Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-042"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Patentability of computer-implemented inventions2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030923.2.2-042"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-23-Speech-2-0432
lpv:speaker	lp:Luis Berenguer Fuster2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-30--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2003-06-30--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 chair; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2003-06-30--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, south-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partido Socialista Obrero Español (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this is a political chamber and I believe that as a political chamber the first question we should consider, as should the Commission, is why this proposal has caused so much commotion and so much reaction. It is not fair to discredit any person not agreeing with it and to say that there has been aggressive opposition on the part of lobby groups. Because, at least on the part of those who have been in contact with me, university teachers of information technology, experts in patents and industrial property and also representatives of small businesses, what I have heard, rather than aggression, has been concern; concern at the way things are progressing and the danger being faced in terms of the possibilities for inventions. The people who advocate this initiative tell us that the only intention is to unify practice on the part of the national patent offices, in a field in which there have recently been contradictory resolutions. And that is true; what is not true, or at least what is not certain, and please allow us to accept this intellectual doubt at least, Commissioner, is that this proposal for a Directive is going to resolve the problems which the intention is apparently to resolve. Because it is very easy to do so, the practice of the European Patent Office, in a break with what was the traditional approach of European law, has tended towards a practice very similar to that in United States law. All the honourable Members know, all the experts know, that European law demands that an invention must be of an industrial nature if it is to be patentable, which means that not only must the method be industrial, but also the result of the product must be industrial, while in US law it is sufficient for it to have a useful application. This has allowed certain innovations and certain patents of software programs. We therefore insist on this point. It makes no sense to say that with the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Commission's proposal these problems are resolved, because they are resolved by means of the amendments approved in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. Therefore, if the amendments such as those proposed by the Committee on Industry and the Committee on Culture are not approved, it will be very difficult for us to support this proposal."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph