Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-240"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.10.2-240"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we should not allow the Community patent to pass as a wasted opportunity. Everyone is calling for it, but no one has managed to finalise it. There are two dates which stand out from all this to-ing and fro-ing: 1975 and 1989 and in the meantime, there have been many unsuccessful attempts to finalise this issue.
The Heads of State and Government made the Community patent a priority at Lisbon and it was due to come into being before the end of 2001. The Feira, Stockholm and Gothenburg European Councils reiterated that there is an urgent need for it. So what is the current situation? The Council did not reach an agreement and Parliament, through its Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which was essentially responsible for this matter, proposed a political compromise which I welcome, Mrs de Palacio, but which I feel does not truly meet the expectations of future users, as it does not improve the existing system to any great extent.
Manufacturers and inventors are calling for the cost of the patent to be reduced, so that the patent can be competitive. They also want the respect of legal certainty to be guaranteed with the greatest fairness possible. The European Commission’s proposal is a pragmatic response to these aspirations, focusing on reducing costs. This can be achieved, firstly, by using the language regime of three working languages of the European Patent Office, which, since it guarantees the threshold of international competitiveness, meets our specific linguistic needs. Secondly, by recognising the important role played by the national patent offices in providing specific information and technical assistance to inventors and SMEs. And, lastly, by using a legal system that guarantees single jurisdiction by establishing a Community court for intellectual property.
These three fundamental points have attracted the support of those working in the profession. They are the ones waiting for the patent. We must not risk creating a Community patent that they would not use because it is too distant from their concerns. This is the message that we must send to the Council with our vote tomorrow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples