Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-14-Speech-1-108-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110214.14.1-108-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to conclude with three observations: Commissioner Barnier has already indicated that the principle of enhanced cooperation was specifically established to overcome obstacles in the area of unanimity. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, unanimity is the absolute exception. In other words, we only require it in a very small number of cases, This is precisely why the procedure for enhanced cooperation was established.
While we are on the subject of language: language is not the issue at stake today. Let me repeat clearly: the issue under debate today is solely the procedure. However, let me point out that we already discussed the fact that one language is more cost-effective than three in relation to the Palacio report. However, as has already been indicated, we are dealing with the European Patent Convention (EPC) here. The European Patent Office works in the languages agreed in the EPC. A change in this regime would necessarily mean making a change to the EPC. However, the EPC cannot be changed by the Member States of the European Union acting unilaterally because the EPC includes all European countries, with the exception, I believe, of Malta. All of these countries, including Switzerland, for example, would have to agree to the change. If we cannot reach an agreement between the 27 Member States of the EU, how can we hope to find common ground between the 39 countries in the EPC? If we go down this route, then the entire issue will simply be put on the long finger indefinitely. However, we will have to discuss this question when we come to consider the material proposal from the Commission.
Incidentally, the legal services of all three institutions have expressly confirmed that enhanced cooperation is an option.
Perhaps I might add another comment on the subject of language: practitioners find it hard to understand the political battle being waged here. That is because the practitioners – by which I mean those who register patents – in fact only operate in a single language as they carry out their research work. Accordingly, this dispute over the principle of language is something those involved find difficult to comprehend.
I would like to conclude with some remarks on discrimination: if I have understood correctly – and I am certain that I have – this new European patent is open to all enterprises and all inventors, including those from countries that are not party to the enhanced cooperation, in other words, to every country in the world. This is absolutely self-evident.
There is no disadvantage to those states that do not participate in enhanced cooperation. The European Patent Convention will continue to apply for them. In other words, if I wish to pursue a package of patents in these countries, then I must have these translated.
I have one final comment on the language dispute: there is nothing to stop anyone having all of these patents translated into all 23 official languages. If a Member State considers its language so important that all patents need to be translated into its language, then it should simply set the process in motion. However, this should not be at the expense of the patent holders, whose innovations help our economy to develop. Instead, the principle should be: he who pays the piper calls the tune. It is then up to the relevant states and their taxpayers to pay for this.
If any Member State considers its language so important that it should be used for every patent applicable in Europe, then it needs to take a consistent line and have a legally binding translation of these patents produced in the relevant language. However, it should also pay for this itself. That is my final point, which I hope will help to clarify this discussion."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples