natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In to je vsa težava: katero obliko zaščite izbrati, katero stopnjo računalniško izvedenega izuma (izvorno kodo, programsko opremo ali samo končni izdelek) zavarovati s to zaščito?
And herein lies the problem: which form of protection should one choose, and what stage of the computer-implemented invention (source code, software or just the final product) should be covered?
V državah članicah EU in v večini drugih držav obstaja pravilo, po katerem programske opreme kot take (ki je namenjena za industrijsko uporabo in ne predstavlja tehničnega prispevka) ni mogoče patentirati.
In the Member States of the EU, as in most other countries, there is a rule whereby software as such (not geared to an industrial application and not constituting a technical contribution to it) is not patentable.
Upravičena je, tako kot literarna dela, do zaščite z avtorsko pravico.
It benefits from protection through copyright, just like a literary work.
Vendar v praksi vsaka država na svoj način obravnava to vprašanje in ima svoj poseben sistem patentiranja.
But in practice every State has its own way of looking at the question and its own specific patenting system.
Obstajajo različni načini registracije patenta in celo različne opredelitve o tem, kaj je mogoče patentirati in česa ne.
There can be different ways of registering a patent, and even different definitions of what is patentable and what is not.
Danes v Evropi patent lahko izdajo nacionalni uradi in Evropski patentni urad (ki ni organ EU).
In Europe today, a patent can be issued by the national offices and by the European Patent Office (which is not an EU body).
Prvi cilj direktive, ki jo je predlagala Evropska komisija, je uskladitev nacionalnih sistemov patentiranja inovacij, ki za svojo izvedbo potrebujejo posebno programsko opremo.
The first objective of the Directive proposed by the European Commission was to harmonise national systems for patenting innovations which require specific software for their creation.
Po mnenju Komisije torej ne gre za spreminjanje česar koli, ampak za podporo obstoječe prakse.
Hence it was not a matter of changing anything, according to the Commission, but of supporting existing practice.
Problem se pojavi, ker so obstoječe prakse v resnici nezdružljive.
However, the problem lies precisely in the fact that existing practices are disparate.
To je začaran krog.
That is the vicious circle.
Odločitev Parlamenta o preprečitvi direktive z zavrnitvijo skupnega predloga držav članic pomeni, da predlagana rešitev za poslance ni bila sprejemljiva.
Parliament’s decision to bury the Directive, by rejecting the Member States’ common position, means that the proposed solution was not acceptable to MEPs.
Izzivi spora
The stakes in the battle
Ali je pravilo, po katerem „čiste“ programske opreme ni mogoče patentirati, ogroženo?
Would the rule by which ‘pure’ software is not patentable be threatened?
Na videz ne, ker mora evropska patentna konvencija, imenovana Münchenska konvencija, ki jo je ratificiralo okrog dvajset evropskih držav, zagotoviti njegov obstoj.
Apparently not, since the European Patent Convention, known as the Munich Convention, ratified by some 20 European countries, should guarantee its permanence.
Toda razlage tega besedila so v njem našle luknjo in več kot 30.000 programskih patentov je bilo že predloženih Evropskemu patentnemu uradu.
But interpretations of this text have opened up a breach and over 30 000 software patents have already been issued by the European Patent Office.
Ta težnja je še bolj opazna v Združenih državah in na Japonskem pa tudi nekateri nacionalni uradi v EU se nagibajo v to smer.
This trend is even more marked in the United States and Japan, and certain national offices in the EU are leaning in the same direction.
Toda zakaj ne, se sprašujejo nekateri.
Some will ask: why not?
Težava ni samo pravna.
The problem is not merely legal.
Obstajajo gospodarske posledice in po mnenju nasprotnikov patentiranja programske opreme tudi politične.
There are economic implications and, according to opponents of patented software, political ones as well.
Obe strani se strinjata o eni stvari: Evropa potrebuje več inovacij.
The two camps agree on one point: Europe needs more innovation.
Tako pravi lizbonska strategija, potreba po soočanju z ameriško in japonsko konkurenco na globalnem trgu pa je očitna.
The Lisbon strategy says so, and the need to face up to American and Japanese competition on the globalised market is obvious.
Nekateri, vključno z velikimi multinacionalkami, menijo, da patenti pozitivno vplivajo na inovacije.
According to some, including major multinationals, innovation benefits from patents.
Raziskave in razvoj so drage in patent zagotovi pravičen dobiček za tiste, ki so odgovorni za to.
Research and development is expensive, and patents ensure a just return for those who undertake it.
S patentom si izumitelj zagotovi monopol nad izumom in določeno obdobje morajo vsi, ki ga želijo uporabiti, zanj plačati.
