Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-09-Speech-3-213-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120509.21.3-213-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased and grateful that we are having this debate on the important issue of patenting of plants and animals today and will also vote on it tomorrow, and I think the broad majority in this House should also dispel the doubts of those who still have them. This is quite simply an important subject that we should not postpone, as we really had a very long discussion process prior to this.
Patenting is important, as my fellow Member said, but there must also be limits. Let me make it clear at the beginning of my speech that a patent on life is unacceptable, and I also reject the patenting of conventionally bred farm animals and crops on principle. This is a clear limit that must not be exceeded.
The situation as it stands is that people are attempting to achieve precisely that by circumventing certain elements in the patenting of technical procedures. We could almost talk of a kind of gold digger mentality when there are several thousand applications that are simply attempting to do all of this. There is a need for action here, and I am pleased – and, in this regard, I do indeed agree with Mr Liese – that we are not only very quickly making it known that there is a need for an amendment to the law, but that we are, of course, also attempting to provide real support for the existing interpretation and for the European Patent Office where it is coming down on the correct side in terms of this interpretation. In other words, I am pleased that we are not only going in all guns blazing, to coin a phrase, but that we also want to intervene in a supportive way.
Thus, we need to be careful, because the diversity of our genetic engineering resources quite simply must not be reduced, and we must not withhold the use of these resources from the general public. With regard to agriculture in particular, it must be ensured that our genetic engineering resources remain available and agricultural production and breeding also continue to be possible.
In this regard, no one would dispute the fact that intellectual property must be adequately protected, but this should be done without restricting access to genetic engineering resources. Most importantly, however, we need to answer the question of how we should distinguish between a patentable technical procedure and a conventional breeding method. The decisive factor in this regard is that it should be a new product based on a new and innovative procedure. We must also rule out the possibility of someone at the same time indirectly including all identical products, genes or genetic engineering properties in the patent by patenting a technical procedure.
This balancing of interests is certainly not an easy task, but it is one that we should take on."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples