Dumps of live streams of EP vote and press conference; transcriptions of Rocard's and Commissioner's speeches.

Sorry for the redundancy, we have had no time yet to compare different versions

See http://media.vrijschrift.org for dumps of streams

We use the CoralContentDistributionNetwork (see http://www.coralcdn.org), i.e. the originals are on http://media.vrijschrift.org and by clicking on the links below you get a cached version to save bandwidth and server load.

See also http://www.mininova.org/get/68478 for a torrent of Joris' english video [WMV] and the english MP3 of the speech.

Dumps of Press conference

See ftp://video:videofiles@158.169.50.2/press/audiovisual/mp3/40791.mp3 (local copy as OGG http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:9080/40791.ogg) for audio of the press conference.

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/pressconf050706.rm (realplayer, original language)

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/pressconf050706_en.rm (realplayer, english translation)

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/pressconf050706_de.rm (realplayer, german translation)

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/pressconf050706_fr.rm (realplayer, french translation)

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/pressconf050706_nl.rm (realplayer, dutch translation)

See also http://static.thepiratebay.org/downloadtorrent/3352960.torrent/SW_patents__EP_press_conference.3352960.TPB.torrent for a Bittorrent link to video of the EP press conference after the vote:

• SW_patentsEP_press_conference.335296 0.TPB.torrent (AVI file (DIVX), 48 minutes).

Dumps of vote by Joris

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/epvote050706_or.rm (realplayer, original language)

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/epvote050706_or.wmv (windows media, original language)

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/epvote050706_en.rm (realplayer, english translation)

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/epvote050706_en.wmv (windows media, english translation)

Dumps of vote by Arend

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/europarl050706.rm (another realplayer, original language)

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/europarl050706.wmv (another windows media, original language)

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/europarl050706_de.rm (etc)

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/europarl050706_en.rm

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/europarl050706_en.wmv

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/europarl050706_fr.rm

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/europarl050706_nl.rm

Short MP3's with Rocard's speech

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/rocard_or.mp3 (original language) http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/rocard_or.ogg (original language)

http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/rocard_en.mp3 (english translation) http://media.vrijschrift.org.nyud.net:8090/rocard_en.ogg (english translation)

Transcripts of Rocard's speech

From original (French), by mmu_man / Octave_Octet

Merci M. Le Président. M. Le président, mes chers collègues, selon toute vraisemblance, cette assemblée va dans 2 minutes, 3 minutes, rejeter le projet de directive concernant la brévetabilité des inventions assistées par ordinateur. Tous nos grands groupes, et mêmes les petits d'ailleurs pardonnez-moi, ont pris cette décision mais pour des raisons contradictoires. Je n'ai donc ici ni mandat ni qualité pour commenter ces raisons, mais il est à cette convergence une signification commune. Sur le fond du sujet, nous sommes partagés à peu près moitié-moitié, avec une imprévisibilité totale du résultat en majorité relative, et une impossibilité bilatérale d'arriver à la majorité qualifiée. Chacun de nos blocs d'opinion préfère le rejet du texte à l'adoption des opinions de l'autre. Mais il y a surtout ici une colère collective et celle-là unanime de tout le parlement contre la manière inadmissible dont il a été traité par la Commission et le Conseil. (applaudissements) Mépris total, (applaudissements) mépris total voire sarcastique des choix fait par ce Parlement en première lecture, abscence totale de toute consultation de la part de la Commission dans la rédaction du projet de texte pour la deuxième lecture, tentatives répétées d'empêcher même le débat entre gouvernements au Conseil lui-même.

Dans le principe, c'est déja scandaleux. La crise que l'Europe traverse aujourd'hui comporte largement sa part d'insuffisances démocratiques. Le conseil a là une responsabilité écrasante qu'il a particulierement manifesté dans ce dossier. Que ce rejet lui serve de leçon. Pour la substance (applaudissements) Pour la substance, l'état de l'opinion telle que nous la représentons ici montre bien que le problème n'est pas mûr. C'est donc justement l'approfondissement du débat qui aurait permis d'arriver par maturation à plus de consensus. Sur ce sujet essentiel; quelques dizaines de milliards de dollars annuels d'enjeux et pourtant très difficile, une prise de conscience collective est à l'évidence en train de se faire.

Le rejet est à cet égard un message à l'Office Européen des Brevets. Le Parlement Européen a refusé de légaliser les récentes dérives de jurisprudence pour élargir le champ de la brevetabilité à certains logiciels. Si ces dérives devaient continuer, il parait clair qu'une majorité parlementaire émergerait alors pour les endiguer.

Merci mes chers collègues.

Translation into English (by Taco) of the French transcript of Rocard's speech

Thank you mister President. Mister President, my dear colleagues, it's very likely that this assemblee will reject the project of a directive concering the patentability of computer-assisted inventions in the coming 2, 3 minutes. All of our large groups, and even the small ones outside (?) if you excuse me, have taken that decisision, but for contradicting reasons. Because of that, I don't have the mandate or quality to comment on those reasons, but there's a common significance in that convergence. We're divided about fifty-fifty on the basics of the subject, with a total unpredictability in the result with a relative majority vote (note of translator: "if we would do a normal vote instead of a vote about rejection, the result would we uncertain") and an impossibility on both parts to reach a qualified majority. Each of our opinion blocks prefers to reject the text to the adoption of it with the opinions of the other. But there especially is a collective anger that is unanimous throughout all of the parliament against the unacceptible way the parliament is treated by the Commission and the Council. (applause) Total disdain, (applause), total disdain "sarcastic reactions on the choices made by the parliament on first lecture" (note from translator: not completely sure about the exact formulation, but this is what it means), total absence of any consultation on the part of the Commission in the writing of the text for the second lecture, repeated attempts to prevent even the debate among governments in the Council itself.

In principle, just that is already scandalous. The crisis through which Europe goes at this moment is largely based on democratic insufficiencies. There, the council has a crushing responsibility which it has in particular manifested in this dossier. May this rejection be a lesson to it. Regarding the contents (applause) Regarding the contents, the state of opinions like we represent them here shows well that the problem isn't void (note from translator: hard to translate exactly, but the idea is that the problem really exists). So, it's exactly the deepening of the debate which would have allowed us to reach to more consensus by maturation. About that essential subject; several billions of dollars (1*10^9) of stakes and especially very difficult, a state of collective consciousness is, as proofed, currently being formed (note from translator: sorry for the fuzzy translation).

The rejection in that view is a message to the European Patent Office. The European Parliament has refused to legalise the recent derivals of jurisprudence to enlarge the field of patentability to certain kinds of software. If those derivals were to continue, it seems clear that a parliamentary majority would emerge to stop them.

Thank you my dear colleages.

Transcript of English translation of Rocard's speech

Thank you very much Mr. President.

All the big groups and even the small groups - I'm sorry - have taken this decision, but for different reasons. So I don't have a mandate, or even the ability, to comment on all the different motives behind this, but I do think there's a single meaning behind this decision. When it comes to the substance of the issue, we are split almost half-half, so we don't really know what the result will be when it comes to getting a relative majority and it will be difficult - or almost impossible - to get a qualified majority. The different schools of thought here prefer the rejection of the text rather than accepting the opinion of the other side, of the other school of thought.

But there is collective anger, unanimous anger, here throughout the Parliament because of the unacceptable way in which this was dealt with, handled by, Commission and Council. Total contempt, total contempt, even sarcasm and scorn about the opinions drafted by Parliament during the first reading; a total lack of any consultation by Commission when it came to the draft text for the second reading; and repeated attempts to prevent a debate between the governments and the Council itself. The principle of that is already unacceptable. Europe is going through a crisis, and this is partly because of the democratic deficit in the institutions. The Council has overwhelming responsibility for this. The Council has shown with this issue that it isn't acting democratically and this rejection of this position should serve as a lesson to the Council.

As for the substance, if you look at public opinion, which we represent here, the general thrust is that this issue is not ready for adoptions, legislation is not mature, and so we need to have a more detailed debate, an in-depth debate, that would be capable of fostering consensus.

This is a crucial issue, several billion dollars a year at stake here. What we need here is a raising of awareness. That has started, and the rejection of this Common Position is a message to the [European] Patent Office. The European Parliament has refused to do anything about the fact that we are drifting when it comes to the law on software. If this drift continues, then there'll a majority in this house to stop this drift, this dangerous drift.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Transcript of commissioner's speech

by Tor

Thank you mr. president, honorable members.

The rejection of the council common position is of cource the democratic right of the parliament as co-legislator with the council. Many speakers during the debate yesterday mentioned the voice of the people and the role of democracy. Without this directive, patents for computer implemented inventions will be continue to be issued by national patent officies, and the European Patent Office under existing law. There will be no harmonization at the EU level. This means that different interpretations as to what is patentable or not, will continue without any additional(?) control by the European court of justice. Since the adoption of the common position, the commission has maintained a view, that should the parliament decide to reject the common position, the commission would respect this, and would not present a new proposal. But, if the parliament invites us to do so, of cource, we will then speak with the different parliamentary commitees, and then of cource, see the next procedures. Various members have expressed the view tha the commission should present a non sector-specific instrument, and it should seek the adoption of the community patent.

A large ammount the national patent law is already aligned with the European Patent Convention and the Community Patent Convention of 1989. Now again, commissioner McCreevy will be happy to debate these matters with you. You already said you would invite us in the relevant comittes and then also in the plenaries, if you clearly wish so. On the future of the community patent, the key to the agreement on this lies in the hands of the council. Many options have already been explored formally and informally.

If you have comments on this page, mail jorism atttt vrijschrift dotttt org