Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-16-Speech-5-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000616.4.5-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, having seen Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of designs, we are now being called upon to assess the proposed regulation and to decide whether to adopt it. Of course, the regulation follows the same line as the directive, and it therefore contains all the same strengths and weaknesses as the directive on such a contentious, competitive issue where there are a large number of interests at play. In the end, the directive did not deal with the issue of spare parts for the purpose of repair. I am referring to the famous repair clause, the spare parts clause: the complex, organic world of the automotive industry.
The committee took great care over its work – and I would especially like to thank its chairperson – although a more conservative, extremely cautious interpretation prevailed in the end, for we did not want to push the boat out too far, since the directive will be supplemented on the basis of three years’ monitoring of the use of spare parts for the purpose of repair. However, one of the strengths of the regulation lies in its definition of the Community right for products and designs and registered and unregistered products: the proposal to use the central Community trade mark office for design as well, offers an exclusive right to protected use at Community level, with some exceptions.
This is a step towards meeting the clear fundamental requirement of the single market and towards common rules on invalidity, surrender of rights and possibilities of use, particularly in two very important areas: novelty, which is connected to disclosure, and individuality of character, which is connected to creativity. These are two aspects of a fascinating world, which clearly requires protection, but also requires flexibility. This is why I insist, in particular, on a minimal package of amendments which, in the balance of protections between the Community right and copyright – I urge the European Parliament to give an up-to-date and, most importantly, realistic evaluation of the highly complex world of designs –will prevent the persistence of monopolies. I would therefore advocate that a ceiling of 25 years for the protection of registered design rights would be quite sufficient.
On the other hand, the directive is not open to subjective interpretation. The directive states that the Member States must be able to strike a balance between the Community right and copyright. I would point out that copyrights last for as long as 70 years in a number of States. Thus, if we were to add the 25 years to the 70 years, we would end up preventing the modification of a common product which often – and also, so to speak, by its very nature and taking into account novelty and creativity – cannot last very long, not beyond the lifetime of a human being, for example, and therefore a ceiling of 25 years would seem reasonable.
May I insist, therefore, that at least this type of adaptation to requirements is implemented and that the Community of Europe, the single market, is given access to a world which is so important, particularly for the SMEs where, in effect, the productivity of design and creativity – which for the European countries naturally represents a boost for jobs and employment – fits perfectly into this network of rights and freedoms.
I feel that, even with the limits and constraints which I have stressed, in order to give the Members a balanced view, this proposed regulation, which introduces a standardised system with standardised protection throughout Community territory can, in effect, be an important milestone in the construction of Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples