Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-049"

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	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030923.2.2-049"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-23-Speech-2-0502
lpv:speaker	lp:Othmar Karas2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Österreichische Volkspartei (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 treasurer; EPP-ED (1999-09-30--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a directive which regulates the uniform application of the law by patent offices and patent tribunals is to be welcomed unreservedly in the interests of a well-functioning internal market and for the sake of avoiding distortions of competition. However, we must not forget that the development of new software must not be impeded, the position of SMEs must not be made more difficult, that we must create legal certainty, and that we want to prevent new distortions of competition. I took every letter and every discussion very seriously. Some fears are rooted in misinterpretations. Some points of criticism are based on American realities and not on the content of the directive. However, I do endorse some of the arguments. The European Patent Office is violating the laws between EPAT, the Member States and the European Patent Convention. The definition of ‘technical contribution’ is too vague. A clear distinction between technical and intellectual inventions is required. I therefore support some of the amendments and compromises proposed by my friend Mr Wuermeling and the rapporteur. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mrs Echerer for the large quantity of material that she supplied. I support some of the amendments proposed by my colleague Mrs Kauppi: Amendments Nos 107 and 108, which clearly define the term ‘field of technology’, Amendments Nos 112, 114 and 117, which make it clear that computer programs do not, in themselves, constitute patentable inventions, Amendment No 116 on the limits of patentability, and Mr Wuermeling’s compromises in which reference is made to the current EPAT legal framework and there is a clarification to the effect that trivial inventions and business methods are not patentable. I hope that we can all live with these amendments."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph