Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief, keep to the time available and not repeat anything that has already been said. I will therefore begin by stating that I support, wholly and unequivocally, everything that has been said by the draftsman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard. My group and I support the thrust of this directive, just as Mrs Frahm has already said. You wanted to create legal certainty, and that is what we want as well, yet the Commission is wielding its rod against this directive’s opponents and critics. I almost heard a threat in your words, Commissioner Bolkestein! None of us here is talking about software patentability here, oh no! We are talking about computer-implemented inventions based on software. You claim, and I quote, that opponents of the directive – I repeat, critics of this directive – have mounted a very vocal and, at times, even personal campaign based on half-truths and misconceptions. In fact, what we tried to do was to avoid the massive lobbying and find some neutral and objective legal experts who could explain this very complex subject matter to us. However, there is one simple question to which I have not yet heard an answer from you. Even if only a tiny component within a solution – and after all, software does consist of a multitude of solutions – in a computer-implemented invention is patented, it is patented and I cannot use it freely. As Mr Manders has said, we are running up against the border between copyright and patentability. It is a difficult problem and I think that the proposals that have been devised in the opinions by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture are the basis for our decision-making. By ‘our’, I mean the critical members here in this committee who want to pursue the same approach as you, Commissioner Bolkestein, but who are perhaps going further and thinking it through. Possibly – as many legal experts have explained – this directive will not create any more legal certainty. It may close a few loopholes, but open up others. Let us be honest for once, ladies and gentlemen. We all know the reality of the market. We know how someone can use a patent as an instrument of market dominance and even as a weapon against his competitors, if he chooses to do so. We should think very carefully about how we can protect both investment and innovation here. We have a copyright directive dating from 1991; perhaps we should have revised it. Perhaps there are points that can be brought up to date in legal terms. If we had arrived at a conclusion based on the European Patent Convention in this matter, you would have my full support. Nonetheless, I think the proposed amendments make a contribution here. Last but not least, the European Patent Office and the unfair patents that may have been granted or that will be granted in future are primarily the responsibility of the signatory states. It is laudable that Europe is showing responsibility here, but taking the first step on the basis of the European Patent Convention would have been enough, and then we could have given the matter further thought.

Political group: Verts-ALE