Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-06-Speech-3-184"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050706.23.3-184"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I was among the small number of Members who voted against the motion to reject the proposal for a directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
Parliament had an opportunity to state its opinion on this proposal and to change its contents as it saw fit during the codecision procedure. By voting almost unanimously to reject it, the House is merely side-stepping a decision, which is hardly a responsible course of action.
The broad coalition comprises groups of Members with widely differing views. After a great deal of thought, I found myself unable to identify with any of them.
Members who are opposed to effective protection for intellectual property as such, or in other words those on the far left, voted against the directive, but I do not belong to their number.
Those casting ‘no’ votes also included Members who are opposed to a system for providing such protection at European level, or in other words the far right. I do not share their views either, as in many countries it costs a great deal of money to register inventions.
A number of Members voted against the directive because they believe that Parliament’s political influence on the legislative process should be extended. Their representatives can be found in every group, but I do not subscribe to their position either.
Finally, all those Members who believe that the proposal for a directive poses a threat to Poland’s national interests, or in other words Polish MEPs, voted against. Quite apart from the fact that unlimited opportunities are available to make amendments, this is a misguided assumption.
Whether patent protection is defined in a broad or narrow sense, it is conducive to private investment in innovation, and hence to the creation of jobs for research workers. The USA spends almost twice as much as Europe on such investment, and one of the main reasons why this is the case is the characteristically broad patent protection available in the USA. In spite of this, however, many speakers in this debate have held up the country as a bad example and a warning."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples