Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-241"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-04-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Community patent2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020409.10.2-241"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-04-09-Speech-2-2422
lpv:speaker	lp:Ioannis Koukiadis2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; EMPL (2002-02-05--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-21--2004-07-19)3 member; PETI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Panellinio Socialistiko Kinima (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mrs de Palacio has demonstrated her legal and political skills and struck the right balance. My congratulations. A Europe of free competition, especially in today's age of knowledge and innovation, needs a Community patent if it is to thrive. Even though we all recognise this, the way in which opposing views have been expressed in the past reveals something which we would do well to take onboard: the huge problem of reconciling straightforward national interests with straightforward Community interests which, in the final analysis, are supposed to serve the individual national interests. The first attempt to grant a European patent was under the Munich Convention. However, once it had been granted, it became national law subject to national provisions. Today we are trying to communitise the European patent following the failure of the endeavour made in the Luxembourg Convention. I should like to raise three issues. Τhe first is language. Everything has been said and a compromise has, I think, been reached. However, it would be helpful if at least all the claims in a European patent were translated into every language. This would reduce the cost of granting a patent considerably, compared with the cost of a European patent applicable in 15 countries. As far as the main offices are concerned, the idea of giving the European Patent Office a central role, with some of its work delegated to the national offices, is a good idea. This would combine the advantages of a strong European patent organisation with the de facto strengths of the national agencies by reason of their geographical proximity, knowledge of local conditions, knowledge of the local language and facility to mediate between the public and private sectors. Close contacts with national patent authorities are of crucial importance for the purpose of information, public support and the dissemination of the information technology contained in patents. They will also make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to access centralised information. I think that, if we can agree on this basic position, we can also agree on the type of work which could be delegated to the national offices. Finally, jurisdiction. The proposed solution, that is, that the patent courts in the Member States should have jurisdiction at first instance, without discrimination, with the Community intellectual property court ruling at appeal, is a happy compromise between centripetal and centrifugal tendencies and will guarantee easy access to the courts, swift justice and affordable appeals, making innovation easier for small and medium-sized enterprises and hence fitting in with European employment policy in general."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph