Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-28-Speech-4-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060928.24.4-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I have listened carefully to the debate this afternoon. We all agree that the situation is not perfect and we all know that there are different views as to the right solutions. I am convinced that in an ideal world the Community patent
the solution, but in the real world there is no prospect of agreement on the Community patent in the near future.
So should I sit around doing nothing, just waiting for something to turn up? Well, that would certainly be an easy way out, but it would also be grossly irresponsible, because nothing will happen unless we take the initiative.
The consultation delivered some clear and important messages. There is an overwhelming desire for a patent system that is simpler and more cost-effective and maintains the highest standards in the quality of its examination and grant procedures.
All the stakeholders went to great lengths to convey their views to us. Now, quite rightly, they expect action. And I agree. I believe the time has come to make a concerted push to improve the patent system in Europe. As policymakers and regulators, it is our duty.
Currently, we are at a standstill. We have to take the first most difficult step in one direction or another. There
no perfect solution. No single element will provide all the answers. We need to combine different instruments to meet the different needs of different stakeholders. As I said in my introductory remarks, the Community patent and the EPLA are not mutually exclusive initiatives; indeed, our aim should be to ensure that they converge. In both cases our goal is the same: a better, cheaper, more reliable patent system.
I am not blind to the potential drawbacks and dangers of the EPLA. But we have a better chance of getting the right outcome for Europe’s business if we actively engage in the negotiation of the agreement.
The patent strategy now contains more than just our future plans for a Community patent and EPLA. There is a whole range of framing and supporting measures that we need to consider, most of them directed at smaller companies. Our objective is to produce a system that meets the needs of all stakeholders at all levels – national, European and Community –and provides a fair balance between the diverse interests involved.
I would like to make one final point. As a politician for 30 years now, I am not easily surprised. But this week I have been mildly surprised. I was mildly surprised that the outline for our future strategy, which I set out in a speech in Helsinki some weeks ago, has been used by some to make assertions that the Commission wishes to bring the computer-implemented inventions question back on to the agenda. Now I am used to hearing strong arguments and to links being made, but this one leaves me quite perplexed. I have stated before this House on various occasions that as long as I am Commissioner for the Single Market and Services the Commission will
present
initiative and will not carry out any work on this. Some might like that, others might disapprove. But this Parliament rejected the common position last year. I respect and accept that decision and will do absolutely nothing to turn it around.
Let me reassure you that I am a man of my word. When drawing conclusions from the consultation exercise, computer-implemented inventions were not in any way on my mind. That will remain so for the rest of my mandate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"is"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples