Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.2.3-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
As rapporteur, I supported the thrust of amendments tabled with a view to getting a clearer definition of what is patentable and limits to ensure that pure software is not patentable.
It remains to be seen in the analysis of the votes whether this objective has been achieved. We await a common position from Council and Commission. This will be difficult to achieve as Parliament's amendments will inevitably be seen to go well beyond the legal situation as regards the patenting of computer-implemented inventions and may indeed put us at odds with our obligations under TRIPs.
I continue to express my concerns that this EU directive should not undermine the competitiveness and innovation of our brightest and best companies in Europe, in particular by putting EU business and industry at a disadvantage in the global marketplace.
It would be folly if our companies as a result of Parliament's amendments could not protect their innovation, enforce patents or gain a return on their R[amp]D investment. It would be contrary to our economic interests if we allowed the US and Japan to dominate markets as a result of their patent protection, while Europe's companies are squeezed out."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples