Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-038"

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	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050705.6.2-038"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-07-05-Speech-2-0392
lpv:speaker	lp:Hans-Peter Mayer2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; AGRI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2004-09-15--2006-01-17)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; JURI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, although it is claimed that we are debating one of the most controversial pieces of legislation, that would be the case only if half of us were in favour of it and half against. The proportions are, however, quite different, for the overwhelming majority in this House endorses the objective of this legislation, embodied in the unambiguous principle that software alone is not capable of being patented. This legislation does no more than to protect software by way of copyright. Just as not just individual sentences are protected by copyright, but rather the book as a whole, so it naturally follows that not merely individual lines of software are protected, but rather the work as a whole. What our economy does, of course, need, though, is patents, for patents denote and indicate a knowledge-based economy, which produces such things as technical advances, inventions with such additional requirements as novelty, whether they be computer-based, computer-implemented or computer-managed. Why do we need this legislation? We need it in order not to end up in the situation that pertains in the USA. We are well aware that over 30 000 patents have already been taken out on software, and we want to stop that going on in the future. The legislation is needed if we are to do that. We are in fact protecting ourselves by having the Commission monitor this and report back to us in three years’ time as to whether, despite our efforts at closing them by way of the latest compromises, there are still loopholes, and if there are, it must report them to us, while also giving us an account of the ‘open source movement’ that will enable us to turn our attention to that in three years’ time and close any loopholes that may have opened up. This is not, therefore, the end of the story, and not just because we have yet to reach agreement with the Council; we will also be continuing to observe the way in which our legislation is put into effect and will reserve the right to take further action in three years’ time on the basis of what emerges from that."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph