Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-30-Speech-4-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000330.3.4-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I must begin by explaining that I have no association at all with Edinburgh University, but I think that it is important to stress their bona fides. It is, after all, one of my own country’s most distinguished universities. When they sought and obtained this patent, which they did for entirely lawful purposes, they did so in good faith. They have no interest in cloning humans: rather what they are interested in is being able to work on human tissue to help find remedies for, for example, Alzheimer’s Disease and leukaemia and what they are doing breaks no law in the United Kingdom.
As has been explained, the patent in question was examined prior to the coming into effect of the 1998 directive in September 1999, but it was issued after that date and, as has been said, a mistake was made in the form in which it was granted. I have seen no evidence at all at this stage of anything more than error on the part of the Patent Office. Of course, I would like to add that that is something which is of serious concern. But until there is something more, I think it appropriate that the wilder claims and suggestions should be ignored.
My understanding is that the patent error can be corrected either by the patent owner applying to correct the document or by a third party filing an opposition which I understand has already been done. I have been told by the university’s advisors that it will not resist so long as the disclaimer which may be added to the patent continues to allow them to carry out their lawful work on human tissue. In other words, what we are talking about here is an amendment to cut out the offending elements of the patent, thereby rendering it lawful, and not its revocation in its entirety.
I believe that the work which is being carried out in Edinburgh is not permitted by national law in some other Member States. But what this Parliament and the Community institutions and international bodies should not do is attempt to legislate for national parliaments in areas which are national competences, and in my view any attempt to do so should be resisted strongly as a matter of overriding constitutional principle."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples