Activities of Jean-Marie CAVADA related to 2017/2007(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (10)
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas 3D-printing technology could also raises security issues, particularly with regard to the manufacturing of weapons, explosives and drugs, and particular care should be taken with regard to production of that kind;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas as a result of the processes that it uses, 3D printing leads to what the industry has described as a kind of ‘fragmentation of the act of creating’ in that a work may be circulated digitally before it takes a physical form, which makes it easier to copy and complicates the fight against counterfeiting considerably;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products covers all contracts; whereas it should be noted that it is progress in 3D printing that has led the Commission to undertake a revision of that Directive to check whether it still meets current needpublic consultation with the aim of assessing whether this Directive is fit for purpose in relation to new technological developments;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas general liability rules also apply to 3D printing; whereas a specific liability regime could be envisaged for damage caused by an object created using 3D-printing technology, as the number of stakeholders involved in the process often makes it difficult for the victim to identify the person responsible; whereas those rules could make for the damage caused by an object created using 3D printing; whereas the liability could lie with the creator or vendor of the 3D file liable, or the producer of the 3D printer, the producer of the software used in the 3D printer, the supplier of the materials used or even the person who created the object, depending on the cause of the defect discovered;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that to anticipate problems relating to accident liability or intellectual property infringement, the EU will have to adopt new legislation or tailor existing laws to the specific case of 3D technology, taking into account the decisions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the relevant case law of the EU and Member State courts; stresses that, in any case, the legislative response should avoid duplicating rules and should take into account projects that are already under way; adds that innovation needs to be accompanied by law, without the law acting as a brake or a constraint;
Amendment 105 #
1. Stresses that to anticipate problems relating to accidentcivil liability or intellectual property infringement, the EU will have to assess the necessity to adopt new legislation or tailor existing laws to the specific case of 3D technology; stresses that, in any case, the legislative response should avoid duplicating rules and should take into account projects that are already under way; adds that innovation needs to be promoted and accompanied by law, without the law acting as a brake or a constraint;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Criticises the fact that the Commission has not revised Directive 2004/48/EC during this term, as it had announced it would, and has instead limited itself to presenting non-binding guidelines, without providing clarifications on issues specific to 3D printing; welcomes, though, the measures announced by the Commission on 29 November 2017 which are intended to step up intellectual property protection;