By patenting his invention the inventor enjoys a monopoly over it and, for a certain period, anyone wanting to use it has to pay him.
To je logično.
That seems logical.
Le da programski patenti ne spadajo med ostale patente.
However, the software patent does not come under the same umbrella as other patents.
Ker je programska oprema obravnavana kot razumsko delo, je zaščitena z avtorsko pravico, tako kot romani ali slike.
As a work of the human mind, software is protected by copyright just like a novel or a painting by a great master.
Torej je do zaščite upravičen izraz zamisli in ne besede, ki so bile uporabljene za nastanek besedila ali intelektualni proces, s katerim je pod nadzorom avtorja nastal roman.
Hence it is the expression of the idea which benefits from protection, and not the words used in writing the text or indeed the intellectual process which has resulted, through the author’s hand, in the novel.
Samo programska oprema, ki je „nov izum in je industrijsko uporabljiva“, se lahko patentira in uživa veliko večja zaščito.
Only software which is a new invention ‘susceptible of industrial application’ can be patented and thus benefit from far greater protection.
Večja zaščita pomeni omejitev dostopa.
Greater protection means restricting access.
Vendar pa je dejavnost številnih malih in srednje velikih podjetij (MSP) odvisna od uporabe programov, ki so jih izumili drugi.
Now, the activities of many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) depend on the use of programs invented by others.
MSP se bojijo, da bodo programi, potem ko bodo enkrat patentirani, postali nedostopni.
SMEs fear that once these programs are patented, they could become inaccessible.
Bojijo se tudi, da si bodo velike multinacionalke, ki so edine sposobne pokriti visoke stroške postopkov, prilastile zasluge za programsko opremo, ki je danes nezaščitena.
They are also afraid that large multinationals, alone capable of bearing the high costs of the procedures, will take over software that is not currently protected.
Zagovarjajo torej „prosto programsko opremo“ in zavračajo pomik proti ameriškemu modelu, kjer se lahko praktično vse patentira.
They are therefore defending ‘free software’ and are opposed to the move towards the American model whereby virtually everything can be patented.
Zagovorniki proste programske opreme poudarjajo pomen dostopa do novih tehnologij za demokracijo in politični vidik tega vprašanja.
The advocates of free software argue that access to new technologies is important for democracy and they highlight the political aspect of the issue.
Razprava še ni končana
The debate is not over
Poslanci so bili razdeljeni glede tega vprašanja, o katerem so razpravljali tri leta in zdelo se je, da bo težko priti do kompromisa.
MEPs have been divided on this issue throughout the three-year debate and it looked as if it would be difficult to obtain a compromise.
Kljub temu so dosegli septembra 2003.
Nevertheless, they managed to do so in September 2003.
Z izrazitvijo soglasja v zvezi s patentiranjem „računalniško izvedenih izumov“ so zmanjšali obseg uporabe direktive, da bi preprečili patentiranje programske opreme kot take.
In expressing their agreement on patenting ‘computer-implemented inventions’, they restricted the scope of the Directive to avoid patenting software as such.
Svet je glavne predloge sprememb Parlamenta zavrnil.
Parliament’s principal amendments were rejected by the Council.
Na koncu je Parlament, ker kompromis na podlagi skupnega stališča držav članic ni bil možen, zavrnil celotno besedilo.
Finally, seeing no possibility of compromise on the basis of the Member States’ common position, Parliament rejected the text in its entirety.
Prvič se je zgodilo, da so poslanci ocenili, da je dodaten krog pogajanj nepotreben (spravni postopek, predviden s pogodbo), ker so bile razlike prevelike.
For the first time ever, MEPs decided that an additional negotiating stage (provided for in the Treaty and known as the conciliation procedure) was pointless: the differences were too profound.
Poleg tega se poslanci niso slepili glede stališča Sveta in Komisije v zvezi s tem vprašanjem.
In addition, MEPs were under no illusions about the attitude of the Council and the Commission towards this dossier.
Tako je po besedah poročevalca Michela Rocarda, francoskega socialista, Parlament s svojim glasovanjem izrazil „ skupno, soglasno jezo glede nedopustnega načina, na katerega je bil obravnavan“ s strani obeh drugih institucij.
According to the rapporteur, French Socialist Michel Rocard, Parliament’s vote expressed ‘collective anger throughout because of the way the Directive was handled’ by the other two institutions.
Dokazali sta „popoln, celo sarkastičen prezir do odločitev Parlamenta na prvi obravnavi“ .
They have shown ‘total and sarcastic contempt for the decisions made by this Parliament at first reading’.
