The EU presidency is seeking to resolve the sensitive question of what languages should be used to write European patents, which could have a knock-on effect of encouraging more research innovation in European universities.In July the European Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services, Michel Barnier, tabled a proposal regarding translations of the European Union patent, where English, German and French would remain the official languages.
Spain and Italy, however, will not authorise this proposal, looking instead for either a monolingual or multilingual system. They argue that the proposal cuts across the EU tradition of treating all its official languages equally.
A paper released by Italy's International Affairs Institute in July said there were matters of raw politics at stake. "Although Italy is appealing to the EU's commitment to multilingualism, this is not the only issue. At stake is also a question of national pride and prestige, and of political weight and power within the EU," the paper noted.
Now the current Belgian presidency of the EU is looking for a compromise.
Now the current Belgian presidency of the EU is looking for a compromise.
Reforming the current costly and cumbersome EU patent process could reduce one of the obstacles hindering the spread of research innovation in European universities.
Today scientists need a service apparatus in place at their universities, with juridicial and financial expertise in patent writing and patent law, to apply for protection of their innovations. A simplified and less costly EU patent system would remove one obstacle to European scientists wanting to capitalise on their innovations.
The European patent system is administered by the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich, Germany. The official languages in which to file a European patent are English, German and French.
The EPO grants a patent in one of these languages. But to become effective in member states, the inventor has to request validation at national levels. This leads to translation and legal costs. Such costs make a European patent up to 15 times more expensive than in the US. Inventors today therefore validate their invention in only a few countries.
Today scientists need a service apparatus in place at their universities, with juridicial and financial expertise in patent writing and patent law, to apply for protection of their innovations. A simplified and less costly EU patent system would remove one obstacle to European scientists wanting to capitalise on their innovations.
The European patent system is administered by the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich, Germany. The official languages in which to file a European patent are English, German and French.
The EPO grants a patent in one of these languages. But to become effective in member states, the inventor has to request validation at national levels. This leads to translation and legal costs. Such costs make a European patent up to 15 times more expensive than in the US. Inventors today therefore validate their invention in only a few countries.
In July, Barnier proposed that a European patent could be filed in any official language of the EU's 27 member states, and it would then be granted in English, German or French. The text of the granted patent would be the legal version, and the claim part of the invention would be translated into the two other languages.
The proposal also mentions this as a 'transition period', since improvements in automatic translation programmes could alleviate the problem.
The development of machine translation tools will depend on expertise at European universities. Experts in translation sciences and software developers will have to work with experts on patent writing, to make standards for correct translation.
The proposal says that once "translation machines have reached a sufficient level" of accuracy, patents could be translated into all EU languages from the three recognised official texts.
The machine translation would, however, not have the same legal status as the granted text of the patent. As an accompanying measure, the proposal also introduced a mechanism for full reimbursement of the translation costs up to a fixed ceiling.
Spain and Italy did not accept this proposal, and instead opted for "a monolingual system based on English, or a continuation of the present multilingual regime".
A senior Brussels academic has suggested that the language issue is only a 'fig leaf'.
Bruno van Pottelsberghe, Vice Dean, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, said some national patent offices were using this argument to block the EU patent in order to protect their own position against the EPO. He said opposition was also related to the financial consequences the EU patent would have. "At least 400 million Euros (US$550 million) would switch from translators, attorneys and lawyers towards the business sector," he said.
The translation issue is now back on the agenda of the EU's current six-monthly Belgian presidency, which chairs meetings of the EU Council of Ministers. These questions were discussed on 12 October, following the release of a discussion paper.
The presidency will now try to work out a compromise on the language issue for a meeting of the council in December.
The EU patent is only one of a number of stepping stones towards encouraging wider research innovation. In some universities a cultural shift will be required.
The proposal also mentions this as a 'transition period', since improvements in automatic translation programmes could alleviate the problem.
The development of machine translation tools will depend on expertise at European universities. Experts in translation sciences and software developers will have to work with experts on patent writing, to make standards for correct translation.
The proposal says that once "translation machines have reached a sufficient level" of accuracy, patents could be translated into all EU languages from the three recognised official texts.
The machine translation would, however, not have the same legal status as the granted text of the patent. As an accompanying measure, the proposal also introduced a mechanism for full reimbursement of the translation costs up to a fixed ceiling.
Spain and Italy did not accept this proposal, and instead opted for "a monolingual system based on English, or a continuation of the present multilingual regime".
A senior Brussels academic has suggested that the language issue is only a 'fig leaf'.
Bruno van Pottelsberghe, Vice Dean, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, said some national patent offices were using this argument to block the EU patent in order to protect their own position against the EPO. He said opposition was also related to the financial consequences the EU patent would have. "At least 400 million Euros (US$550 million) would switch from translators, attorneys and lawyers towards the business sector," he said.
The translation issue is now back on the agenda of the EU's current six-monthly Belgian presidency, which chairs meetings of the EU Council of Ministers. These questions were discussed on 12 October, following the release of a discussion paper.
The presidency will now try to work out a compromise on the language issue for a meeting of the council in December.
The EU patent is only one of a number of stepping stones towards encouraging wider research innovation. In some universities a cultural shift will be required.
No comments:
Post a Comment