Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-050"

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.20050705.6.2-050"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-07-05-Speech-2-0512
lpv:speaker	lp:Joachim Wuermeling2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the Gulf States, including Yemen (2004-09-15--2005-12-18)3 member; IMCO (2004-07-21--2005-12-18)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2005-12-18)3 substitute; AFCO (2004-07-22--2005-12-18)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2005-12-18)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2005-12-18)3 unknown; Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern e.V. (2004-07-20--2005-12-18)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the value of innovations and the importance of the knowledge-based society have often been affirmed in this Chamber. We have been told that the intellect will come up trumps for us, that it is the trump card that Europe can play in an increasingly global economy. Every bit as important, though, as the development of this intellect is, of course, the prevention of the theft of our ideas by others. Imagine an inventor investing, over two years, millions of euros in an invention, only for someone, three months later, to produce a copy of the invention, put it on the market and rob the inventor of the rewards of his labour. Patents protect the weak; they protect inventors against those who wield market power. Patents decide in the intellect’s favour when it contends with the power of the market, and they do without reference to the size of the business concerned. I am far from satisfied with the way this debate has gone over recent weeks. We have ended up with an over-heated atmosphere, with an unparalleled lobbyists’ feud, and we have to admit, if we are honest, that what we in essence have to do, even though we have got as far as second reading, is to take decisions about a multiplicity of wordings, and that we are, at this stage, able only to a limited extent to gauge the likely ramifications of the many positions that have been taken up. The Committee on Legal Affairs has made forty amendments to less than ten articles. We have dozens more amendments to consider, and have scarcely any idea what their effects will be. It has slowly dawned on me that the time is not yet ripe for a decision on this dossier, and we really should consider the possibility of rejecting the Common Position and thereby bringing the legislative process to a temporary halt. If it were possible to do that, that might be the most responsible decision we could take at this stage."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph