Even though it might seem to some as a kind of complete revision of the system, I wish to express my view on what could be a more ideal structure and working method of SACEPO. The advantage for the EPO would be that the input it will receive from SACEPO would better reflect the diversity of opinions of the Members as listed in the EPO proposal.

I consider that we must first recognize who are the basic users of the patent system. They are those who apply for patents, who pay the fees, who contribute to the Budget of the EPO and without whom the Office would not exist, now and in the future. In my view these basic users, which would form the first group of SACEPO Members, are:

The big industry (including the European multinationals)
The SMEs
The individual inventors
The academic and other scientific research institutions

The elected or officially appointed representatives of these 4 categories should constitute the core Membership of SACEPO. If we take the EPO proposed list of relevant international federations and NGOs, the following would fall into this first group: UNICE (+EFPIA), UEAOME, IFIA, and the academic research institutions having inventive activities.

The Practionners, to whom I would add the experts in licensing and possibly those in business management, should form a second group in SACEPO. The relevant federations and NGOs listed by the EPO are: EPI, AIPPI, CNIPA, FEMIPI, FICPI, UNION, LES, EIRMA.

Don't misunderstand me. I do recognize the importance and the role of the patent profession (to the extent that in IFIA and in national inventors' associations, patent attorneys have been elected at different levels of responsability or nominated to represent them). I certainly agree that the patent profession, as such, should play an important role in advising the EPO, but at a different level. Why? Simply because they are paid by the core group to do their job; their mandate is to represent their profession, and their advisory role in legal drafting and technical matters is, and will remain, most useful to the EPO.

I also agree with the EPO proposal stated in para 13:"The possibility to appoint a limited number (up to 5) of Members ad personam should be kept".

The President of the EPO submits to the Members ofSACEPO some documents for "information", and others "for comments". The advice he seeks relate to the latter. In fact these documents concern issues or questions of two nature. There are questions which are of a "conceptional" nature (some may prefer the word "basic" nature, or another word), and/or have financial implications. The importance is that the President of the EPO will determine, at his discretion, which are the questions and issues of this nature. And the point is that if all the Members of the first group (the core group) are of the same opinion regarding one of these particular issues or questions, their opinion should, in my view, be considered as the advice given to the EPO by the basic users of the system. As to the other questions which are mainly of an "implemental" nature, the views of the Members of the two other groups will of course continue to be included in the advice given to the EPO.

I am convinced that the Members of the core group, as described by me, can, and should, work together to find consensus solutions to the conceptional questions and those having financial implications, and advise the EPO accordingly. Big industry, SMEs, independent inventors and academic research institutions are in the same boat. If we want to improve things at the European level, the four of us must try to better understand the interests of the other. Only then will this boat reach the harbour of our common goals at last.