Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-08-Speech-2-211"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050308.22.2-211"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, the Commission is grateful for this opportunity to make a statement on the proposal on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. I have already had the opportunity to discuss the proposal with the Committee on Legal Affairs on 2 February and with the Conference of Presidents on 3 March. On both occasions I took very careful note of Parliament’s views. I noted that Parliament considers, in general, that its views were not given sufficient weight at first reading. From the debate in the Legal Affairs Committee, I noted that there are differing views on the substance of the proposal, in particular its content and purpose.
I would like to remind Members that, in the absence of a directive, patents will continue to be granted. If patent offices decide to grant patents for pure software, then expensive procedures before the Courts will be the only option for those who wish to object.
Those of you who have been directly involved in working on this proposal know as well as I do that this is a very complex area. Any modifications will need to be carefully examined. The directive cannot be turned on its head. We need to maintain a proper balance between stimulating innovation and making sure competition is not stifled.
I hope I have not spoken for too long. The situation is now clear. The ball is in your court. I am sure you will exercise your rights and your judgement wisely. Whatever you decide, I would like to reassure you that the Commission is listening. I know there is a new wind blowing. That is reflected in the positions expressed in the Council and Parliament and the Commission will take account of this and respect it.
The Commission gave careful consideration to Parliament’s request of 24 February, submitted under Article 55 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. But the Commission concluded that at that stage, regrettably, it could not submit a new proposal as Parliament requested. That was not because the Commission wished to persist stubbornly with the proposal, but because the Council was on the point of adopting a common position.
As I explained to the Conference of Presidents, the Council reached a political agreement in May 2004 at first reading. The Council has been on the verge of confirming the political agreement in the form of a common position since December 2004. The Commission had supported the political agreement of May 2004. The Commission could not, therefore, go back on its word when the Council was in the process of confirming its common position.
The Council has now made up its mind and adopted its common position. It did so yesterday at the Competitiveness Council. Jeannot Krecké, Chair of the Competitiveness Council, has already explained to the Legal Affairs Committee the reasons behind the Council’s stance. It confirmed its common position, primarily for institutional reasons. The Council wanted to avoid the setting of a precedent, with Member States being seen to back away from a deal they had signed up to in May 2004. The Council confirmed its position to show that a deal is a deal and that it was not creating a logjam in a key area for innovation.
Yesterday, when the Council took its decision, Jeannot Krecké noted that some Member States had concerns about the substance of the text and that these would be addressed at second reading.
The ball is now very clearly in the European Parliament’s court. It is for you to decide how you want to play it. I do not have to remind you of Parliament’s rights: we discussed this in the Conference of Presidents. You can, of course, reject or substantially amend the proposal. If Parliament decides to reject it, then the Commission will respect your wishes. I will not propose a new directive.
Should you decide to propose amendments, the Commission will give them due consideration. No doubt improvements can be made. You will understand, of course, that I cannot speak on behalf of the Council and I would urge Parliament to engage constructively with the Council on this subject in the future. I am ready to help in any way.
Before concluding, I would like to say a few words on the substance of the proposal, since Parliament will now need to turn its attention to this. The Commission proposed to clarify the legal rules on patentability for software-related inventions. This does not include computer programs or other software as such. It means inventions that make a technical contribution and that are truly novel. Such inventions are present in a number of everyday consumer goods such as cars, mobile telephones and domestic appliances. The Commission’s intention in making its proposal was to avoid the patenting of pure software and make a clear distinction between the European Union and the United States. Nothing that is not patentable now will be made patentable by the directive.
The current rules in the European Patent Convention leave patent examiners very wide decision-making powers. There can be different interpretations as to whether an invention can be patented. This leads to uncertainty for businesses. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular are negatively affected by the lack of clarity in the existing rules."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples