Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-06-Speech-3-171"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050706.23.3-171"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I want to explain why I voted not to reject the computer-related implemented inventions directive. Rejection prolongs the uncertainty about patentability of software-related inventions and is running away from the need to take a decision.
I regret that MEPs have proved incapable of coming up with a sensible version of the text, one which could ensure support for innovation but also reassure software writers and users that we are not going down an American-style route of allowing patents for pure software.
The process has displayed all the defects in the way we legislate at EU level, and these failings must be addressed if MEPs are to avoid portraying themselves as incapable of legislating on complex but vital subjects.
First, secrecy in the Council of Ministers: it is impossible to be well informed on its reasoning.
Second, obstacles to understanding because of its impenetrable website.
Third, the wrong choice of European Parliament rapporteur. The convention that a report is the property of a group and it is ‘not done’ to query its allocation to a particular member must be junked.
Fourth, the stupidity of using a misleading shorthand description like ‘software patents’, which is deeply misleading.
Fifth, the absence of ‘parliamentary draftsmen’ similar to those at Westminster, who can give MEPs guidance on the precise meaning of terminology."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples