Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-060"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-07-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Patentability of computer-implemented inventions2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050705.6.2-060"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-07-05-Speech-2-0612
lpv:speaker	lp:Tadeusz Zwiefka2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; JURI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2005-03-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (2005-03-31--2007-03-13)3 unknown; Platforma Obywatelska (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee (2005-03-31--2006-12-31)3 substitute; EMPL (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the basic duty incumbent upon EU institutions during the legislative process is to enact good, easy-to-understand and effective legislation. I do not need to remind the House of the number of times we have already heard assurances from both the President of the Commission and the representatives of the individual presidencies that this will be the case, and that Parliament is undoubtedly an important part of this process. Today’s debate marks the end of our work on a directive that is unfortunately an example of an entirely different approach. Both the Commission and the Council believe that their drafts are the only ones that are worth anything, and they have both rejected proposals by Members of this House. I would like to believe that things will change this time, and that priority will be given to the interests of millions of EU citizens and of small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. The latter provide jobs for 90% of workers, and this is something that should doubtless not be forgotten. It is for this reason that we cannot concentrate only on the interests of large and wealthy companies. The most serious doubts relate to the lack of any clear distinction between an invention, or in other words a patentable technical solution, and a computer program or an algorithm, be it a calculation method, a mathematical concept or a method of conducting economic activities, especially with regard to the retail trade. In view of this fact, the point of this harmonisation is highly dubious, to say the least. It is an unfortunate fact that the clause ruling out the patenting of computer programs as such will be nothing but an illusion, as is the case with the current practices of the European Patent Office. At the same time, the Commissioner informed us in his speech at the start of today's debate that this directive would not mean any changes in the EPO’s practices, which is an alarming statement. There can be no doubt that there is an urgent need for the harmonisation of patent law, among other things with regard to inventions made using computers. An essential prerequisite for such legislation, however, is that it is good, and good for everyone. Without the amendments of Mr Rocard and Mr Buzek, the directive will reinforce the overly liberal approach to the basic aspects defining the concept of an invention, as well as sanctioning this approach. I would therefore call on the House to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by Mr Buzek and Mr Rocard."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph