Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-23-Speech-1-141"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2007-04-23"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Măsuri penale menite să asigure respectarea drepturilor de proprietate intelectuală (dezbatere)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070423.18.1-141"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-04-23-Speech-1-142⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Sharon Bowles⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. However, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in TRIPS, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified. Many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. However, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. I say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an MEP. There are amendments that attempt to address this problem. My own Amendment 31 restricts the scope to the TRIPS criteria – counterfeiting and piracy – or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. Amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. I can tell Mr Toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of Amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there. To the Commission, I say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. I am afraid it is too serious to settle with ‘there or thereabouts’ compromises. Therefore, I cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions I have mentioned."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)²³ substitute; JURI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)²³ member; ECON (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)²³ unknown; Liberal Democrat Party (2005-05-12--2009-07-13)²³ member; Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (2006-01-19--2007-06-19)²³ member; ALDE (2005-05-12--2009-07-13)²³
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. However, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in TRIPS, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified. Many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. However, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. I say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an MEP. There are amendments that attempt to address this problem. My own Amendment 31 restricts the scope to the TRIPS criteria – counterfeiting and piracy – or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. Amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. I can tell Mr Toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of Amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there. To the Commission, I say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. I am afraid it is too serious to settle with ‘there or thereabouts’ compromises. Therefore, I cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions I have mentioned."@cs¹ "Hr. formand! Jeg har forståelse for formålet med dette direktiv og det budskab, som De ønsker at sende til andre lande. En udvidelse af definitionen af strafbare handlinger, der er mere vidtrækkende end den, der er fastlagt i TRIPs-aftalen, og som går langt ud over varemærkeforfalskning og piratkopiering, er imidlertid at gå for langt, i hvert fald for indeværende, og den er ikke blevet begrundet af nogen af talerne. Mange af medlemmerne anerkender, at en krænkelse af et patent, der er blevet erklæret ugyldigt, er en normal kommerciel aktivitet. Dette gør sig imidlertid ikke kun gældende på patentområdet, idet det samme gør sig gældende inden for design og varemærker. Dette siger jeg på baggrund af mine 25 års erfaring som advokat inden for patent- og varemærkeret, inden jeg blev valgt ind i Parlamentet. Der er blevet stillet ændringsforslag med sigte på at løse dette problem. I mit eget ændringsforslag 31 begrænses anvendelsesområdet til TRIPs-kriterierne - piratkopiering og varemærkeforfalskning - eller til aktiviteter knyttet til organiseret kriminalitet, eller ud fra hensynet til sundhed og sikkerhed. I ændringsforslag 33 tages der højde for invaliditetsvurderingen. Jeg kan meddele hr. Toubon, at der vil blive afholdt særskilt afstemning om de enkelte dele i ændringsforslag 30, der er blevet stillet med et andet formål, end man måske umiddelbart skulle tro. Jeg vil gerne påpege over for Kommissionen, at dette spørgsmål er meget vigtigt, og at det derfor ikke må gå galt. Jeg er bange for, at vi ikke kan afgøre dette spørgsmål på grundlag af løse kompromiser. Jeg kan derfor ikke stemme for forslaget uden de restriktioner, som jeg har nævnt."@da² "Herr Präsident! Ich verstehe den Zweck dieser Richtlinie und die Botschaft, die Sie damit an andere Länder aussenden möchten. Wenn jedoch strafbare Handlungen über das hinausgehen, was im TRIPS-Übereinkommen vorgesehen ist, das heißt, deutlich über Nachahmungen und Produktpiraterie hinaus, dann gehen wir einen Schritt zu weit, zumindest zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt, und kein Redner hat sich dafür ausgesprochen. Viele Kolleginnen und Kollegen bestätigen, dass es sich bei der Verletzung eines Patents, das als ungültig bewertet wird, um eine normale kommerzielle Tätigkeit handelt. Das trifft jedoch nicht nur auf Patente zu. Das gilt auch für Gebrauchsmuster und Handelsmarken. Ich sage das als Anwältin, die mehr als 25 Jahre auf dem Gebiet des Patent- und Markenrechts gearbeitet hat, bevor sie Abgeordnete des Europäischen Parlaments wurde. Mit einigen Änderungsanträgen wird versucht, dieses Problem anzugehen. In meinem Änderungsantrag 31 beschränke ich den Geltungsbereich auf die TRIPS-Kriterien – Nachahmungen und Produktpiraterie – bzw. darauf, wenn es sich um organisierte Kriminalität oder eine Gefahr für Gesundheit und Sicherheit handelt. In Änderungsantrag 33 wird der Bewertung der Gültigkeit Rechnung getragen. Ich kann Herrn Toubon versichern, dass es getrennte Abstimmungen über die einzelnen Teile von Änderungsantrag 30 geben wird, der aus einem anderen Grund vorgelegt wurde, als es vielleicht den Anschein hat. Der Kommission möchte ich sagen, dass dieses Thema zu ernst ist, um etwas falsch zu machen. Ich befürchte, es ist zu ernst, um sich mit irgendwelchen Kompromissen zufrieden zu geben. Daher kann ich ohne die von mir erwähnten Einschränkungen nicht für den Vorschlag stimmen."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αντιλαμβάνομαι τον σκοπό αυτής της οδηγίας και το μήνυμα που επιθυμείτε να απευθύνετε στις άλλες χώρες. Εντούτοις, η επέκταση της εγκληματικότητας πέραν της προβλεπόμενης στις TRIPS, που εκτείνεται πολύ πέραν της απομίμησης και της πειρατείας, αποτελεί πολύ προχωρημένο βήμα, τουλάχιστον σε αυτό το στάδιο, το οποίο δεν έχει υπερασπιστεί κανένας ομιλητής. Πολλοί συνάδελφοι εκτιμούν ότι η παραβίαση ενός διπλώματος ευρεσιτεχνίας που έχει κηρυχθεί άκυρο αποτελεί συνήθη εμπορική δραστηριότητα. Εντούτοις, αυτό δεν ισχύει αποκλειστικά στα διπλώματα ευρεσιτεχνίας: εφαρμόζεται επίσης στα σχέδια και τα εμπορικά σήματα. Το λέω αυτό, διότι είχα διατελέσει επί 25 συναπτά έτη δικηγόρος σε θέματα διπλωμάτων ευρεσιτεχνίας και εμπορικών σημάτων, προτού εκλεγώ βουλευτής του ΕΚ. Υπάρχουν τροπολογίες οι οποίες επιχειρούν να αντιμετωπίσουν αυτό το πρόβλημα. Και η δική μου τροπολογία 31 περιορίζει το πεδίο εφαρμογής στα κριτήρια TRIPS –απομίμηση και πειρατεία– ή στις περιπτώσεις οργανωμένου εγκλήματος ή κινδύνου για την υγεία και την ασφάλεια. Στην τροπολογία 33, λαμβάνεται υπόψη η κήρυξη της ακυρότητας. Μπορώ να πω στον κ. Toubon ότι θα υπάρξουν χωριστές ψηφοφορίες για τα επιμέρους τμήματα της τροπολογίας 30, ο λόγος ύπαρξης της οποίας μοιάζει να διαφέρει από τον προβαλλόμενο ως λόγο ύπαρξής της. Στην Επιτροπή, δηλώνω ότι πρόκειται για ένα θέμα πολύ σοβαρό, στο οποίο, ως εκ τούτου, δεν πρέπει να γίνουν λάθη. Φοβάμαι ότι είναι πολύ σοβαρό να συμβιβάζεται κανείς με «σχεδόν» συμβιβαστικές λύσεις. Συνεπώς, δεν μπορώ να ψηφίσω την πρόταση χωρίς τους περιορισμούς που ανέφερα."@el¹⁰ "Señor Presidente, entiendo el propósito de esta Directiva y el mensaje que desea enviar a otros países. Sin embargo, la ampliación de la tipificación de delitos más allá de lo previsto en el Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC, es decir, más allá de la falsificación y la piratería, es ir demasiado lejos, al menos en estos momentos, y ningún orador lo ha justificado. Muchos colegas consideran que la violación de una patente que ha sido declarada inválida es una actividad comercial normal. Sin embargo, esto no es exclusivo de las patentes: también se aplica a los dibujos, modelos y marcas. He trabajado durante más de 25 años como agente de la propiedad industrial antes de ser diputada al Parlamento Europeo, de modo que sé de qué hablo. Hay enmiendas que intentan abordar este problema. La enmienda 31, que he presentado, restringe el ámbito de aplicación a los criterios del Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC –falsificación y piratería– o a los casos en que se trate de delincuencia organizada o exista un riesgo para la salud y la seguridad. La enmienda 33 tiene en cuenta la evaluación de la invalidez. Puedo decir al señor Toubon que habrá votaciones separadas para cada unas de las partes de la enmienda 30, que se ha presentado con un propósito distinto al que quizá parezca. A la Comisión le digo que se trata de una cuestión demasiado seria como para equivocarse. Me temo que es demasiado seria como para zanjarla con compromisos ambiguos. Por tanto, no puedo votar a favor de la propuesta sin las restricciones que he mencionado."@es²¹ "Mr President, I understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. However, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in TRIPS, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified. Many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. However, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. I say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an MEP. There are amendments that attempt to address this problem. My own Amendment 31 restricts the scope to the TRIPS criteria – counterfeiting and piracy – or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. Amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. I can tell Mr Toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of Amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there. To the Commission, I say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. I am afraid it is too serious to settle with ‘there or thereabouts’ compromises. Therefore, I cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions I have mentioned."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, ymmärrän tämän direktiivin tarkoituksen ja viestin, jonka haluatte lähettää muille maille. Rikosoikeudellisen rangaistavuuden laajentaminen TRIPS-sopimuksen soveltamisalan ulkopuolelle eli koskemaan merkittävässä määrin muutakin kuin väärentämistä ja laitonta valmistusta menee liian pitkälle ainakin tässä vaiheessa eikä kukaan puhuja ole pystynyt perustelemaan tällaista toimenpidettä. Monet kollegat katsovat, että mitättömäksi katsotun patentin loukkaaminen on tavanomaista kaupallista toimintaa. Tämä ei kuitenkaan koske ainoastaan patentteja vaan yhtä lailla malleja ja tavaramerkkejä. Totean tämän henkilönä, jolla on yli 25 vuoden kokemus patentti- ja tavaramerkkiasiamiehenä ennen Euroopan parlamentin jäseneksi tuloani. Osalla tarkistuksia pyritään ratkaisemaan tämä ongelma. Omalla tarkistuksellani 31 direktiivin soveltamisala rajataan TRIPS-kriteereihin – väärentämiseen ja tavaroiden laittomaan valmistukseen – tai tilanteeseen, jossa on kyse järjestäytyneestä rikollisuudesta tai vaarasta terveydelle tai turvallisuudelle. Tarkistuksessa 33 otetaan huomioon mitättömäksi katsominen. Voin kertoa jäsen Toubonille, että tarkistuksen 30 yksittäisistä osista pidetään erillinen äänestys. Tämän tarkistuksen tarkoitus ei ole se, minkä vuoksi ehkä näyttää siltä, että se on mukana. Komissiolle haluan sanoa, että tämä asia on niin vakava, ettei siinä pidä tehdä virheitä. Pelkään myös, että kyseessä on niin vakava asia, ettei sitä voida ratkaista "sinne päin olevilla" kompromisseilla. Tämän vuoksi en voi äänestää ehdotuksen puolesta ilman mainitsemiani rajoituksia."@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, je comprends l’objectif de cette directive et le message que vous entendez transmettre à d’autres pays. Cependant, étendre la notion de criminalité au-delà de celle envisagée dans l’accord ADPIC, et considérablement au-delà de la contrefaçon et de la piraterie, constitue une mesure excessive, du moins à ce stade, et une mesure qu’aucun orateur n’a justifiée. De nombreux collègues estiment que la contrefaçon d’un brevet déclaré non valide est une activité commerciale normale. Mais cela n’est pas spécifique aux brevets: cela vaut aussi pour les dessins, les modèles et les marques. Je peux l’affirmer en tant qu’avocate spécialiste des brevets et marques ayant accumulé une expérience de plus de 25 ans dans ce domaine avant de devenir députée au Parlement européen. Certains amendements tentent de résoudre ce problème. L’amendement 31, que j’ai moi-même déposé, vise à restreindre le champ d’application de la directive aux critères prévus par l’accord ADPIC - la contrefaçon et la piraterie - ou aux cas relevant de la criminalité organisée ou constituant une menace pour la santé et la sécurité. L’amendement 33 prend en considération l’appréciation de la non-validité. Je peux dire à M. Toubon qu’il y aura des votes séparés sur chacun des éléments de l’amendement 30, dont l’objectif est différent de ce qu’on pourrait croire. Je rappelle également à la Commission qu’il s’agit d’une question trop grave pour se permettre de se tromper. Je pense que le problème est trop sérieux pour être réglé par des compromis approximatifs. Par conséquent, je ne puis voter en faveur de la proposition sans les restrictions que je viens de mentionner."@fr⁸ "Mr President, I understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. However, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in TRIPS, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified. Many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. However, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. I say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an MEP. There are amendments that attempt to address this problem. My own Amendment 31 restricts the scope to the TRIPS criteria – counterfeiting and piracy – or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. Amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. I can tell Mr Toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of Amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there. To the Commission, I say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. I am afraid it is too serious to settle with ‘there or thereabouts’ compromises. Therefore, I cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions I have mentioned."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, comprendo lo scopo della direttiva e il messaggio che si intende lanciare agli altri paesi. Tuttavia, l’estensione dell’ambito penale al di là di quanto previsto dai TRIP, ossia molto oltre la contraffazione e la pirateria, è un passo troppo azzardato, perlomeno in questa fase, che nessuno degli intervenuti ha giustificato. Molti colleghi comprendono che la violazione di un brevetto che è giudicato non valido costituisce una normale attività commerciale. Tuttavia, non si tratta solo di un fenomeno che riguarda i brevetti: vale anche per i disegni e per i marchi. Posso affermarlo in virtù della venticinquennale esperienza che ho maturato come avvocato specializzato in marchi e brevetti prima di diventare deputata europea. Vi sono emendamenti volti ad affrontare questo problema. L’emendamento n. 31, che ho presentato, restringe il campo d’azione ai criteri TRIP – contraffazione e pirateria – o ai casi di criminalità organizzata o di rischio per la salute e la sicurezza. L’emendamento n. 33 tiene conto della valutazione di invalidità. Posso dire all’onorevole Toubon che si terranno votazioni separate sulle singole parti dell’emendamento n. 30, il quale ha uno scopo diverso rispetto a quando forse potrebbe sembrare. Rivolgendomi alla Commissione, mi preme affermare che la questione è troppo seria e non possiamo permetterci di sbagliare. Temo che sia troppo seria per risolverla con compromessi approssimativi. Pertanto non posso sostenere la proposta senza le restrizioni che ho indicato"@it¹² "Mr President, I understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. However, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in TRIPS, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified. Many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. However, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. I say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an MEP. There are amendments that attempt to address this problem. My own Amendment 31 restricts the scope to the TRIPS criteria – counterfeiting and piracy – or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. Amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. I can tell Mr Toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of Amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there. To the Commission, I say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. I am afraid it is too serious to settle with ‘there or thereabouts’ compromises. Therefore, I cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions I have mentioned."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, I understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. However, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in TRIPS, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified. Many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. However, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. I say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an MEP. There are amendments that attempt to address this problem. My own Amendment 31 restricts the scope to the TRIPS criteria – counterfeiting and piracy – or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. Amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. I can tell Mr Toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of Amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there. To the Commission, I say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. I am afraid it is too serious to settle with ‘there or thereabouts’ compromises. Therefore, I cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions I have mentioned."@lv¹³ "Mr President, I understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. However, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in TRIPS, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified. Many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. However, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. I say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an MEP. There are amendments that attempt to address this problem. My own Amendment 31 restricts the scope to the TRIPS criteria – counterfeiting and piracy – or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. Amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. I can tell Mr Toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of Amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there. To the Commission, I say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. I am afraid it is too serious to settle with ‘there or thereabouts’ compromises. Therefore, I cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions I have mentioned."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik begrijp wat het doel van deze richtlijn is en welk signaal u aan andere landen wilt geven. Maar door de strafbaarheid verder uit te breiden dan in de TRIP's-overeenkomst is vastgelegd, een uitbreiding die meer omvat dan namaak en piraterij, gaat u, althans in dit stadium, een stap te ver en neemt u een standpunt in dat geen enkele spreker heeft verdedigd. Veel collega’s achten de schending van een als ongeldig beoordeeld octrooi een gewone commerciële activiteit. Dit beperkt zich echter niet tot octrooien, het strekt zich ook uit tot ontwerpen en handelsmerken. Ik zeg dit als iemand die ruim 25 jaar lang als jurist heeft gewerkt op het gebied van het octrooi- en merkenrecht alvorens lid van dit Parlement te worden. In een aantal amendementen wordt getracht dit probleem te verhelpen. In mijn eigen amendement 31 beperk ik de reikwijdte tot de criteria zoals genoemd in de TRIP's-overeenkomst – namaak en piraterij – of tot die delicten waarbij sprake is van georganiseerde misdaad of waarbij de volksgezondheid en de veiligheid in het geding zijn. In amendement 33 wordt ingegaan op als ongeldig beoordeelde octrooien. Ik kan de heer Toubon zeggen dat er afzonderlijk gestemd zal worden over de individuele gedeelten van amendement 30, dat een ander doel dient dan misschien op het eerste gezicht lijkt. Tegen de Commissie zeg ik dat deze zaak te belangrijk is om fouten te maken en te belangrijk om er vage compromissen over te sluiten. Daarom kan ik niet voor het voorstel stemmen zonder de restricties die ik heb genoemd."@nl³ "Mr President, I understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. However, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in TRIPS, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified. Many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. However, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. I say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an MEP. There are amendments that attempt to address this problem. My own Amendment 31 restricts the scope to the TRIPS criteria – counterfeiting and piracy – or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. Amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. I can tell Mr Toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of Amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there. To the Commission, I say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. I am afraid it is too serious to settle with ‘there or thereabouts’ compromises. Therefore, I cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions I have mentioned."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, compreendo o propósito subjacente a esta directiva e a mensagem que se pretende transmitir a outros países. Todavia, estender a criminalização para lá do previsto no “Acordo ADPIC”, isto é, significativamente para lá da contrafacção e da pirataria, é ir um passo além do razoável, pelo menos na actual fase, passo que nenhum orador foi capaz de justificar. Muitos colegas consideram que a violação de uma patente para o efeito de demonstrar a respectiva falta de validade representa uma actividade comercial normal. No entanto, isso não é exclusivo das patentes: aplica-se igualmente aos desenhos e marcas. Digo-o enquanto pessoa que, antes de se tornar deputada ao PE, se dedicou como advogada ao direito da propriedade intelectual durante mais de 25 anos. Há alterações que visam abordar este problema. A alteração 31, da minha lavra, restringe o âmbito de aplicação aos critérios do ADPIC – contrafacção e pirataria – e aos casos que envolvam criminalidade organizada ou um risco para a saúde e a segurança. A alteração 33 leva em linha de conta o juízo de não validade. Posso informar o senhor deputado Toubon de que as diversas partes da alteração 30, cuja razão de ser não é a que, porventura, parecerá, serão objecto de votação separada. À Comissão, digo que esta questão é demasiado séria para nos podermos permitir erros. Receio que seja demasiado séria para se compadecer com soluções de compromisso do tipo "mais coisa, menos coisa". Portanto, não posso votar a favor da proposta sem as ressalvas que mencionei."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, I understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. However, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in TRIPS, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified. Many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. However, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. I say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an MEP. There are amendments that attempt to address this problem. My own Amendment 31 restricts the scope to the TRIPS criteria – counterfeiting and piracy – or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. Amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. I can tell Mr Toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of Amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there. To the Commission, I say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. I am afraid it is too serious to settle with ‘there or thereabouts’ compromises. Therefore, I cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions I have mentioned."@ro¹⁸ "Mr President, I understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. However, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in TRIPS, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified. Many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. However, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. I say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an MEP. There are amendments that attempt to address this problem. My own Amendment 31 restricts the scope to the TRIPS criteria – counterfeiting and piracy – or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. Amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. I can tell Mr Toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of Amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there. To the Commission, I say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. I am afraid it is too serious to settle with ‘there or thereabouts’ compromises. Therefore, I cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions I have mentioned."@sk¹⁹ "Mr President, I understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. However, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in TRIPS, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified. Many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. However, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. I say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an MEP. There are amendments that attempt to address this problem. My own Amendment 31 restricts the scope to the TRIPS criteria – counterfeiting and piracy – or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. Amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. I can tell Mr Toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of Amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there. To the Commission, I say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. I am afraid it is too serious to settle with ‘there or thereabouts’ compromises. Therefore, I cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions I have mentioned."@sl²⁰ "Herr talman! Jag förstår syftet med detta direktiv och det budskap ni vill förmedla till andra länder. Men att utvidga brott till annat än det som avsågs i Tripsavtalet (handelsrelaterade aspekter på immateriella rättigheter), det vill säga annat än varumärkesförfalskning och pirattillverkning, är att gå ett steg för långt, åtminstone i detta läge, och är inte något som någon talare har motiverat. Många av mina kolleger inser att intrång mot ett patent som har bedömts ogiltigt är normal kommersiell verksamhet. Detta är dock inte unikt för patent. Det gäller design och varumärken också. Jag säger detta med över 25 års erfarenhet som patent- och varumärkesadvokat innan jag blev parlamentsledamot. Det finns ändringsförslag där man försöker ta itu med detta problem. I mitt eget ändringsförslag 31 begränsas omfattningen till kriterierna i Tripsavtalet – varumärkesförfalskning och pirattillverkning – eller till förekomst av organiserad brottslighet eller hälso- och säkerhetsrisker. I ändringsförslag 33 tas bedömningen av ogiltighet upp. Jag kan tala om för Jacques Toubon att det kommer att bli separata omröstningar om de enskilda delarna i ändringsförslag 30, som har tagits fram av en annan anledning än det kanske verkar. Till kommissionen säger jag att detta är en alltför allvarlig fråga för att begå misstag. Jag är rädd för att det är en alldeles för allvarlig fråga för att vi ska nöja oss med ungefärliga kompromisser. Därför kan jag inte rösta för förslaget utan de förbehåll som jag har nämnt."@sv²²
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Sharon Bowles (ALDE ). –"^{18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4}