Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-06-Speech-3-182"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050706.23.3-182"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The question underpinning this report, and the resolution to which it relates, is that of determining the limits of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
The most common form of software protection in Europe, as we know, has thus far been based on implementing author/copyright arrangements. The proposed method will bring us into line with the US, which does not strike me as either beneficial or capable of sharpening the focus of the market in any way whatsoever. Rather, it will serve to exacerbate difficulties for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are in fact responsible for most of the innovations and account for 70% of the jobs in the sector.
In the parliamentary process, it has become clear that the large European businesses have sought to guarantee exclusive use of programs for computer-implemented inventions, and this is at variance with the provisions of the Munich Convention and the case law of the European Patent Office. As the report correctly points out, ‘a piece of software is no more patentable than a musical chord or a combination of words. As a group of related mathematical formulae, it is a product of the human mind in the realm of ideas. And the free movement of ideas is a founding principle of our civilisation’. This is also my opinion."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples