There are several conflicts in the [ffii:action:ipred2/JURI_Tabled_Amendments JURI voting list for 20 March 2007] for the Criminal Measures IP Directive.

Contradictory amendments can be adopted

If amendments 28, 27 or 29 are adopted, amendments 3 and 35 can still be adopted, while their content is contradictory.

Adoption of certain amendments kill non-conflicting amendments

• Am 44 and 45, limiting IPR to copyright and trademark rights are the lowest on the list, while they are the most extreme compared to the original Commission proposal. They should be on top according to the European Parliament's rules of procedure.
• Am 47 and 51 (unmodified fashion) are rendered caduc by an oral amendment. Since the topic is different from what the oral amendment defines, that should not be the case. Here the oral amendment kills possibilities for improvement, beyond what it defines itself. This is very regrettable, since amendments 47 and 51 contain an essential safeguard against criminalisation of legitimate commercial enterprises proposed by the Max Planck Institute.
• Am 47 renders Am 48 caduc, while the latter has a second part with another topic.
• Am 47 renders Am 49 caduc, while the latter is about a different subject. Likewise Am 52 renders Am 53 caduc, while the topic is different.
• Am Am 70 renders Am 71 caduc, while the topic is completely different.
• Am Am 72 renders Am 73 caduc, while the topic is different. Am 72 also renders Am 74 caduc while the text is the same (so they should simply be voted on together).