Intellectual property issues

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The debate and the committee report deal with the motions that were submitted in the autumn in the area of intellectual property rights.

What is intellectual property then? In summary, it is ideas that can practically be protected. It concerns patents that protect a solution for a technical idea that someone has developed and wants to secure. It concerns trademarks in the form of words, symbols, colors, or lights that are a distinguishing mark of a product or service. We all see different trademarks daily as we move in society and digitally. It can be a sneaker, a bag, or a symbol for a grocery store. Then we have design, which is intended to protect the appearance of a product, i.e., not the function. Copyright protects artistic creation such as film, music, and literature.

More and more of the assets in our companies are intangible assets, and we use some of them in our everyday lives in the form of apps and platforms that have a creator and an owner behind them. Just this part with intellectual property and social media brings questions to the forefront. What happens, for example, if I post a picture of a famous work of art on social media? Is it okay to take a photo? Is it okay to make a reproduction?

A little less than a year ago, we debated intellectual property rights here in the chamber. One of the issues then concerned the panorama exception, which aims to resolve the question of whether there should be reasonable opportunities for private individuals to reproduce art digitally. The question is whether private individuals without permission should be able to reproduce public art to a limited extent in different media. Previously, we took our holiday photos and put them in a photo album. Now we post our pictures on social media, and they achieve a distribution far beyond the photo album.

This question and others will then become subjects of legislation. It is legally clear that one is not allowed to photograph something that is artistically rendered if one's purpose is directly commercial. It is obvious. But there is a sliding scale. It could, for example, involve taking an aerial photo of Stockholm and there being a work of art in the picture.

The other end of the scale, when it comes to what is permitted and what is not, concerns news journalism on television and in media where images from crime scenes are shown. It becomes a gray area when one has to take a position on decisions regarding what may and may not be shown. On January 19, the investigation on how this should be handled was completed, and it is now undergoing consultation before the government is to present a proposal for a decision.

Mr. Speaker! Preparation is also taking place in other areas, as it is written in today's report. One such area is that which is called the parody exception. It concerns quotation and specifically making a parody of something that already exists, for example an image or a symbol. This too is under referral before a decision.

I want to highlight the developments we are currently experiencing where the old world, if the expression is allowed, where we buy and borrow books and go to the cinema is challenged by new, digital services. I want to mention the example where an app where many young people are located is connected with shops in town that just sell books. It turned out to be successful. Books were bought in shops that had marketed themselves on the app.

Everything is possible when one finds ways forward in two worlds that are to be united.

Mr. Speaker! Fantastic innovations are occurring in our country. If all of these were converted into business to the extent that they should, we would create much greater value in our country, which would lead to higher value growth and thus more welfare. It is therefore pleasing to be able to state that a great deal of work is underway within the Government Offices to develop various strategies in different areas.

One of these was launched at the end of 2023, at the turn of the month of November/December, by the Moderate-led government: Strategy for Sweden's foreign trade, investments, and global competitiveness. It is a new and unified holistic approach that is unique in its kind to facilitate trade and business for Swedish interests. The strategy has been well received, and now it is to be translated into real policy. We will return to it in the debate on trade policy later in our term.

Today I want to point out that it contains writings about precisely intellectual property rights. In the strategy, it says as follows: "Companies in general and innovative companies in particular need increased knowledge and awareness of potential risks in internationalization, including in issues regarding the management of intellectual assets in international collaborations regarding research and innovation. It is about what information can and should be protected and in what way."

This, together with writings on cooperation between state actors and Swedish companies, universities, and colleges, takes a holistic approach to the issues of obtaining information and innovation from idea to business. It is about protecting their companies' assets, getting help to find information, and developing their businesses.

It is an answer to the motions raised in the report regarding small and medium-sized enterprises that far from always know where to turn and how to proceed to expand their businesses. They need knowledge of intellectual property rights. Even on the education side, it is important to incorporate intellectual property rights.

The state authority Patent and Registration Office has and shall have a more central role moving forward in terms of informing and will be linked more closely to educational institutions to step up on the education side so that Sweden AB can be strengthened from education to idea and business opportunities.

The strategy highlights all the areas that must now interlock to move Sweden forward in the untapped potential our country has to carry out even more deals in better ways.

Mr. Speaker! Today's motion report raises questions about what one can and is allowed to do legally and furthermore that new opportunities will arise with AI. This morning, I participated in a seminar where the Swedish Trade Council, together with other actors, highlighted standards and old regulatory frameworks that need to be changed along with developing new ways of working – precisely in order to keep pace with digital innovations.

Products that previously could be controlled based on them looking a certain way and being static have now transitioned to being products that are constantly changing. This means that they must be controlled in a different way, and it has two sides. This gives us fantastic opportunities, while at the same time we must ensure that things are going correctly.

At today's meeting, among other things, a request was made regarding cooperation between authorities, and it is also in the government's interest to jointly include in our regulatory letters to the authorities that they should do so.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

I am convinced that the member shares the commitment to intellectual property issues and to ensuring that Sweden does not fall behind as an innovation nation. But then the member should also share my concern that the government primarily chooses to significantly reduce the appropriations to Vinnova, which will lead to cuts in the support for small and medium-sized enterprises regarding the management of intellectual assets. It appears clearly and distinctly from Vinnova's impact assessment of the budget bill, and it is highly concerning when we simultaneously know that the smaller companies in Sweden are significantly worse at managing their intellectual assets compared to smaller companies in other comparable EU countries.

Secondly, the government consistently says no to developing a national strategy that can meet the challenges we see in the field of intellectual property rights. The member and the government parties previously supported the need for a strategy, but they now seem to have suddenly changed their minds.

Mr. Speaker! I can state that national strategies are being developed in country after country and that other countries' investments in research and innovation are becoming increasingly offensive. Why does this government then choose to prioritize differently?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I will start with the last point. We chose when we were in opposition to say before the election that we wanted a strategy. It is not more complicated than that. There is no "no", and I know that the member is aware of that after having debated with the Minister for Enterprise.

The foreign trade strategy contains many different parts, which collectively put the business and the companies at the center. Knowledge is brought in to that. In that way, one takes a different path by first having a strategy.

When we see that all of this is in place together with other strategies that the government develops, it will lead to results. If there are white spots remaining, we will take care of them, and it is possible that it will become a strategy where all other work can be incorporated.

I had not thought of that path before, but it is a brilliant idea to put the business and the companies in the center. It is another way to do the same thing.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

It is welcome that the government is working out various important strategies. But why is a strategy not being developed that specifically targets innovation and intellectual property rights? Why does the government choose to dismiss that idea entirely? That is the message I received in the latest interpellation debate I had with Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch on December 18.

I also want to return to the fact that the government chooses to significantly reduce the appropriations to Vinnova, which I mentioned in my previous speech. I want to emphasize that we Social Democrats reject the government's cuts. We say no to them in our budget motion and allocate 175 million kronor more to the research and innovation appropriation.

That the government has chosen to cut back when other countries are investing like never before is not the right way to go. The investments that the Minister mentioned in the interpellation debate I referred to earlier cannot compensate for general cuts, and this is clearly and explicitly evident when one reads the impact assessment that Vinnova has made of the budget bill.

The Chairman speaks warmly about the fact that we must increase knowledge of intellectual property rights as a strategic asset, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises. But why, then, does one choose to lower the appropriations to Vinnova? It will lead to significant cuts in that support.

Therefore, my question to the member remains: Why is the government lowering the level of ambition when other countries are choosing to gear up?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would not say that we are cutting back. On the contrary, the Moderate-led government has had a firm grip with the strategy that was presented before Christmas. One gathers all the information that is needed from the fact that other strategy documents are presented.

It does not have to be Vinnova that handles the task of informing and ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises receive the information they need. In my world, there is the Patent and Registration Office, and that authority already has the mandate. They are to bring universities and colleges closer, and there is an information responsibility. We see that differently.

Then it was the question of Vinnova in general. With research and development, one will also invest in defense and security. In that aspect, Vinnova will also be involved, so that one can look at different areas. That is where the question lies.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Enterprise's report on intellectual property issues, and I would first like to move for the approval of reservation 12 in the report.

Intellectual property issues are rarely at the top of the political agenda, but they are completely central for companies and for society as a whole. Patent law, copyright, and other intellectual property rights have built Sweden strong. The story of how Sweden became a wealthy country is also largely the story of how Sweden became a leading knowledge nation.

Sweden is one of the world's leading innovation countries. To continue to be that, we must take advantage of our intangible assets in the best possible way. We must increase the impact of our innovation initiatives so that they lead to the greatest possible benefit for the vast majority in society. They are crucial for jobs, for welfare, and for the prosperity in our country.

Mr. Speaker! They are also crucial for us to be able to tackle current and future challenges, not least when it comes to the green transition. Intellectual property rights create incentives to develop future climate-smart solutions. They enable individuals and companies to invest in research and development and make the investments that are required.

As a leading innovation country, Sweden has a unique opportunity to lead the green transition, which creates jobs, investments, and increased prosperity throughout the country. However, it requires that we can both protect and create value in our intangible assets.

Mr. Speaker! Copyright has grown in both importance and complexity. The importance of us having a functioning copyright in the digital society cannot be overemphasized, especially against the background that the cultural and creative industries are growing throughout the country.

Patent law has been, and continues to be, crucial for our capacity for innovation. As has been mentioned previously, our patent system is completely fundamental for companies and others to dare to invest in research and development.

In today's competitive market, both design rights and trademark rights have also become increasingly important, which we must not forget.

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that we are in a knowledge economy where intellectual property rights play a key role. Therefore, I am proud that previous S-led governments have made investment after investment in knowledge-enhancing measures, tightened the penalties for the most serious cases of intellectual property rights infringements, introduced a new court order to increase predictability and reduce costs in intellectual property rights cases, and pushed forward the work for a unified patent system at the EU level, which has made it easier and cheaper for Swedish innovators to take advantage of their ideas. These were some examples.

As I mentioned in a previous exchange, it is however the case that the global competition intensifies with each passing day. Therefore, we need to do even more.

First and foremost, we need to increase knowledge of intellectual property as a strategic asset, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises but also within the university and college world. The extensive lack of knowledge that exists today leads to far too great values being lost.

Secondly, it is high time that we start using patent information in a systematic and strategic way. By using available patent information, we can accelerate innovations and avoid duplicate research. We can also invest our research funds where they do the most good. This is something that the Norwegian Industrial Property Office does every year, and we in Sweden should also do so.

Furthermore, intellectual property rights must be adapted to the rapid developments within AI and digitalization. Here, it is quite obvious that Sweden is failing to keep pace.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we need to do even more, both nationally and within the EU, to put a stop to the growing problem of intellectual property rights infringement. We are talking about billions of kronor flowing into organized crime and which ultimately end up in the pockets of global criminal networks. This is clearly and explicitly shown by the Swedish Tax Agency's latest audit regarding the sale of illegal TV subscriptions.

Unfortunately, many are completely unaware of what role this type of intrusion plays for organized crime and what consequences it has. We lose tens of thousands of jobs. We lose billions in tax revenues. We obviously also lose the companies and cultural creators who are forced to shut down completely.

Mr. Speaker! In the context of all these challenges, we Social Democrats want to see an offensive innovation strategy in Sweden. A clear way forward is needed regarding how the measures within the intellectual property area should be designed in the best possible way, otherwise Sweden will fall behind in the global knowledge economy. Therefore, it is my hope that the government can meet us halfway and begin the work of developing such a strategy.

I think it is regrettable that the government parties first agreed on the need for a national strategy but now suddenly say no, despite the fact that such a strategy exists in almost all of our neighboring countries and other countries that we compete with in the field of innovation, despite the fact that such a strategy is requested by everyone from the business community to research funders, and despite the fact that this can be achieved in broad parliamentary agreement.

Right now we see that national strategies are being developed in country after country, that the number of patents in green technology is increasing at a rapid pace, and that other countries' investments in research and innovation are becoming increasingly offensive. In this situation, the government chooses to turn away from the question of a national strategy. In this situation, the government also chooses to significantly reduce the appropriations to Vinnova, which will lead to cuts in support for small and medium-sized enterprises regarding the management of intellectual property. It is, as I mentioned earlier, highly alarming when it is simultaneously reported that Swedish startups are losing opportunities for funding because they are significantly worse at managing their intellectual property than startups in other comparable EU countries.

We Social Democrats naturally reject the government's cuts and allocate 175 million kronor more to the research and innovation grant in our budget motion. To cut back when other countries are investing like never before is not the right way to go. Therefore, I hope that the government takes to heart the harsh criticism that these decisions have prompted, not least from the business community.

Mr. Speaker! In previous debates, I have repeated that those who stand still are quickly overtaken. Everyone sitting in this chamber who engages in these issues knows this. If we do not utilize our intangible assets in the best possible way, we will lose jobs, investments, and our position as a leading innovation country. We risk losing what has allowed a small and export-dependent country in northern Europe to become so successful and to have been able to build such a strong welfare society. That, Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Aida Birinxhiku for the speech.

I think that those who use terms such as the government has said no to a strategy, that the sitting government does not see a need and so on, are spreading falsehoods. What I said in my speech was that one now has a number of strategies that one is working with.

Just before Christmas, a major initiative was launched. It concerned the foreign trade strategy, where it has been decided to work across departmental boundaries and gather knowledge from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Employment, the Ministry of Education, and so on. Research and development are also included here. This is done to put business and the private sector at the center.

That was exactly what Aida Birinxhiku took up, but we do it in a different way. It is possible to think that it is the wrong way, but it is this way we have chosen. I can see that many good thoughts, ideas and results can come out of this.

Unlike what the member pointed out, the business community has praised this and said that it is fantastic. There is nothing to complain about.

Sometimes one might think about it. No one has said that it cannot become a different strategy ahead if it should be the case that all the pieces do not fit together, even though it is hoped that they do with this broad approach.

I would ask the member if the path there must be a Social Democratic path, or if one can also see that there are good thoughts and ideas among those who want to do it in a different way. It is actually possible to achieve the goal in different ways. It is a bit sad to hear words that imply that the government would not want to do anything because the government does not want to do what the Social Democrats want.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

I do not know if I agree that this is solely a Social Democratic way. The member and her party have, for a long time, stood behind this and submitted motions regarding it – it was not long ago that the member herself stood at the rostrum and demanded a national intellectual property strategy.

This is important. It is something that the Social Democrats have stood behind and something that can happen in broad parliamentary agreement. I think the sections in the foreign trade strategy where intellectual property rights are mentioned are welcome. I also mentioned in my previous exchange of remarks that it is welcome that the government is working on producing several different strategies that can help us along the way.

I must say, however, that I could not read anything in the foreign trade strategy about how we are to proceed in order to increase knowledge of intellectual property rights, especially considering that the government has chosen to significantly reduce the funding to Vinnova.

I could not read anything about how we should adapt the intellectual property protection to AI and the development that is occurring there.

I could not read anything about how we should use available patent information or how we should facilitate that use. Perhaps we should do as is done in Norway, where they perform in-depth patent analyses every year to be able to invest research funds where they do the most good.

I could not either read anything about how this strategy shall counteract the growing problem of infringements of intellectual property rights.

Mr. Speaker! There are, therefore, many missing pieces. It is regrettable that the government does not want to use this strategic approach and does not want to work out an innovation strategy, despite having wanted to do so previously. This is something that the business community is requesting. It is also something that research funders are requesting. Now it is also being requested by the OECD.

I am still waiting for the answer. Why has the government suddenly changed its mind after previously having pursued this issue?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Our parties considered that it was necessary to take a collective grip and bring intellectual property strategy and innovation strategy under one and the same umbrella. It is, therefore, another way of doing the same thing. We will have to evaluate in the future how it turned out. I am not saying that the other way is bad, but I believe that this is good and that one can take a different approach if one looks at all the obstacles for entrepreneurs to scale up, get new opportunities, become international, and so on.

Regarding who should be informed, the Patent and Registration Office has a mandate. The regulatory letter speaks of reducing disruptive regulations, and the authority shall also work closely with universities and colleges with precisely the questions the member raises. The authority has thus received the mandate that the member wants to do in a different way.

Regarding infringement of intellectual property. The discussion about IP-TV and streaming is significant, as it is a huge problem. The previous government introduced gross copyright infringement, which is being built upon. A judgment has been issued involving a prison sentence of two years and six months and damages of 195 million. The government is now following this to see if it acts as a deterrent. If it does not, work is being done to develop new tools in the toolbox. There are police officers who are specialists in this, and as the member mentioned, the Swedish Tax Agency is also actively working with controls, which is good. We are not there yet and have much left to do, but it is a step in the right direction.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

I agree that much good work has been done in this area. Both the member and I have emphasized that Sweden is one of the world's leading innovation countries, and that is the result of a clear political direction. The member has in previous committee motions stated that the innovators cannot wait, but in this case, it seems to be okay to let them wait.

We still think that one needs to take a strategic approach and work in the same way as one works for, for example, cultural and creative industries. One must see how one can use the tools in the best possible way so that Sweden can continue to be a leading innovation country.

National strategies are being developed in country after country, and as I have previously mentioned, these exist in almost all of our neighboring countries – something the member has also referred to in previous debates. They exist in other countries that we compete with in the field of innovation, are demanded by the business sector, and can gather broad political support. In that case, I find it difficult to understand why the government still chooses to say no to developing a strategy that specifically targets intellectual property and innovation. We pushed this issue already during the last parliamentary term, and we will continue to push it during this parliamentary term.

I have also not received any answer on how the reasoning regarding the cuts in Vinnova is handled. It is not consistent to speak warmly about the need for knowledge-enhancing measures to increase while simultaneously pursuing a policy that means Vinnova's innovation checks will not be able to be designed in the same way and that well-functioning projects within the production area will need to be shut down.

Mr. Speaker! I believe the government is answerable. Why does the government choose to lower the level of ambition when other countries are gearing up?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! On behalf of the Christian Democrats, I would like to move for the approval of the Committee on Industry's proposal regarding intellectual property rights issues.

Today we face one of our time's greatest challenges and opportunities: the management of intellectual property rights. As our world becomes increasingly digitized, the protection of intellectual assets, such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks, becomes ever more important. This protection is crucial to promote innovation and ensure that creators and inventors receive fair compensation for their contributions.

For us Christian Democrats, property rights are fundamental and something that the state is tasked to protect and uphold. We think it is obvious that one owns a loaf of bread that one has baked in one's own kitchen with one's own ingredients. One also owns the right to decide how this loaf of bread shall be used. One might want to eat it oneself or sell it and make an economic profit. Just as obvious is it that one owns a piece of music one has composed oneself, a fabric pattern one has designed oneself, or a technical product one has developed in one's garage. One has the right to receive fair compensation for one's creation.

But we all know that it is often more complicated than we would wish to protect intellectual achievements. It is quite rarely a matter of an isolated genius locking themselves in a room and emerging in triumph after a number of years. It is more common that many people from different countries are involved in what an internationally operating company achieves when something new has been developed. In that case, it is of course extremely important that there is a well-functioning, effective, and smooth regulatory framework that facilitates these processes.

Sweden has built its success on a few different factors. The forest and the ore are often mentioned, and rightly so. Another factor is all the successful engineers who have enriched our world with many inventions and innovations. Perhaps it is not just a coincidence that the Nobel Prize was established in Sweden and today is one of the strongest elements in our image of Sweden.

Patents and other intellectual property rights are an indicator of the level of innovation in the economy. Sweden has seen an increase in the number of patents in recent years. The same applies to the number of trademark applications. On the other hand, we see a clear decrease in the number of design protections. This is something that we need to address, and as a country, we cannot rest on our laurels. Therefore, the Kristdemokraterna want to see that work is done in a structured way for a national intellectual property strategy and that it is used as a tool to sharpen our country's capability.

Mr. Speaker! Another matter that we Christian Democrats would like to highlight is the costs that individuals can be forced to pay if they end up in a legal conflict. In Sweden, the costs for a legal process range between 1 and 20 million kronor per party. The main rule is that the losing party must pay both parties' litigation costs. This makes it difficult for small business owners, startup companies, and smaller, less capital-rich actors.

On the one hand, there are good reasons for this arrangement. It is partly about ensuring that people do not sue each other unnecessarily, and by threatening high costs in the event of a loss, those who have no grounds for their claims are deterred. It is also about ensuring that the person who has won a case and had their rights upheld does not have to pay for their innocence.

On the other hand, the rules on litigation costs are problematic, as they favor well-capitalized actors. University researchers and startup companies rarely sue anyone for intellectual property infringements, and even more rarely do they win a dispute. The risk of having to pay millions in litigation costs deters capital-weak actors from asserting their rights in a trial, and one often agrees to a settlement instead of taking it further to trial.

These are experiences that we must continue to work with to find the optimal balance between the different perspectives that exist.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I shall touch upon an area we will likely have reason to return to many times, and that is AI. As always, when a new, powerful tool arrives, many questions are raised, and anxiety arises. It is human, and it is nothing we should try to dodge. Questions both should and must be asked. But they should be asked from the perspective of how we ensure that this tool is used in the best possible way, not on a more fear-based ground of how we stop this new thing that could have negative effects. I am pleased that our government has these questions on its radar and is working with them from a constructive view of AI.

Mr. Speaker! I move once again for approval of the committee's proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are dealing with the Committee on Industry's report NU7 Intellectual Property Issues.

Sweden is a very successful innovative country in comparison with the rest of the world. There are examples that have struck the world with amazement: dynamite, literally. Ball bearings, pacemakers and tetrapack are other innovations that have contributed to facilitating society to a great extent. Even more in the recent past, we have innovations that have made a great impression, such as Bluetooth technology, games, music services, video chats and various forms of payment options.

Intellectual property plays a central role for these innovations because it protects innovations, trademarks, copyright, and other intangible assets. To give some examples, copyright can protect software codes and user interfaces within design. Trademark law can protect trademarks, names, logos, and other identifiers against misuse and confusion in the market.

Patents give companies exclusive rights to exploit their innovations and prevent others from copying or selling their inventions without permission. This is important, not least for maintaining the companies' reputation and the customers' trust. It is also of utmost importance to obtain protection for trade secrets, such as algorithms, business models, and customer databases. By keeping such information secret, companies can maintain their competitive advantages.

Mr. Speaker! Briefly stated, intellectual property rights give these companies tools to safeguard their innovations and commercially brand their ideas while simultaneously contributing to the continued encouragement of creativity. By ensuring that they have the correct legal protection in place, these companies can also expand and adapt to new markets and thus protect their investments and all their hard work.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, there are today major problems with organized crime against companies, especially in the form of infringement of intellectual property rights. It is a globally growing problem, and it includes activities such as counterfeiting, piracy, and unauthorized use of trade secrets. Such crimes affect companies' economy, innovation, and reputation.

In Sweden, as in other countries, it is important to understand what measures the government takes to combat these crimes and protect companies' intellectual property. This is a central issue in a time when the economy's digitalization and globalization are accelerating.

To counter these infringements, Swedish companies use a combination of legal measures, such as initiating infringement proceedings, and preventive measures, such as registering their intellectual property rights and using technical protection mechanisms. Furthermore, many companies work with customs authorities and international organizations to combat cross-border counterfeiting and piracy.

To improve the protection and support for Swedish inventors and companies in patent infringement cases, which in turn can encourage innovation and patenting among small and medium-sized enterprises, we propose that the state shall be helpful in protecting Swedish patents and assist in patent disputes.

We propose that the government appoints an agency that can assist Swedish companies and inventors in cases of intellectual property rights infringements. We also propose that the government investigates an insurance solution with a state guarantee for those who end up in disputes over patent infringements, particularly in cases of infringement from a third country. This insurance could offer protection and financial support for those affected.

We also request a cap on litigation costs in patent disputes to level the playing field between parties and make it more accessible for patent holders to defend their rights. This will be particularly important for the smaller, less resource-rich companies. Similar solutions have been successful in other countries, such as Germany and the United Kingdom.

We Sweden Democrats do not consider this to be sufficient. More needs to be done. We have a number of proposals which include, among other things, modernization of copyright, investigation of expanded limitations in copyright, reconsideration of copyright protection periods and efforts for the abolition of rules that conflict with a free internet and free formation of opinion. We also want an evaluation to be made of increased penalties for intellectual property rights infringements and that the main focus for infringements should be on organized crime. These proposals aim to adapt Sweden's intellectual property rights regulatory framework to the modern digital societal needs and challenges that exist.

Mr. Speaker! With this said, I stand behind all of the Sweden Democrats' reservations in the Committee on Industry's report. For the sake of simplicity, I move however only for approval of reservation 5.

In this speech, Eric Palmqvist (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Knowledge-based assets such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights have become increasingly important. In the knowledge economy that Sweden finds itself in, these assets are often completely decisive for a company's success. Consequently, intellectual property rights also become important for society as a whole.

Sweden is often cited as one of the leading innovation countries in the world. The innovative power found among Swedish companies, researchers, and inventors has laid the foundation for our prosperity.

Patents are a prerequisite for innovation and have throughout history ensured that researchers and engineers have been prepared to invest time and money in projects because the patent guarantees that their ideas will not be stolen. Intellectual property assets now often constitute the lion's share of the value in new, often innovative, companies.

Intellectual property rights should perhaps now be seen as a protection for innovations, and this protection is crucial for companies' willingness to invest in research and development. Many companies have the management of knowledge-based assets as the basis for their business model, for example by commercializing innovations. We have also seen, and it has been mentioned here in the chamber, the importance of this for the green transition.

Mr. Speaker! In order to maintain and strengthen Sweden's competitiveness, we must take advantage of all the assets we have and could have. Issues regarding intellectual property rights have normally been regarded as a purely legal matter. The issue must, of course, also be viewed from a business perspective and made part of industrial policy, and perhaps even in education policy. We see that many engineers, creators, and programmers need to gain a greater knowledge of how they can protect their work and their works. Above all, we see that the European field will be decisive for how well we in Sweden and we in Europe will succeed in the future. If the EU is to continue to be competitive, intellectual property rights must be protected. They need to be harmonized and take up a larger place even in trade policy.

With that said, I mean that we can neither nor should we regulate away the innovative power and the opportunities that exist within new technology: AI is the latest and perhaps most important. Here, it could be worth looking towards the United Kingdom as an example of how one can manage both the opportunities and the risks within new fields of research such as this.

Mr. Speaker! In summary, the knowledge nation Sweden must offer the best conditions and the best legal protection for new thinking, innovations, and the development of new technology. This applies in particular to the medicine of the future, which also falls within this field.

Good conditions for research and development must be linked to a strong practical protection for intellectual property rights. This strengthens Sweden both as a knowledge nation and as an industrial nation and also secures our future prosperity.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Mr. Speaker! Intellectual property rights is an issue that is crucial for being able to drive development forward, for ensuring the economy, and for counteracting power relations.

For us in Vänsterpartiet, knowledge and innovation are the components that enable prosperity and our future. Unfortunately, the current government, through its budget for innovation and research and for colleges and universities, has undermined the development that we so greatly need.

I believe we all agree that, for example, the mineral supply should be reviewed, but the ideas and proposals on how we should do this are probably many more than there are members in this chamber.

For us in Vänsterpartiet, it is important to ensure that the mineral supply takes place in a way that minimizes the impact on the environment and climate. We also need to take more responsibility for our mineral consumption. We have trade agreements that are not favorable and do not set requirements in issues such as human rights, environment, and climate, and we see so-called sustainable investment agreements with third countries that are very nicely written but which are not binding in any way regarding environment and climate, which only cements the already established structure between rich and poor countries.

Mr. Speaker! The patent system is not adapted to the global needs and difficulties that exist. The EU's act on critical minerals intends to secure our mineral supply moving forward, but it does nothing when it comes to promoting further processing on-site.

Further processing on-site would partly reduce transport with everything that entails, and partly provide an opportunity for countries and areas that have a need to further develop their industry, and thereby achieve a better standard of living and perhaps more resources for local investments, to continue to be mineral producers, but in a more developed way.

We need, on one hand, to find more environmentally and climate-friendly technology for the exploitation of minerals, and on the other hand, to promote technology that enables more steps in the production to be achieved on-site. At the same time, we know that that type of technology needs to be adapted to prevailing conditions.

Just as in the case of enabling the transfer of green technology, there can therefore be an opportunity to build in incentives in the patent systems so that more minerals are processed near the extraction site. Such a development would entail many climate benefits and perhaps reduce transport within the mineral industry. In connection with the Minerals Act, there could therefore be an opportunity to review the patent system in order to achieve sustainable processes. I therefore move for approval of reservation 9.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! We face one of the greatest challenges of our time: to transform our economy and our society to achieve net-zero emissions. To succeed in this, it requires not only political will and societal changes but also innovation and technological development. One of the keys to unlocking this potential lies in a strong and well-designed strategy for intellectual property rights.

Innovation is the foundation for developing the technologies and sustainable solutions needed to reduce our carbon footprint and protect our planet, but for innovation to flourish, incentives are needed. Innovators, researchers, companies, and financiers must feel secure that their investments in time, resources, and knowledge are protected. It is here that intellectual property rights play a crucial role.

A strong and effective intellectual property strategy provides authors and innovators with legal protection for inventions and ideas. This protection is absolutely crucial for many technologies but especially for what we also call in Swedish deep tech, that is, technology that is advanced and new within its field and that addresses complex global problems such as climate, carbon-free energy, and health.

It goes without saying that when it takes so incredibly much longer to validate this technology and find customers who are willing to pay for it, it cannot be compared with technological development within consumer apps, where intellectual property protection, if one is to be completely honest, is not as crucial for the investors. Sometimes it is even the case that one does not want to register a patent because one does not want the competitors to see what one is doing. Instead, one wants to run as fast as possible to create the largest network among all platforms, just like all the social media platforms that we use here every day.

With this said, I am convinced that intellectual property will become incredibly much more important in the technology-intensive era of which we are only seeing the beginning of.

To stimulate research and development, especially in areas that are crucial for reaching the net-zero goals, such as carbon-free energy, energy efficiency and sustainable transport, an active protection is needed. Without this protection, we risk that the pace of innovation slows down, which in turn slows down the transition to a greener economy and Sweden's ability to stand strong as a future industrial nation. Sweden therefore needs a strategy for intellectual property rights that addresses the challenges for our multinational companies, our small and medium-sized enterprises, our startups and our research.

It is not just about protection. By offering a clear and predictable legal framework, cooperation between inventors and industry is facilitated, and this creates conditions for investments in new technologies.

Sweden is, just as many here today have pointed out and which is well established, a leading nation when it comes to innovation and has a long tradition of creating groundbreaking technologies. We have the potential to become a world leader even in the development of solutions to combat climate change, but to achieve this we must ensure that our system for intellectual property is adapted to meet the unique challenges and opportunities that exist.

A well-thought-out and forward-looking intellectual property strategy will not only promote innovation and economic growth but also contribute to Sweden and other countries both reaching their climate goals and ensuring that new medicines, medical technology, and treatments see the light of day. By protecting and promoting the innovations that lead to reduced emissions and sustainable development, we can ensure that Sweden continues to be at the forefront.

Mr. Speaker! When I listen to the debate here in the chamber today, I hear that there is great agreement on creating the right conditions for innovation, protecting our inventors, and ensuring that Sweden leads the way toward a healthy, sustainable, and climate-neutral future.

I move for approval of reservation 12 under point 9.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! A well-functioning copyright is one of the cornerstones of a modern arts policy. Ultimately, it is about that those who have created an artistic work should also have the right to it and to the values generated by the works that many people love and partake in.

There are a number of limitations in the copyright act, for example, justified by public interests such as research or parody and satire. But the starting point is that those who wish to utilize a copyright-protected work must have the consent of the person who is the author of the work.

A well-functioning copyright is of great importance for the individual artist, the author, and for a sustainable, cultural ecosystem and for the entire creative sector in our country.

Much is happening in this area. We have debated a lot in the chamber earlier. But more needs to be done.

In the report from the investigation Kreativa Sverige, which we appointed during our time in government, among other things, long-term perspective and speed in the copyright market are highlighted as an area where there are clear needs for development and where efforts need to be made during the coming years. Among other things, it is highlighted that the knowledge of various parties needs to be strengthened so that agreements that strengthen the right holder's position in the copyright market can also be facilitated.

Mr. Speaker! A question that has taken up an ever larger place in the discussion on copyright is AI, artificial intelligence. AI is nothing new, not even in the cultural field. It is something that is often used to facilitate artistic creation in various ways. But it has developed rapidly over the past year, it can be stated. New web services such as Chat GPT provide even greater accessibility to AI technology. This means and will mean enormous changes and challenges, not least for the cultural sector.

AI naturally provides great added value and, as has been said, can be used as an aid in the creative process. But AI also raises a number of questions regarding culture's value and function, regarding artistic quality, ethics, authenticity, transparency, and privacy issues. But not least, questions regarding copyright legislation are completely central.

AI is trained today on large amounts of existing material. And it is difficult, if not impossible, for copyright holders to assert their rights to the material. It concerns authors, visual artists, composers, musicians, actors, and filmmakers whose works and performances are exploited without them having given their consent and without the potential economic values created by the AI-generated works accruing to them.

Mr. Speaker! An intense discussion is currently taking place within the cultural sphere worldwide regarding how copyright should be adapted to the current situation. There are different views today on the state of affairs regarding copyright legislation. Both KLYS and Svenska Tecknare have investigated how the new generative AI technology relates to current copyright legislation. According to their assessment, the Copyright Act does not provide support for using copyright-protected works or other protected works as training data to develop generative AI without first obtaining the rights holders' consent and also paying reasonable compensation for the use. As stated, there are indeed limitation provisions, but these rights may only be limited when the benefit to the public outweighs the harm to the rights holders. They highlight, for example, research and healthcare.

Mr. Speaker! For Miljöpartiet, it is central that all generative AI training must take place in an ethical and legal manner. Generative AI should only be trained on material where the rights holders have explicitly given their permission. It is important that one shall be able to be compensated for how the works are used.

We mean here that the legislation must be reviewed in order to achieve a clearer regulatory framework that can address the questions that currently exist and that can handle and resolve the problems that have arisen as a result of the increased development and use of generative AI, but which also creates a freedom to, within the areas where there is opportunity, naturally develop this technology.

Here we mean that Sweden needs to act. Admittedly, some steps have been taken. The Minister for Culture has established a cross-sectoral AI unit within their department. The committee has also referred to a number of ongoing processes in the report, for example the work on the KKB strategy, i.e., the cultural and creative industries strategy, which I mentioned earlier. The government has also appointed an AI commission, and there is ongoing work within the EU. All of this is good, but some important pieces of the puzzle are missing.

The existing legislation needs to be reviewed, and immediately, to secure the rights of the authors and the performing artists. Nothing is stated about this in the directives to the AI Commission, and it is also not addressed in the ongoing work on the AI Act within the EU, where the focus is on transparency issues. That is also important. But precisely when it comes to the interpretation of existing legislation, the government needs to act to clarify these issues.

Mr. Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet have therefore moved that an investigation be appointed immediately in order to secure the rights of the authors and the practicing artists in light of the AI development.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to emphasize that the Riksdag should notify the government that the government should act as a driver within the EU to take a holistic approach and conduct a review of the copyright legislation within this area.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to emphasize how central it is that we continue to work on knowledge and understanding of AI and how it is developing. It is about individuals' abilities to understand how to recognize and use AI, but also about the relevant actors, authorities, and organizations having the knowledge required to provide advice and support to copyright holders in these rather complex processes.

Mr. Speaker! AI implies fantastic opportunities. But in all contexts, we must guard the foundation of AI's existence – human creativity and human creation. In this, artists' conditions and rights and copyright legislation are completely central.

Intellectual property issues

I move for approval of reservation 1 regarding copyright and AI from S, V and MP.

In this speech, Katarina Luhr (MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 28 February.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)