Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-06-Speech-3-174"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050706.23.3-174"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We have chosen to vote in favour of the whole proposal concerning computer-implemented inventions being withdrawn. We are opposed to patents on pure software and wish to protect classic patent law. Our ambition has been to improve the Council of Ministers’ common position. Unfortunately, that has proved difficult, and we are in danger of obtaining an unclear legal document that does not fulfil our demands for legal certainty, a state of affairs that would benefit neither large companies, small companies nor programme developers. The only people who would benefit from muddled legislation are the patent lawyers. The consequences of certain wordings also have been difficult to foresee. Harmonisation in this area is desirable, but we should do better not to have a directive at all than to contribute to bad legislation. It is therefore good that Parliament wishes to reject the proposal.
We think instead that the Commission should again take up the issue of the Community patent, applicable to the whole of the EU. One of the main problems in this connection is that the European Patent Office (EPO) has issued a number of trivial patents and patents for pure software. The EPO is not, however, subject to the EU, but is governed by a substantial special convention. If the EU wishes to take the lead on the issue of a legally certain and transparent patent system in which patents are only issued for genuine inventions, we should introduce a Community patent relating to all areas and not just to computer-implemented inventions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples