Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.2.2-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to start by expressing my warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs McCarthy, and our shadow rapporteur.
Ladies and gentlemen, do we really need this directive? Like many other Members, I too have received many worried letters expressing serious concerns about the Commission proposal. I have taken these concerns very seriously, because no one wants to stand in the way of innovation in Europe or impose additional burdens, especially on the small and medium-sized IT companies. After weighing up all the pros and cons of this directive, however, I am convinced that we will make the right decision tomorrow if we adopt this directive with the amendments proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and various other clarifications.
We need this directive. It is simply designed to harmonise existing practice governing the granting of patents in Europe, and in this context, more stringent criteria are to be adopted, particularly for the granting of patents.
I have a number of reasons for supporting the directive. Firstly, the directive will ensure that we do not end up with US conditions in the granting of patents. Simple business methods and pure software will not be patentable in Europe. The directive states this quite explicitly, and it is also prevented by the fact that patent protection for computer-implemented inventions requires a technical contribution. I am grateful to Commissioner Bolkestein for stating this quite explicitly again today, and would like to reiterate that we have no doubt about this. This House should also not act as if someone might interpret the report in a way which conflicts with the clear statement by the Commission and the proposed amendments, which are also very clear on this point.
Secondly, the directive is not meant to protect trivial software. Patents on trivial software, such as progress bars, are a cause for concern and are not desirable. The directive also makes it clear that we do not want to grant patent protection to trivial software.
I would ask you, in tomorrow’s vote, to support the proposed amendments in which we clarify a number of points, but also to give your endorsement to Mrs McCarthy’s report as a whole."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples