Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.2.3-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
A patent is a tool designed to protect intelligence and encourage creativity by legally protecting a creation, in the strict sense of the word. Those who legislate in this area should do so with that principle in mind. In other words, patents should not be used to do exactly the opposite. Intelligence itself cannot be patented, nor can patents be used to stifle creativity, giving rise, in extreme cases, to ‘crimes of intelligence’ or ‘crimes of free creation’.
A patent must not be reduced to the status of a trophy for whoever gets to the competent authority first with an application for a particular patent. Rather, it should be a reward reserved for those who really have created something new, and an incentive to create more.
In contravention of the provisions of the European Patent Convention, this proposal for a directive allows for the patentability of ideas implemented by software programs to be authorised. That goes much further than the safeguards already provided by copyright, and would lead to the stagnation of ‘intelligences’ and the disastrous establishment of an obstacle to technological development
as well as to economic and social development.
The approval in plenary of a few amendments, some of which were proposed by me, enhanced the text a little, but not enough to gain my support. That is why I voted against it. Furthermore, I would rather the proposal had been rejected and the process started all over again on the basis of a fresh report, as I also proposed."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples