Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-11-Speech-2-418"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071211.42.2-418"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I am not an old hand who has been dealing with this matter for 17 years, but I am none the less delighted that this compromise worked out by the Committee on Legal Affairs – and our thanks are due to the rapporteur for that – will finally enable us to move into a new phase.
No one should underestimate how important it is to consumers whether there is a repair clause, for example, and it is also important whether or not consumers in some Member States remain at the mercy of the monopolistic policies of major manufacturers. It does actually seem that some companies are using high prices for spare parts to compensate themselves for the impact of fierce price competition and are then citing design protection to justify this policy. Naturally enough, many of the lobbyists who have made representations to us have no wish to be deprived of that option, but anyone who goes on to assert that we must save the motor industry by preserving the parts monopoly has failed to understand the economy in all its complexity. The motor industry whinges about the measures it has to implement to combat climate change, and it whinges about insufficient protection of its designs. I do believe, however, that innovative parts of that industry are not whinging but are getting on with their innovation. After all, it is only a matter of protecting designs, not patents. It is high time we learned to distinguish rather more sharply between the two.
The safety argument that was also advanced by the major manufacturers was ultimately refuted in the impact assessment, and it should also be noted that the European consumer bodies have delivered a favourable response to the present compromise. Now comes a new attempt to extend the grace period to eight years for countries where high levels of protection are currently in force. I appeal to you that five years is more than enough. I would not like to see this compromise package being unwrapped again. We Greens shall stand by this compromise, and I consider it very important and very desirable that the House as a whole should do likewise."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples