Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-09-Speech-3-209-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-05-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Patenting of essential biological processes (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120509.21.3-209-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-05-09-Speech-3-210-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Philippe De Backer2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ECON (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2012-01-27--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2011-09-12--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten (2011-09-07--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee (2011-09-12--2014-06-30)3 substitute; EMPL (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2011-09-09--2014-06-30)3 member; TRAN (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the resolution before us concerns a highly technical debate, one in which we have to set to work in a well thought-out way and not rush anything. I, personally, have a background in biotechnology and understand that we need to strike the necessary balance between protecting intellectual property rights and providing the opportunity for breeders to develop new varieties and to protect them, too, with plant breeders’ rights. However, some of these debates have been brought to a head in this resolution. In the 1998 Patent Directive, plant and animal varieties, as well as essential biological processes, were excluded from patentability. There is, nonetheless, a lot of disagreement about the interpretation of this principle and, therefore, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office has concluded in its previous decisions that it is impossible to provide an unambiguous interpretation. We therefore need a more thorough and balanced debate. The fact that the Commission has indicated that it wants to come up with a new and transparent proposal is an important signal. After all, in this resolution, not only have traditional and conventional breeding methods and their products been excluded from patentability, but new technologies, such as marker-assisted selection and other innovative technologies, have been rendered unpatentable. This is a potential constraint on innovation in the European Union. Another problem is the broad exemption for plant breeders’ rights which has been proposed in the resolution. This breeders’ exemption is already included in plant breeders’ rights, but it is restricted by the concept of essentially derived varieties. Under patent law, too, this exemption exists in only a few countries and, even then, it is extremely restricted and intended only for the development of new plant varieties, and not for their commercialisation. The resolution takes absolutely no account of these facts. Amendments concerning stem cell research, too, are unacceptable to us and are unconnected with the rest of this resolution. The present resolution displays too many factual errors and steers the debate in a direction that is not where we want to go. We need to find a balance between protecting intellectual property, safeguarding and encouraging innovation, and providing the opportunity for breeders to develop new varieties. We, therefore, want to change some important points of the resolution and we cannot support it in its current form. Europe has driven out much of the plant biotechnology industry because of inappropriate and ideologically inspired regulation in the past. Let us not make the same mistake again with this resolution."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph