Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-08-Speech-3-342"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050608.24.3-342"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Gargani, for whom I am deputising, sends his apologies. He had to return to Italy on urgent family business. However, as we are very pressed here today, I shall not talk to you for eight minutes. I do not consider that this issue requires it. Allow me therefore to say a few words on the purpose of this issue.
We know full well that the 'market' at issue here is not of the same order of size as in other cases, but it is nonetheless of importance to the development of the European single market that we clarify this question, ensure there is reasonable transparency in this sector and perhaps also take initiatives in order to facilitate the cross-border use of copyrights. There are at last thoughts and activities in this direction also. We would be interested in hearing what the Commission intends to do about this.
A few months ago, we sat together under the coordinators of the Committee on Legal Affairs and decided that, as we are having problems – and I use the word advisedly – with a whole series of proposals for legislation in the field of intellectual property rights, it might perhaps make perfect sense if Parliament as a whole were to address this question once more and take this opportunity to discuss this once again with the Commission and – at a later date perhaps – with the Council.
There is no doubt whatever as to the crucial importance to the European economy of our introducing a permanent single patent in Europe. I recall our resolution on the Lisbon process. I recall the resolutions which we adopted on this and initiatives in previous years. We here always took the view – almost right across the political divide – that the European patent had a particular worth and is of crucial importance, including within the framework of the Lisbon process, if we are to be able to guarantee the competitiveness of the European economy with the economies of other regions of the world.
However, I will not conceal the fact that some of us – and I in particular – were very concerned at developments in the Council. We know that the Council is considering creating a patent which must be translated into all the official languages of the European Union; however, this is as yet unfeasible because unanimity is required and the consent of all the Member States has not been forthcoming. Such a patent would be extremely expensive. It would not be competitive, nor – if it came about – could it ever be converted back into a normal, proper patent. Everyone knows that English is the language that matters and plays an absolutely dominant role in technology and in the granting of patents and that translations into other languages are basically superfluous, achieve nothing and just cost money.
Once such a language regime has been created, there will be no getting away from it. That is the experience in the European Union and that is also the consequence of how legislation is usually passed here on such issues. Against this background, I am very concerned as to whether we can and will ultimately get a patent that really can meet the specifications that we have set, including within the framework of the Lisbon process.
In addition, there is the fact that such an expensive patent would ultimately discriminate against medium-sized businesses, because the few large companies which exist – and they will be not only European but also, above all, non-European companies – will register their patents throughout the Community under this new European patent, while small and medium-sized enterprises – and they account for 70% or more of all patent holders – will be unable to do so because of the costs involved and will have to rely on small, inferior, national patents and regulations under the European Patent Convention. This second-class society in patent legislation cannot be what we want in the European Union.
Given the
blockade in the Council and the risk that, if this blockade is lifted, an inferior patent, an inferior patent regulation will emerge, the question which arises is this: what does the Commission – which has the right of initiative and the monopoly on initiatives – propose in the way of possible new initiatives to kickstart this again and perhaps still attain the noble objective of the Lisbon resolutions up to the point at which we have a European patent.
The second issue which concerns us and which played a considerable role in the report at the time by a 'green' colleague, Mrs Mercedes Echerer from Austria, is the question of collecting societies. We in the Committee on Legal Affairs addressed collecting societies on various occasions in the previous legislative period, both within the framework of directives in which they played a role, and in the Echerer own initiative report. We came more or less unanimously to the conclusion that it is necessary, when acknowledging the role of collecting societies, both in the decision-making processes of these companies and in fee structures, to achieve an adequate degree of transparency both for the benefit of users and in the interests of the holders of the intellectual property rights.
We know that the Commission is considering this and has already carried out or is already carrying out a follow-up assessment with a view – and this was also announced in the Commission's legislative programme – to submitting a specific proposal for legislation during the course of this year. However, I now hear from the Commission that the question of whether there should be a recommendation or whether a directive is needed is still open. I would welcome information from the Commission as to what is happening."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples