Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.2.2-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, in all my time on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, this is the first time that I can recall that one of our major directives has received such prominence in the Parliamentary agenda. I hope that trend will continue. In fact the report was called so early that I was not here on time, and I apologise to both the Commissioner and the rapporteur for not being here to hear their speeches.
I have listened with interest to what Members have had to say and at this stage in the debate I would like to reflect on what this report is really all about. We have an objective to create the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-driven economy in the world. Patents are an indispensable part of that. I want to remind all of you here, and everyone listening to this debate, that there are hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people across the European Union working on inventions that have been protected by patents. That patentability has stimulated investment to develop those inventions into products that the world wants to buy. What we are talking about here is a regime that is legitimately going to encourage invention in all fields.
Part of the problem we have had in dealing with this is that a lot of the issues that have been raised have come from one particular direction of creativity: writing elements of computer programs. Actually, patents are about protecting a genuine invention, a new way of doing something, something that is - as this directive says - susceptible of industrial application. I would like to remind colleagues that when you apply for and are granted a patent it does not have to include all the details.
In today's world almost every technical and industrial innovation requires some form of computer-aided activity. Why should we deny protection to people who are working on inventions in that field? The Commission has made a persuasive case, supported by a lot of research, that we need a consistent framework so as to ensure that people know that they can get patents for these types of invention. They will also know that they cannot get patents for trivial business process inventions that should not under any circumstances be patented, and will be discouraged from applying for them.
We know this is difficult to do, which is why we have argued about the wording. That is why Mrs McCarthy has done such a good job as rapporteur on this directive. She has consistently seen the importance of this in a knowledge-driven economy and has led us in looking at ways of improving and making this work better. She has not allowed herself to be diverted by all the noise around her.
I hope that you will support this directive, and that you will support the thrust of the Legal Affairs Committee's amendments. There will be some other amendments but I hope you will resist some of the complicated and abstruse concepts that have been put forward by some people which will make an inventor's life far harder. It is invention and creativity that we are here to support and nothing else."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples