The public meeting on intellectual property rights, held by the
Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (JURI), was
arranged in order to help JURI debate issues of counterfeiting and
the Community patent system.
Experts from the academic, industrial and professional worlds
agreed on the general principle that patents are effective
instruments to protect intellectual property rights but criticised
the existing European patent system for lacking legal
certainty.
Klaus-Dieter Langfinger, from UNICE, the European employers'
association, stressed the correlation between protection of IP
rights and economic growth.
Quoting a study by the World Economic Forum, he said that the 20
countries with the highest IP protection standards are among the 27
richest states in the world. He added that many SMEs also benefit
from patent protection.
Nevertheless, Langfinger criticised the European patenting
system as less efficient than its Japanese and US counterparts.
“The EU does not provide enough legal certainty and affordable
costs,” he said. “The aim of making the EU economy more competitive
should lead to the removal of those barriers".
Luis Berenguer, former MEP and President of the Tribunal for
Competition of Spain, warned that, without reform, patents could
become "a rather protectionist instrument serving the interests of
big companies". The main problem, he said, is the time and money
involved in challenging a patent.
The meeting also heard that in practical terms, many small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) cannot afford the cost of obtaining
and defending a patent and therefore have no access to the
innovation market, leaving bigger firms with a monopoly.
A patent delivered by the European Patent Office or national
offices can cost up to €100,000, twice as much as in Japan and
three times as much as in the US.
Finally, the meeting discussed the use of criminal law in
enforcing intellectual property rights.
According to Reto Hilty, Director of the Max Planck Institute
for Intellectual Property in Munich, new EU initiatives in this
field were unnecessary.
"International agreements, such as TRIPS, already contain
provisions against trade mark and copyright pirating which are
binding on the Member States and the EU," he said.
Jim Murray, of the European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC),
warned that current practices of fighting counterfeiting could pose
a threat to consumers' rights.
For instance, he said, the music industry is imposing levies on
its products to compensate the effects of piracy without informing
buyers of their right to make a copy for personal use. He therefore
called for a distinction between pirating and small-scale copying
with no commercial intent.
Mr Murray also questioned the effectiveness of using criminal
law measures to enforce IP rights.
“There is a tendency to criminalise people, which has the effect
of reducing respect for the law, especially among young people," he
warned. "We ask the EP to adopt a balanced approach on IP
enforcement and to tell consumers what they can do and not only
what they cannot do."
The European Commission has just withdrawn, for technical
reasons, a proposal on criminal sanctions for the enforcement of IP
and will probably present a new text on the same issue soon.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