Težko je reči, ali in kdaj bo Evropska komisija predstavila nov predlog o patentabilnosti programske opreme.
It is difficult to say whether, and when, the European Commission will present a new draft on the patentability of software.
Toda razprava še ni končana in zagovorniki obeh strani so pripravljeni.
But the debate is not over and the advocates of both camps remain on their guard.
Enake dileme so se pojavile pri razpravah o zaščiti zdravil ali biogenetskih izumih.
We experienced the same dilemmas when the protection of medicines and biogenetic inventions were discussed.
V svetu, v katerem vladajo nove tehnologije, je težava dostopa do izumov in cena njihove uresničitve bolj aktualna kot kadar koli doslej.
In a world dominated by new technologies, the problem of access to inventions and the costs of implementing them are more topical than ever.
Presega pravni in gospodarski okvir.
This goes beyond the purely legal and economic context.
Uradna stran Evropskega patentnega urada
Official site of the European Patent Office
Poslanci EP previdni glede večje vloge Europola pri boju proti ponarejanju eura
MEPs cautious about bigger role for Europol in fighting euro forgeries
Policijsko sodelovanje
Police cooperation
Zdaj ima vsaka država članica svoj organ za boj proti proizvodnji ponarejenih eurov.
At present each EU Member State has its own body for fighting the production of forged euros.
Šest držav članic, zaskrbljenih zaradi ponarejanja eura, je lani predlagalo, da se Europol imenuje osrednji organ EU za ukrepe proti ponarejanju.
Worried by widespread counterfeiting of the euro, six States last year proposed that Europol be named the EU's central authority for anti-forgery measures.
Evropski parlament je predložil svoje mnenje 12. aprila letos.
The European Parliament gave its opinion on 12 April this year.
Izjavil je, da mora Europol imeti pomembnejšo vlogo, vendar mora tesneje sodelovati z nacionalnimi organi, razen tega pa ni bil pripravljen sam sprejeti polne odgovornosti za boj proti temu zločinu.
It said Europol should play a more prominent role but it should cooperate more closely with national bodies and was not ready to take full responsibility for fighting this crime on its own .
Zaradi potrebe EU, da ustreže čim več državam članicam, so varnostne značilnosti novih bankovcev izredno zapletene – zato je izdelava natančne kopije euro bankovca praktično nemogoča.
The EU's need to please as many Member States as possible made the security features of the new notes highly sophisticated - which makes it virtually impossible to produce an exact copy of a euro note.
Vendar lahko digitalni barvni optični čitalniki in tiskalniki izdelajo kopije, ki so slabe kakovosti, a dovolj dobre, da preslepijo veliko ljudi.
Yet digital colour scanners and printers can produce replicas which are poor in quality but good enough to fool many people.
Evropska centralna banka je samo v letu 2004 umaknila iz obtoka euro bankovce v vrednosti 44.801.510 EUR.
In 2004 alone, the European Central Bank withdrew from circulation euro notes to the value of € 44,801,510.
Organe zlasti skrbijo izurjeni ponarejevalci v Vzhodni Evropi in Latinski Ameriki.
The authorities are particularly worried about specialist forgers in Eastern Europe and Latin America.
Kako lahko odkrijem ponarejen euro bankovec?
How can I spot a counterfeit euro banknote?
Geslo je: „ Potipaj, poglej in obrni proti svetlobi“.
The watchwords are: " Feel, look and tilt ".
Takrat bi morali videti, ali je pravi ali ne.
You should then be able to see if it is real or not.
Euro bankovci imajo številne varnostne značilnosti, zaradi katerih je težko narediti kopijo.
Euro banknotes include a number of security features which make them difficult to reproduce.
Evropska centralna banka (ECB) in 12 nacionalnih centralnih bank je leta 2002 izvedlo obveščevalno kampanjo, ki se je osredotočila na varnostne značilnosti, tako da bi moral biti vsak sposoben prepoznati prave bankovce.
The European Central Bank (ECB) and the 12 national central banks conducted an information campaign in 2002 which focused on the security features, so everyone should be able to recognise genuine banknotes.
Ti podatki so še vedno na voljo na spletni strani ECB.
This information is still available on the ECB's website.
ECB je vzpostavila tudi bazo podatkov za shranjevanje podatkov o ponaredkih in ustanovila Center za analizo ponaredkov.
The ECB has also set up a database to store information on forgeries and established a Counterfeit Analysis Centre.
Podatke iz baze podatkov si delijo vsi organi, ki sodelujejo v boju proti ponarejanju: Europol, Interpol in Evropska komisija.
The information in the database is shared with all bodies involved in combating forgeries: Europol, Interpol and the European Commission.
Poslanci Evropskega parlamenta so se dogovorili, da mora Europol centralizirati vse podatke za raziskovanje in preprečevanje proizvodnje ponarejenih eurov, vendar so dejali, da mora vedno delovati „ v tesnem sodelovanju z nacionalnimi centralnimi uradi držav članic “.
In their opinion, Members of the European Parliament agreed that Europol should centralise all the information to investigate and prevent the production of fake euros but they said it should always act " in close cooperation with the national central offices of the Member States ".
20050819STO00752 Evropska centralna banka jasno odgovarja na pogosto postavljena vprašanja v zvezi s kroženjem euro bankovcev in tem, kako prepoznati ponarejene bankovce ali kovance .
20050819STO00752 The European Central Bank gives clear answers to frequently asked questions concerning the circulation of euro banknotes and how to recognise false notes or coins (in English).
Ta spletna stran EU zagotavlja pravne podatke o dosedanjih ukrepih za preprečevanje proizvodnje ponarejenih euro bankovcev.(EN)
This EU website provides legal information on the measures taken so far to prevent the production of fake euro bills.
Predstavniki ribiškega sektorja kritizirajo predlagane spremembe v zvezi s pomočjo ribištvu
The proposed changes to fisheries aid criticised
Evropska komisija je predlagala spremembe v zvezi s finančno pomočjo ribičem EU.
The European Commission has proposed changes to the financial aid given to EU fishermen.
V javni obravnavi, ki jo je 29. marca 2005 organiziral Odbor EP za ribištvo, so predstavniki ribiške industrije bili kritični do predlaganih ukrepov.
In a public hearing held on 29 March 2005 by the EP's Fisheries Committee representatives of the fisheries industry criticised the proposed measures.
Glede na predlog Komisije bo Evropski sklad za ribištvo (ESR) nadomestil sedanji finančni instrument za usmerjanje ribištva (FIUR).
According to the Commission proposal, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) will replace the current Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).
Sklad, ki bo pokrival obdobje 2007–2013, bo imel letni proračun v višini 700 milijonov eurov.
The fund, which will cover the period 2007-2013, will have an annual budget of 700 million euros.
Njegov namen je pomoč pri zmanjšanju intenzivnosti ribolova za omogočanje obnavljanja ribjega staleža, in spodbujanje uporabe okolju bolj prijazne opreme in prakse na področju ribolova in ribogojstva.
Its aim is to help reduce fishing pressure in order to allow the recovery of fish stocks and to encourage the use of more environmentally-friendly equipment and practices in fishing and aquaculture.
Med obravnavo je veliko predstavnikov ribiške industrije poudarilo, da je s predlaganimi predpisi ogroženo socialno-ekonomsko preživetje ribičev.
During the hearing many representatives of the fisheries industry stressed that through the proposed rules the socio-economic viability of fishermen is endangered.
Drugače, je dodal, „ ne bo več nobenih ribičev, ko si bodo ribji staleži opomogli “.
Otherwise, he added, " when the stocks are recovered, there will be no fishermen left ".
Drugi govornik, Guy Vernaeve, je poudaril, da je kljub nekaterim zanimivim značilnostim, kot so upravne poenostavitve, „ preostanek poročila Komisije vir velike zaskrbljenosti“ .
Another speaker, Guy Vernaeve, pointed out that despite some interesting features, such as the administrative simplifications, " the rest of the Commission proposal is a source of enormous concern ".
Kritiziral je zlasti ukrepe, predlagane za zagotovitev trajnostnega razvoja obalnih ribolovnih območij, ker bodo do podpore upravičena le tista, ki imajo manj kot 100.000 prebivalcev.
He criticised particularly the measures proposed to ensure the sustainable development of coastal fishing areas, as only those that have less than 100,000 inhabitants will be eligible for support.
Pier Salvador, predstavnik za ribogojstvo, je poudaril, da se preveč pozornosti posveča okoljskim vidikom.
Pier Salvador, an aquaculture representative, stressed that too much attention is being paid to the environmental aspects.
Dodal je, da bo to vodilo k zmanjšanju proizvodnje in posledičnemu povečanju uvoza rib, kar bi lahko pomenilo, da bodo potrošniki EU izpostavljeni tveganju nakupa manj kakovostnih proizvodov.
This, however, he added, will lead to the reduction of production and the consequent increase of fish imports, which could mean that the EU consumers will in future be running the risk of buying lower-quality products.
V nasprotju z drugimi govorniki je bila Stephanie Schmidt iz Svetovnega sklada za naravo iz Nemčije bolj naklonjena predlogu Komisije.
In contrast to other speakers, Stephanie Schmidt, WWF Germany, was more appreciative of the Commission proposal.
Kot pravi, „ je bil ureditveni okvir poenostavljen, več poudarka se daje varstvu okolja in naravnih virov, močno pa se podpira tudi izvajanje načrtov za obnovitev staleža in načrtov upravljanja“ .
As she said, " the regulatory framework has been simplified, more emphasis is given to the protection of the environment and natural resources and the implementation of recovery and management plans is strongly supported ".
Na koncu obravnave je David CASA (PPE-DE, MT), ki bo sestavil osnutek poročila EP o ESR, poudaril pomen zdravega ribiškega sektorja za prihodnost in rekel, da „ se okolje in ribištvo res dopolnjujeta“ .
At the end of the hearing David CASA (EPP-ED, MT), who will draft the EP report on the EFF, stressed the importance of a healthy fisheries sector for the future and said that " environment and fisheries do go hand in hand ".
Evropski parlament, glasnik kulturne raznolikosti
The European Parliament, champion of cultural diversity
Evropski parlament je pred nekaj časa pozval vlade držav članic Evropske unije, naj so pri pogajanjih o kulturni raznolikosti v okviru UNESCA enotne.
The European Parliament recently launched a call for the governments of EU countries to present a united front in the negotiations on cultural diversity taking place within UNESCO.
Za področje kulture v širšem pomenu besede so pristojne države članice Unije, evropski poslanci pa so le opazovalci, zato so želeli v politični resoluciji (ki nima zakonodajne moči), sprejeti 14. aprila 2005, potrditi zavzemanje za večjezičnost in spoštovanje različnih kultur.
Though forced to "spectate" on events, since culture in its broader sense falls within the remit of the individual EU Member States, MEPs wanted to express their commitment to multilingualism and cultural respect in a political resolution (which has no legal force) adopted on 14 April.
Leta 2001 je UNESCO sprejel splošno deklaracijo o kulturni raznolikosti, vendar se je izkazalo, da je ta dokument neustrezen za učinkovito upiranje nevarnosti, ki grozi kulturni raznolikosti po svetu.
In 2001 UNESCO adopted a universal declaration on cultural diversity, but this proved inadequate for dealing with threats to cultural diversity throughout the world.
Generalna konferenca UNESCA je zato oktobra 2003 začela pripravljati osnutek mednarodne konvencije o raznolikosti kulturne vsebine in umetniškega izražanja, ki bo sprejeta predvidoma oktobra 2005.
Consequently, in October 2003, the UNESCO General Conference launched the preparation of a draft international convention on the protection of the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions, which is set for adoption in October 2005.
Za razliko od trgovinskih sporazumov ali sporazumov o sodelovanju in združevanju s tretjimi državami, sklepanje sporazumov na tem področju ni v pristojnosti Komisije, temveč ampak petindvajseterice.
In contrast with trade or cooperation and association agreements with third countries, it will not be the European Commission that is negotiating for and on behalf of the EU, but the Member States.
Evropska komisija, ki ima v UNESCU sedež opazovalke, se je zavezala, da bo Skupščino redno obveščala.
The Commission, which sits as an observer at UNESCO, has nevertheless made a commitment to MEPs to keep the European Parliament regularly informed.
Konvencija UNESCA lahko dejansko poveže države podpisnice in s tem posredno vpliva tudi na Unijo.
The UNESCO convention could be binding on its signatories and therefore have repercussions for the EU.
Poslanci niso izrazili zaskrbljenosti.
MEPs have made no secret of their concerns.
Resolucija poudarja zlasti, da „v procesu pogajanj in sprejetja te konvencije Evropska unija in njene države članice ne smejo narediti ničesar, kar ogroža kulturno raznolikost ali zmanjšuje zmožnost vlad, da branijo kulturno raznolikost in identiteto“ .
The resolution insists in particular that ‘ the European Union and its Member States should do nothing in the process of the negotiation and conclusion of this Convention to compromise cultural diversity or undermine the ability of governments to support cultural diversity and identity ’.
To je politika, ki jo uveljavljajo znotraj Svetovne trgovinske organizacije (STO) v okviru Splošnega sporazuma o trgovini s storitvami (GATS).
They also intend to win acceptance for this policy within the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as part of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
Mednarodna trgovina – kulturna izjema
International trade – cultural exception
Poslance skrbi zlasti združljivost te prihodnje konvencije s pravili mednarodne trgovine.
MEPs are particularly concerned about the compatibility of the future UNESCO convention with international trade rules.