Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.2.2-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Socialist Group does not believe that the amendments approved in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market reflect the current situation in the field of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
We must work on the basis that this is not a proposal for a Directive for patenting computer programs. The system for those, as the rapporteur for the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard, has pointed out, is already regulated by means of a Community Directive. We are talking about the field of intellectual creation, which have very different rules from those which govern the field of industrial protection. Industrial protection, as Mr Rocard pointed out, relates to the application of industrial uses, and we already have well established rules.
What has happened here has been a very dangerous tendency on the part of United States jurisprudence, which has allowed purely intellectual creations, which do not have industrial applications as such, to be patented. The attempt to establish a monopoly on computer programs by means of patents has caused justifiable indignation on the part of all those who are currently using the open network in Europe, and whose possibilities for action would be prejudiced. It would represent a backward step in terms of European progress towards the creation of an information society as laid down in the Lisbon Declaration.
The Socialist Group therefore believes that the proposal for a Directive must be substantially modified, establishing very clear limitations, so as not to undermine the nature of industrial patenting.
We cannot end up in a situation here like the United States situation, in which there are currently certain companies which in practice are able to prevent all work in the field of computer programming. As Mr Bolkestein has pointed out, the European Patent Office has allowed itself to take this dangerous route to a certain extent, as Japanese jurisprudence has also done, for example. And that is precisely why we need a Community Directive.
We believe that intellectual property in the field of computers must be maintained and that we need a Community Directive which just regulates industrial applications, not computer programs, and which regulates it in a sufficiently clear way to prevent us from taking that route, so that the jurisprudence of the European Patent Office does not drag the countries of the European Union along the road of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions as such."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples