwhelmingly given to the proponents of patentability, thus giving the final speaker Lehne even more reasons to portray the under-represented side of patent critics as a sect of nay-sayers.

Important subjects of Disucssion

see german version (or translate!)

Lehne's Concluding Speech (extracts):

I would like to add and thereby complement what has been partially discussed here, there is, I believe, within EPP, I believe, quite a huge difference, as far as the position of EPP-ED is concerned, to the Rocard position: the Rocard amendments aim, and I think this is also true for the compromise amendments, for putting the patent system as a whole in question. That is at least my impression. (intervention from the audience: "nonsense!") It is the impression which I have, you may believe it to be nonsense, but this impression is shared by many others, and, in any case, that is not our position. That has never been our position, and our position is that basically it has proven its value, and, when we speak here about the Lisbon process, about a knowledged-based economy, that patents must be an essential element of such a knowledge-minded economy and we can under no circumstances do without them.

Concerning the panels on the whole, a few remarks, a few remarks, of which I believe that they are very valuable for myself as insights: the first impression that I take back home is that the problems are not what they have been described to be in some of the position papers.

I have for instance today not heard a single argument as to why the content of the Common Position should lead to the problems that were evoked in the criticism:

The Common Position says in full clarity: software, pure software is not patentable. - that's written there in full clarity and expliciteness. I have, at least today in this debate, not been able to see why, given this background, the Common Position is said to be a problem. I have not been able to see it.

...

And concerning the position taken by the representative of UEAPME, judging from many talks which I have conducted in my region, I come from cDüsseldorf and Bergisches Land, in that area we have the backbone of the german machine construction industry and the automobile suppliers, and if I have heard THAT as a position of the medium-size enterprises here, then I can only say that the medium-size enterprises in my home region would not have agreed with that at all, and would not have felt represented by that position. They without any doubt see the matters differently.

...

When sometimes - I had that impression already during the First Reading that I was not meeting lobby representatives but people from a sect. I may be allowed to say that plainly and clearly, even if not everyone here likes to hear it, let me say it openly and clearly, a bit more objectivity should be due here, you should not always insinuate that the other person is evil-willing or has ulterior motives.

In connection with objectivity, one more remark: what I wanted to specially criticise is that the participating parties, some more, some less, see this whole aspect from their own egoistic perspective -- OK, that may be normal for lobby representatives, because those are supposed to represent only the specific interests of their area. On the other hand side it is not necessarily helpful for us.

When for instance from the side of the Open Source the problems of industry are not at all taken into account and no possible solutions are offered, then that is not particularly helpful for the positions that are being argued for there.