Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-026"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-07-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Patentability of computer-implemented inventions2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050705.6.2-026"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-07-05-Speech-2-0272
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; TRAN (2004-09-15--2007-01-14)3 member; LIBE (2004-09-14--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-11-18--2006-12-12)3 vice-chair; ENVI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 treasurer; IND/DEM (2004-07-26--2007-02-12)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the reason why we have a proposal on patents for software-related innovations to consider is that current practice leaves something to be desired. Differing opinions about whether software can or cannot be patented make the legal framework ambiguous, and so the logical way forward would seem to be to introduce fresh legislation in this area. The question remains whether the common position offers a balanced solution that is appropriate for both large and small companies. It is unfortunate that even experts have been unable to state whether the directive will promote innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises, or whether it will in fact put obstacles in their way and hamper innovation. It has proved impossible to remove the fear of unwanted consequences among small enterprises, to whom the following three aspects are of major importance. The first is the accessibility of patent applications. The costs involved in obtaining a patent are prohibitive, and to this the directive offers no solutions. The second aspect is the extent to which SMEs can protect themselves once they have a patent. Is it practically feasible for them to constantly monitor whether another company is infringing it? Moreover, they do not have the personnel or financial resources to cover themselves against accusations of infringing other companies’ patents. The directive in this form entails the risk of a considerable level of litigation involving software-related innovations. Thirdly, there is the problem of high licence fees when small companies use software produced by patent holders. Moreover, it is unclear what the impact of the directive would be on the use and development of open-standard software. Although this House has tabled amendments in an attempt to address the areas of concern, these have met with little response from the Council. As the common position as it stands is unconvincing and the Council seems unwilling to change tack again, the common position should be rejected."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph