Dear all
just had a second look into the answers (while being aware that two further answers are announced).
My conclusions so far:
all companies are mentioning platforms where breeder can go and ask for license. We were dealing with this issue in our last reports. I think we still agree that this approach is not solving the problem because this system is based on patents, it allows for control, it might still hemper access and is not mandatory for all companies. It is also not legally binding in future. I would not open up the report to introduce this discussion.
on Corteva: We do not say that there are involved in this specific patent application. However it is known, that Corteva is cooperating with the UC. The company is just mentioned to show that UC is not just basic research - many times they are acting in alliance with companies. To clarify: We could add further companies which are cooperating with UC and leave Corteva in the text - would you agree? or should we delete all names of companies and try to find a more neutral sentence giving the same information?
on Keygene: I do not think we have to use this information in the report. It would not change our message, but it would need further explanations.
on Rijk: we already have a short statement included, referring to their position. We could enlarge this passage to quote from their letter. This would be the only substantial change of the report I would be in favour.
We announced the report to be published within next two weeks. I would be happy if we could agree to publish next week and keep the changes to a minimum.
Further, we have interest for insight in the report prior to the publication from the EPO (! very good, Mr Osterwalder kindly asked... ) and from a Belgium Ministry of Agriculture (I will forward to Nina from CEO). I guess we should send something till end of the week.
Cheers
Christoph