Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-046"

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	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030923.2.2-046"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-23-Speech-2-0472
lpv:speaker	lp:Marcelino Oreja Arburúa2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-09-23--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (2002-07-23--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-09-19--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partido Popular (2002-07-23--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2002-11-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs McCarthy, and the rapporteur from our group, Mr Wuermeling, for the effort they have made to reach a consensus and, in the case of Mr Wuermeling, to explain the complicated proposal within our group. The protection of computer-implemented inventions by means of patents is not a new problem and it must be made clear, as other Members have said in this House, that there is no intention to establish rules allowing computer programs to be patented, but to extend the classic doctrine of patents to computer-implemented inventions. We want to apply the existing arrangements for patents to computer-implemented inventions. It is clear that we must expressly exclude, as certain amendments do, the patentability of inventions solely because they use a computer. With regard to the scope, I would like to focus on a very specific aspect: that of interoperability. Interoperability and communication between programmes should be excluded from the scope of this Directive. This aspect should be reviewed in a few years time. The exclusive use which the law allows holders of patents obliges the holder to explain their invention so that it may be comprehensible to an average expert in the field. I believe that in this case as well we must stress this aspect and oblige the person applying for a patent to sufficiently explain the object of that patent, though perhaps not until the publication of the source code, as Mr Harbour has said. That would be excessive. As I have said, it is especially important in this field to oblige applicants to describe their invention. Finally, many people have criticised this proposal and have said that it may harm small- and medium-sized businesses. However, what we are doing is applying traditional patent law to small- and medium-sized businesses, in the knowledge that patents have increased growth and have made it possible for all types of companies - including small ones – to carry out research and invest in new developments. We are competing today in a globalised market in which the United States and Japan develop many patents and inventions. We cannot be left behind and we must regulate here in Europe as well the possibility of registering computer-implemented inventions as patents."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph