Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-11-Speech-2-425"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071211.42.2-425"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s proposal intends to allow companies other than manufacturers to produce spare parts, on the basis that this will reduce the price of parts and insurance. This is the idyllic presentation we have heard from the Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services.
There is nothing to show that there will be any real benefit to consumers. The countries that have already removed protection have not observed any obvious progress. The Commission’s own surveys confirm this, as our rapporteur Klaus-Heiner Lehne has just told us. Removal of intellectual property for designs and models in many industries, not just in the car industry, however, conflicts directly with EU economic and commercial strategy. This means opening the door to forgeries, and offering the chance to dangerous competitors such as China or India to embark on furious production of these items. This is the total opposite of the Lisbon Strategy which wanted to make intellectual property the weapon of competitiveness and innovation. We would certainly be giving our competitors the wrong message with this strategy, and it would be contrary to EU interests within the context of globalisation.
Ladies and gentlemen, this proposal is outdated. It is inspired by an ideological attitude which, in 2007, is precariously balanced, since we are now engaged in a crucial battle with new economic giants in order to ensure the survival of our industry. It is hardly the time to throw down our weapons. Commissioner Mandelson goes to Beijing to force the Chinese to respect intellectual property, while over here we are now calling this into question. This proposal ought to be simply abandoned as unrealistic and irresponsible. Now that we are debating the issue, we must behave as good legislators. That is why, at the very least, we lend our support to the rapporteur’s compromise and call on the House to vote for the amendment as signed by 53 Members for a transitional period of eight years."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples