Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-09-Speech-3-223-750"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120509.21.3-223-750"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Our society has reached a stage where we have to think about the underlying philosophy of intellectual property protection. We are witnessing an increasing conflict between private and public interests. On the one hand, a patent, as a temporary monopoly, makes it possible to cover the costs of demanding research and development. Without patent protection, the risk to investors would increase so much that many inventions and improvements would never happen. Their authors would not be able to raise the necessary funding. On the other hand, we see that our patent protection is facing an ethical problem in sectors such as agriculture and health care: we see that the higher prices for patented plants or medicines prevent them from being distributed to places where they would make it possible to save millions of people from poverty, disease and death. This conflict is all the more complex for the fact that the private interest and the effort of the individual to achieve well-being through his own work – including intellectual work – is an integral component of public well-being. In other words, the well-being of society as a whole increases only when the well-being of its members increases. It seems to me that we are not yet ready to propose a fundamental reform to intellectual property protection, whether in terms of patents or copyright. We therefore have no choice but to proceed in small steps. One of these is to differentiate between traditional breeding and modern biotechnologies, as proposed by this Parliament."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples