Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-11-Speech-2-419"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071211.42.2-419"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to express my fundamental disagreement with the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of designs. My disagreement concerns the proposal as a whole, not just some minor problems with the Commission’s proposal. The proposal aims to deal with competition problems in the automotive industry by an unprecedented curtailment of the legal protection that industrial design rights afford to spare parts. Such an approach flies in the face not only of the Lisbon Strategy but also of the universally accepted and frequently evoked trend towards a greater protection of intellectual property rights, including their enforcement. It is a proven fact that there are no reasons, either economic or legal or with regard to employment, for restricting the rights of design right holders.
I should also like to point out the fact that every economy benefits from the monopoly allowed by the legal protection of designs as this promotes more growth. In addition, account should be taken of the principle that intellectual property rights, including design rights, can only be restricted under exceptional circumstances in matters of public interest, which is certainly note the case here. The negative consequences of this directive, if adopted, would be felt most strongly in the European automotive industry. There are ample arguments to suggest that liberalisation of the spare parts aftermarket as proposed by the Commission would actually harm the consumer by introducing low quality and dangerous parts into the market. If the so-called independent producers were to produce standard parts of high quality, thereby requiring advanced technology, such production would not be economically attractive to them.
The excessive nature of the proposed directive can be illustrated by the curious and incomprehensible opinion expressed by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, which on the one hand supports the proposal as a whole in the name of the sacred slogan of liberalisation of the internal aftermarket, while on the other it says that ‘the abolition of design protection is contrary to internationally recognised principles of intellectual property protection and would constitute a dangerous precedent for the protection of intellectual property rights in other areas as well at a time when the European Union has undertaken, in particular within the WTO, to press for the acceptance by third countries of a protection regime for intellectual property rights which would put an end to imitation and counterfeiting’. That really needs no further comment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples