28. 7.86 Official Journal of the European Communities ^oC189^ 
1. The Committee welcomes the Commissions pro 
posalforalOirective concerning the ^iACBpacl^et family of 
standards for direct satellite television broadcasting. 
2. IntheCommittee^sviewgheAiACsystemswillmal^e 
ama^or contribution to European cooperation and enable 
the countries of Europe to become better acquainted with 
each othePs culture and social andpohtical systems. In 
addition, it is important for the economic development of 
Europe that the manufacturing industry should be 
stimulated by the new technical developments and that its 
sales prospects should be considerably enhanced asaresult. 
^. The ^dAC systems use new methods of electronic 
signal transmission and are much cheaper to operate than 
the systems employed previously. A greater volume of 
information can be transmitted than by the traditional 
methods.The ^dACsystems have been specially developed 
for direct broadcasting by satellite ^lO^S^ and are well 
suitedtoitslOl^S transmissioncharactenstics. The great 
advantage of these systems lies in the improvement of the 
picture quality and — thanks to the digital technique 
applied — in the improvement ofthe sound.The luminance 
and the colour signals are nolonger superimposed in the 
picture.It will also be possible to usealarger screen in the 
nottoo^distant future. In addition,the numberof sound 
channels will be increased and stereo reception quality will 
be assured. This means also that multiple sound channels 
will be available for the transmission of television 
programmes in different languages — something that will be extremely important for European cooperation and the 
better mutual understanding ofthe peoples ofEurope.This 
is particularly significant for direct broadcasting by 
satellite, where thereceptionareasdonotcomcide with 
national frontiers. 
^. In the Committee^sview,it is ofgreat importance for 
European cooperation thataumform system should now 
belaiddownfor satelhtereceptiontechnology, after we 
have had to contend with two different systems d^AE and 
SECA^for conventional television transmission. 
^. It is also an advantage that smaller and therefore 
cheaper satellite aerials can be used. It will be possible to 
progressively reduce thegap between the price of these 
aerials and the price ofconventional television aerials. This 
means that the potential audience for satellite programmes 
willbe considerably increased. The^dember States with 
high cable network densities must be able to benefit from 
the advantages of this solution, too. 
6. The Committee expects that viewers in the member 
States will be able, withtime, to adapt to thecommon 
technical specifications, they must, however, be offered 
reasonable interim solutions in the transitional phase. 
^. The Committee also expects that due account will be 
tal^en of the expertise of broadcasters and the manufacture 
ingindustry,m the committee to be set up under Articled 
oftheEOirective. 
ro^neat^russels,2^Apnll986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the legal protection of original topographies of semiconductor products 
(86/C 189/04) 
On 20 January 1986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the legal protection of original 
topographies of semiconductor products. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 2 April 1986 in the light of the draft 
opinion by Mr Noordwal (rapporteur). 
At its 236th plenary session of 23-24 April 1986 (meeting of 23 April 1986), the Committee 
adopted unanimously the following opinion. 
No C 189/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 7. 86 
The Committee fully supports the Commission's initiative 
to introduce a Directive on the legal protection of original 
topographies of semiconductor products. The Committee 
agrees largely with the proposed contents of the Directive 
but expects the Council and the Commission to take serious 
note of the comments below. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The functions of semiconductors depend largely on 
the topographies of such products, whose development 
requires investments in human, technical and financial 
terms. The Committee recognizes too the importance of the 
semiconductor industry. 
1.2. The imitation of such topography must be pre­
vented. A small minority of Member States have legal 
protection measures, while a large majority have no means 
of protection in law. The implementation of legal 
protection measures is therefore necessary. 
1.3. The completion of the internal market requires this 
to be done within a Community framework. The 
Committee therefore underlines the need for as harmonized 
an approach as possible in all the Member States. Once the 
Directive is adopted, Member States will have to pass 
implementing laws in this field; they should continue to 
consult each other on the drafting of their legislation under 
the aegis of the Commission, so as to avoid diverging 
solutions. 
1.4. The proposal restricts itself to certain basic 
principles (who and what will be protected, exclusive rights 
of protected persons, duration of exclusivity), leaving to 
national legislation the more detailed provision, necessary 
to implement these principles. The Committee agrees to 
this approach. 
1.5. The Commission proposal is also aimed at 
obtaining protection of Community topographies in the 
United States. The Committee can admit that differences 
between United States and Community terminology and 
implementation may subsist, provided however that 
reciprocity between the United States and the European 
Community is secured. Under the provisions of the United 
States legislation, protection of Community semiconductor 
products on the United States market will be jeopardized 
unless the EEC decides to act soon. The Committee 
therefore urges early adoption of the Directive by the 
Council at any rate before June 1986. It also calls on the 
Commission to undertake all the necessary steps to ensure 
maximum prolongation of interim protection in the United 
States. Member States should nonetheless complete the necessary legislative steps to comply with the Directive as 
soon as possible and at the latest by 1 October 1987. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 (definitions) 
2.1.1. The Committee agrees with the definitions 
proposed by the Commission. It is however to be remarked 
that in the definition l.c 'commercial exploitation', the 
terminology 'a semiconductor product manufactured by 
using the topography' seems not to cover all alternatives. 
The Committee proposes to use the phrase 'a semiconduc­
tor product being a reproduction of the topography'. 
2.1.2. As regards 'topography', the Committee would 
like to underline that this word is a more meaningful 
description of the technical character of the object in 
question than the United States term 'mask work' and the 
English word 'circuit layout' used in references to the 
Japanese legislation. 
2.2. Article 2 (protection of topographies) 
2.2.1. Because it is legally the most practicable ap­
proach, the Committee agrees with the Commission's 
proposal that the only acceptable criterion should be the 
'originality', and not the 'novelty'. This is the recom-
mendaton made for the Treaty proposed by the World 
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 
The Committee agrees with the Commission's proposal to 
avoid extending protection to products considered as being 
'trivialities' by introducing the term 'commonplace' in 
Article 2 (3). 
2.2.2. The Committee wishes the Directive to make 
more clear that not only the whole but also the original 
parts of an original topography deserve protection. 
2.3. Article 3 (beneficiaries of the protection) 
2.3.1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 
The Committee is of the opinion that paragraphs 1 and 2 
should be seriously reconsidered by the Commission and 
simplified. It proposes the following draft: 
'Protection shall apply in favour of persons — and their 
successors in title — who are the creators of the original 
topographies of semiconductor products and who are 
nationals of or residents in a Member State.' 
'However, resident firms or companies (as defined in 
Article 58 of the EEC Treaty) must have an effective and 
continuous link with the economy of the Member State.' 
28. 7. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 189/7 
2.3.2. Paragraph 3 
The Committee approves the Commission's draft and 
because an international treaty is not expected to be 
established very soon, requests the Council on proposal 
from the Commission to make protection available to third 
country persons only in circumstances where such third 
countries ensure reciprocity towards Community Member 
States. The Committee nonetheless hopes that an inter­
national solution will be found, that will make 'national 
treatment' feasible. This requires the Commission to 
participate actively, in cooperation with the Member 
States, in the WIPO talks. 
2.4. Article 4 (formalities) 
2.4.1. Paragraph 1 
The Committee is in general against compulory regist­
ration or deposition. However, the Committee agrees that 
there is no reason why, in particular for trade policy 
reasons (e.g. vis-a-vis the United States and Japan), it 
should be easier to obtain protection (i.e. without any 
formality) in the Member States than in other countries. 
Therefore the Committee agrees that at least some Member 
States opt for such formalities. It insists however that 
compulsory registration and deposit be cheap and simple. 
Rules governing registration and deposition should 
therefore not be more than is needed for the ordinary 
recognition of the protected topography. The Committee is 
concerned in particular that the additional requirement 
which Member States may insist on for deposition of 
'material identifying, describing or exemplifying the 
topography or any combination thereof should in no 
circumstances lead to disclosure to the public of inform­
ation considered by the depositor as confidential. Any obligation to provide a 'description' would, furthermore, 
be totally impossible to respect in practice. 
2.4.2. Paragraph 3 
Divergences within the Community which, inter alia could 
flow from differences in formalities introduced in one or 
another Member State should be prohibited. The Commit­
tee endorses the draft text and insists that in no 
circumstances should barriers to trade be permitted to 
result from additional cumbersome, onerous and time-
consuming administrative, technical or legal requirements. 
2.5. Articles 5.2 and 5.3 (So-called reverse engineering) 
The Committee agrees with the Commission's explanatory 
memorandum (paragraph 28) and believes that a recital 
could bring additional clarification to these paragraphs. 
The Committee agrees with the rule that a result of an act of 
reverse engineering, being an original topography in itself, 
is protectable in itself. 
2.6. Article 6 (length of protection) 
The Committee regards the automatic protection starting 
from the moment the topography is first fixed or encoded 
as important and considers a 10-year protection period as 
an adequate minimum. 
2.7. Article 8 (marking) 
The Committee agrees that a distinctive marking for a 
semiconductor product could be provided for on an 
optional basis by Member States. However it should not be 
laid down that the only permitted mark is a 'T'. The 
Committee prefers that room be left for manoeuvre 
towards an international accepted marking symbol, which 
preferably should be a 'T'. 
Done at Brussels, 23 April 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending, in view of the accession of the 
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, Directive 77/93/EEC on protective measures 
against the introduction into the Member States of harmful organisms of plants or plant 
products 
(86/C 189/05) 
On 24 January 1986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal.