Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-233"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.10.2-233"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for me the issue of which national courts are responsible for a European patent and when is not the vital question regarding this report. As I see it, what is far more important is the purpose of this draft and exactly what a patent system of this kind is intended to achieve.
This report and other planned changes to the EU patent system are intended to make patent applications more attractive by making the protection offered by the patent directly applicable in the EU and thus extending it.
A patent suggests that the patent holder has invented everything that he or she wishes to patent. However, as a rule the invention draws on all kinds of knowledge that people have developed beforehand, and which can only be used at no cost if this knowledge is not itself covered by a patent. This absurdity is particularly apparent when you consider the present attempts to make more and more software patentable. Even algorithms in computer programs would no longer be freely available. This would deprive all developers of the building blocks they need for any new computer program.
Supporters of the patent system often put forward the argument that patents would benefit invention ‘freaks’ who do not work for companies but who come up with their inventions either privately or at least with limited financial resources. A patent would protect these people from having companies use their inventions without paying any fee to the inventors and thus not paying them for their work.
The problem with this picture is quite simply that it does not match the reality of the patent world. In Germany at least, most patents are held by companies that are constantly extending their patents. Private individuals often cannot access the system because of the high patent fees involved. As the term ‘intellectual property’ implies, patenting simply means exploiting intangible things such as ideas, inventions and even discoveries. I am not interested here in the fact that the proponents of capitalism are shooting themselves in the foot if they really believe in their credo of innovation and competitiveness. I say that because my aim is free access to and exchange of information and knowledge and its further development.
That is precisely what is needed for a self-determined lifestyle and an emancipatory political approach. However, in contrast to all this, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi's report is aimed at treating an ever growing proportion of worldwide knowledge as goods that can generate profits for industry."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples