Thank you very much Mr Chairman A first of all, I would like to thank you chairman when you refer to statements in this comitee, I'm sure that celebration of lawyers in this comitee very very high in all patent practise, I don't anyone of us being a patent lawyer or a computer programmer, we don't have that kind of innovator in this comitee so,·
then, and that brings all the difficuly. I really want to rapporter, Mr Rocard, that he was politician that he was enable to good make such good presentation about this very difficult subject, it was very precise, very concrete et very good base for our work in this comitee.
I think the problem majority in this house in the Parliament, know what we want from this.
The majority seems to be very clearly· we broadly the status quo in EPO and member states. Majority does not want to take step backward to 1970 where the Patent convention was written, and said that all software invention, all the innovations should be excluded from the scope of patentability. This is not the view of the majority in this Parliament.
But also, we have a very vocal majority which tries to challenge the whole patent system, and I think that this view is fundamentally wrong, like Mr Lehne said Patent are very much needed, for innovation to support competition of Europea and everything. so I think that is absolutely clear, especially in the EPP group, that this directive is not about philosophical behind the patent system, is is not about ownership right, intellectual property is important. it will be more important in the future, because software of a innovation.
The problem we have with this particular proposal, is that, actually, even we know what we want and we know what the majority was, we have different interpretations, ah if need in the parliament or first of all what the Commission what the Parliament in a first reading, and what the Commission position was really would be the effect of different combination of ?.
We have those who says that CP would bring any new
Then you have those who says that CP would be accepted, it would bring the US style to Europe
it would after 5 years, we would have a market creators who would have all the Intellectual Property in this field.
I don't think that these views are correct, but these are different views, different interpretations, and ?broadly, for politicians, for academics, for·
It is impossible today what will be the outcome of this legislation, that's done by caselaw
that's the only ?downmarker? directly where the part of the legislation is there, and in the 5 10 years we see what. But today I think that internal changes this fondamental diversion of interpretation. But we know what we·
intention is to broadly keep patent law.
Ah if we call to UNICE paper, Mr Lehne read UNICE paper.
I think this is also a wrong tactic from the European Industry that they take·
this is end of the war, end of the european industry. Because that's is not never and never been the view of the Parliament. Even though, even the vocal majority of radical patent reformists, also leftists or ??? who wants to challenge the whole patent system, they don't want that kind of radical reform that all let's say safety measure in ??? manufacturing or·
All of them that would be excluded. No one want it. So I think it's very very bad judgement from the European Industry (UNICE) to take a position like that and right to threaten legislators like "If you do any change to the Common Position, it will be ?? for the European Industry".
Eh ??? in the Comitee today. Oh then, if we look at the Common Position, it is very clear that the Council ah well judge in a very difficult time, in a very difficult situation, the Common Position was agreed just before the admission of 10 new member states and this teechnical issue, I'm unsure it won't unitmately "cast" for ? ou ?? in the ??. Ah also it ??, more generous this Parliament when comes to recitals. Actually, Common Position include lot of the recital formulation from the Parliament first reading. It seems that they know that they know that this depend of motivation and goals between the Parliament and the Council.
Because the Council exept Parliament point of·
In articles, they are very very weak. you look at the very important issue of interoperability, the Council...