Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-025"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Patentability of computer-implemented inventions2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030923.2.2-025"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-23-Speech-2-0262
lpv:speaker	lp:Michel Rocard2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 chair; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, this directive and this debate are horrifyingly complex, and also doubly complex, in both legal and computing terms. The stakes, however, are extremely high: in economic terms, tens of billions of dollars, in philosophical terms, respect for human knowledge. Throughout the 6 000 years of our history, it is by means of copying that the enormous body of human knowledge has increased. The prerequisite was that access to the products of science, music, mathematics or of any other field should be free and without charge. Copyright compensates the author without calling these principles into question. When individuals use materials or harness natural forces, the costs change, the remuneration required is much higher, and patents make such remuneration possible by prohibiting the unremunerated use of the invention. A piece of software is nothing more than a collection of mathematical formulae; the creation of new software can use hundreds of pieces of existing software. Prohibiting or slowing down this creative development would constitute an attack on the dissemination of knowledge and nevertheless, in future, human knowledge will increasingly take the form of software. The 1972 Convention prohibits the patenting of any software but the needs of big business, which has taken advantage of the vagueness of definitions, have led to a surge in the number of such patents. The legal position of these thousands of patents is unclear and this is extremely dangerous for millions of individual creators or small businesses. You were right to want to put an end to this. We need a directive and your draft provides a good working basis, as you reiterated this morning. You were right to insist and to write that this is not about extending the scope of patentability, as you stated in some quite recent articles. We therefore support your motives, Commissioner, but as we have just heard, many of us, including my own group, consider that you have not followed your ideas through to their logical conclusion. You conclude your recent article by this admirable phrase which I applaud: ‘existing users of free software can continue to use this free of charge, regardless of future patents filed in this area’. Well done! This is what we want to hear. The technical provision of your directive, however, does not guarantee this freedom. We have, therefore, tabled amendments that make a distinction between an invention and a pure product of the human mind. The reference to materials and natural forces is not universally accepted and that is the subject of this debate. And yet this reference is the only one possible for preventing companies that are powerful enough to create and protect an enormous portfolio of patents from capturing an infinitely expanding amount of knowledge. When I read your words, Commissioner, I had the pleasure of thinking that you will agree with us and that you will thank us for having clarified your text."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph