Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-029"

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	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030923.2.2-029"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-23-Speech-2-0302
lpv:speaker	lp:Pernille Frahm2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-06--2004-04-30)3 unknown; Socialistisk Folkeparti (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to thank the rapporteur for the huge amount of work she has done. It does sound as if we, in actual fact, all have the same intentions. I should like to praise the Commission, and also the rapporteur, for having emphasised what the intentions are, namely to create still more development and still more investment in small- and medium-sized enterprises in this area. What is odd is the simple fact that small and medium-sized enterprises are not pleased with this directive when those are what the intentions are. Why are they not shouting with joy and, upon being consulted, using their answers to praise the proposal for a directive? Why are small and medium-sized enterprises not demanding that we implement this directive in one go? Why are all the software industry’s innovators not demanding that we introduce this directive at breakneck speed? Why are they doing almost the opposite? That should, I think, in any case give rise to a certain amount of doubt as to whether we are in actual fact doing what we say we are doing. The ostensible purpose of the directive is to ensure that rights can be enforced. Being able, however, to enforce rights in this area or, perhaps, to protect oneself against others’ maintaining that their own rights are being violated is so expensive that it is transparently obvious to small and medium-sized enterprises that this is not a method of progress for them. Legal cases of this type cost approximately one million euros and are not the kind of thing that small and medium-sized enterprises can get directly involved in. We say that we shall not extend the existing provisions. That, I think, sounds wise, especially since the European Patent Convention does emphasise that software cannot be patented. Let us, therefore, stick with that. We are not in fact without rights now. We have a legal basis in the form of the European Patent Convention. The fact is, moreover, that the European Patent Office has extended the scope of its activities slowly and gradually. If we were now to respond by legalising that extension, we should in fact be heading in the wrong direction. We should then be heading in a direction in which it was more and more usual to demand patents on software, but not on pure software. My question is therefore: how pure must software be before it is pure? That is a question I have been in no position to obtain a clear answer to. Moreover, it is perhaps precisely such questions that should be clarified before we take definitive action in this area. I very much want to invite reflection. I very much want to recommend that we allow doubts to be heard and that we listen to what the small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe have to say in this area."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph