EU Sues Member Nations To Force Change In Patent Laws 24
ipandithurts writes "The European Union has brought member nations to court to force them to pass laws modifying their current patent laws to match the laws required by the EU. These requirements essentially centers around biotechnology patent law.After a 10-year debate, the EU adopted what it called "strict ethical rules" for patenting biotech inventions in 1998 and gave member states until July 30, 2000, to transpose them into national law. Germany, Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden still have not done so, prompting the European Commission to refer them to the European Court of Justice. Their failure to implement the EU directive "has created trade barriers and hampered the internal market," it said. "Non-implementation ... is putting the European biotechnology sector at a serious disadvantage." Seeking to allay public concerns about patenting processes using human genes or DNA molecules, the rules ban patents for cloning human beings or modifying their genetic identity, as well as the use of human embryos for industrial purposes. The Commission said last year that it expects that the global biotechnology market, not counting agriculture, could amount to more than euro2 trillion ($2.26 trillion) by 2010."
Boy, I want more than that article. (Score:4, Informative)
Sooo low.
What's the penalty? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the penalty? (Score:1)
I guess, since they themselves have a lot of the troops, it would mean military law.
Re:What's the penalty? (Score:2)
Re:What's the penalty? (Score:2)
Re:What's the penalty? (Score:2)
Re:What's the penalty? (Score:1)
Re:What's the penalty? (Score:2)
Jokes on you (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Jokes on you (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jokes on you (Score:1)
Most nations can't make laws as they see fit - not even the US - because they have committed by treaty to behave in a particular way[*]. States in the US are likewise constrained by the existence of a federal constitution and legislative system.
In that context, the European states have decided to go down a particular route because they see a benefit to it (e.g. harmonisation of standards makes interstate commerce easier). They have only giv
actually forced through TRIPS treaty (Score:5, Informative)
See also why Biotech patents are patently absurd [ratical.org]. As members of the WTO, and signatories to TRIPS, these countries really don't have a choice; they'd be in breach of the TRIPS treaty if they do not ratify these laws.
Re:actually forced through TRIPS treaty (Score:2)
But what's the penalty for not upholding the treaty? Are they suing each nation in its own courts, or is there some sort of EU-approved court that the suits are being filed in? Seems to me that, typically, the penalties for violating treaty terms range anywhere from "do nothing" to "enact sanctions" to "invade".
Re:actually forced through TRIPS treaty (Score:2)
The WTO has more power than the people. Sure, you can get out of the WTO, but you'll not be able to do any business anywhere. The WTO thereby extorts its member states into submission to its singular business interests.
We have created the biggest monster to roam the earth. An organisation that is more powerful than any state, and that works in one singular interest: the intensity of global
Interresting that core EU member states (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interresting that core EU member states (Score:1)
Re:Interresting that core EU member states (Score:2)
first of all the lawmakers are elected by the people and answer to them. the eu may make noise, but the people can decide to not reelect you.
next there are issues relating to treaties. i have no idea if there is anything like this in any european country, but it is my understanding that for a treaty to be binding in the us, the president has to deliver it to the senate for their approval.
eric
So many nations (Score:5, Interesting)
What the...? That's more than half the nations in the EU, and with Germany and France, two of the biggest and most powerful.
So my question is simple: How on earth did this law ever get ratified by the EU in the first place if the majority of nations had no intention of implimenting it? Sounds to me like something is seriously wrong with the democratic process.
Re:So many nations (Score:2)
The European Parliament is the body that is elected directly by the people, but all they can do is talk and send proposals to the Commission for their consideration. If they don't like the laws the commission passes they can pound sand.
No, there IS a democratic process (Score:1)
All members of the commision need to be approved by both the council and the parliament.
The council consists of the ministers of all the member states, and all gouverments of the member states have veto right in matters that they consider to be important.
Since the EU is getting much bigger with many Eastern European countries joining, the veto right will be restricted to certain areas
Re:So many nations (Score:1)