Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-155"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040309.6.2-155"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today's vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53.
It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples