Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-09-Speech-3-211-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120509.21.3-211-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, if I have been informed correctly, I have been given an extra half a minute because one of our speakers has, unfortunately, not arrived. I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this resolution. These are not merely empty words; I mean them most sincerely. I regret the fact that the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has not been involved, but I think that it must also accept some of the responsibility for that itself. We requested a debate on this subject a few weeks ago. In the Conference of Presidents, the ALDE Group said that they did not want to discuss the matter. I then took the initiative myself, approached my fellow Members and suggested that we nevertheless talk about this together. If they refuse to cooperate to begin with – I do not know who in the group made the decision – then they cannot complain after the event. We now have to work with what we have on the table.
Patenting is important for innovation. That is something on which we should all agree. There need to be limits, however. Otherwise, innovation will be hampered if the claims go too far, and ethical limits must also be observed, of course. That was the request of the European Parliament when we adopted the directive in 1998. The directive is better than it is reputed to be; it merely needs to be implemented correctly. That applies to plants: Article 4 has been interpreted inconsistently by the European Patent Office. The resolution gives the correct guiding principle for interpreting Article 4.
It applies to other areas, too. It also needs to be clarified once again that deception should not be used in the patent application in order to be successful. Where plants and other biotechnological inventions are concerned, it is often the case that only certain steps in the technical procedure are specified rather than the entire procedure in an attempt to avoid potential exclusion from patentability as laid down in the directive. That has happened in relation to plants and also in connection with other patents, such as in the patenting of embryonic stem cells, concerning which the European Patent Office and the European Court of Justice had to take a decision just recently.
If the European Court of Justice and the European Patent Office implement the directive consistently here, then we should indeed commend them for that. That is the purpose of the amendment – to make it clear that someone cannot obtain a patent in an underhanded manner by deliberately leaving out certain information, but that the directive must be implemented consistently. In some cases, the European Patent Office has not done this. In other cases, however, it has done so. Therefore, we should not merely criticise, but also express praise where this correct approach has been followed."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples