Translation Policy within the Dutch Government: A Comprehensive Case-Study of European Patent Translation

(1)

MA Thesis

Mr.drs. Anthony Foster Drs. Katinka Zeven 31 May 2020

Translation Policy within the Dutch Government: A Comprehensive Case-Study of European Patent Translation.

(2)

1. Introduction

in 1972, James S. Holmes, wrote a paper which presented a framework describing which areas Translation Studies covers. His paper is often deemed “seminal […] in the development of the field as a distinct discipline” (Munday, 2016, p. 16). With this paper, Holmes “drew attention to the limitations imposed at the time because translation research, lacking a home of its own, was dispersed across older disciplines [such as languages and linguistics]” (Munday, 2016, p. 16). The limitations include the lack of a suitable name for the field of research, and “the lack of any general consensus as to the scope and structure of the discipline”. Ultimately, he proposes Translation Studies as suitable name for the discipline because the term would “remove a fair amount of confusion and misunderstanding” (Holmes, 1988, p. 70-71).

To tackle the second limitation, concerning the lack of a general consensus regarding the scope of Translation Studies, Holmes outlines the structure and areas of research in a framework that he proposes. In his framework, he divides Translation Studies into a “pure” and “applied” branch. According to Holmes, the pure branch of Translation Studies has two main objectives: (1) to describe the phenomena of translating and translation; (2) to establish general principles which can be used to explain and predict said phenomena (Holmes, 1988, p. 71). The applied branch of Translation Studies, on the other hand, focuses on “applications that extend beyond the limits of the discipline itself”, with teaching (Holmes refers to this as “translator training”) being the main focus (Holmes, 1988, p. 77).

This written framework was later presented as a map by Israeli scholar Gideon Toury in his book entitled Descriptive Translation Studies, which was revised to Descriptive Translation Studies - and beyond (1995/2012, p. 4). The map is frequently referred to as the Holmes/Toury map. A specific section of it, under the applied branch, is dedicated to the concept of translation policy. Holmes describes translation policy as follows:

“[t]he task of the translation scholar in this area is to render informed advice to others in defining the place and role of translators, translating, and translations in society at large: such questions, for instance, as determining what works need to be translated in a given socio-cultural situation, what the social and economic position of the translator is and should be, or […] what part translating should play in the teaching and learning of foreign languages” (1988, p. 78).

(4)

lacks clearness. The complexity of defining translation policy has not gone unnoticed by contemporary translation policy scholars. Reine Meylaerts, in her 2010 article entitled

Translation Policy, notes that translation policy has multiple different meanings, and because it functions “as an umbrella term or a container concept, […] it risks however becoming an empty notion with little conceptual surplus value” (p. 163). Gabriel González Núñez, in his 2016 article On Translation Policy, agrees with Meylaerts. He underlines the vagueness of translation policy: “the term translation policy has become problematic for the field of Translation Studies because it has meant so many things to so many authors that it threatens to lose some of its efficacy” (2016, p. 87). In the same article, González Núñez proposes a much clearer definition of translation policy based on concepts of language policy. According to him, translation policy encompasses translation management, translation practice, and translation beliefs. At this point, it is important to understand the first element of translation policy listed by González Núñez, translation management. Translation management is perhaps the topic which this thesis relates to most strongly. González Núñez explains

translation management as “the decisions regarding translation made by people who have the authority to decide the use or non-use of translation within a domain” (p. 92). A more

thorough analysis of González Núñez’ definition of translation policy will be given later in this thesis.

Even though Holmes explicitly lists and explains translation policy, it is omitted from most depictions of the Holmes/Toury map. It seems as though the term was not deemed to be the main focus of Translation Studies by scholars like Toury. Meylaerts acknowledges this by stating that “the concept remained of secondary importance in the early years of Translation Studies. [However,] without developing into a core term, it is more prominently present nowadays […]” (2010, p. 165). Evidence for this notion can be found within the Dutch government, where the translation policy regarding European patents is codified in national law. According to the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO), patents fall under the category of intellectual property (IP) rights, and turn inventive ideas and products into one’s own property. That individual, or group of individuals, has the sole right to benefit economically from their invention, as other parties are not permitted to adopt a patented design (2020).

The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (henceforth: the Ministry), in an open letter (dated 15 June 2018) directed towards the House of

Representatives of the Netherlands (de Tweede Kamer), revealed that it is working towards a more simplified version of the Rijksoctrooiwet, the legislation governing the validation of European patents in the Netherlands. The aim of the Ministry is to reduce the administrative

(5)

workload by at least 10%. One of their main points of focus is “het afschaffen van oude vertaaleisen”, which translates to “abolishing outdated translation requirements”. To fully understand this, background information about the validation of European patents in the Netherlands is in order.

European patents are granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) to offer protection for an idea or innovation within Europe. In the Netherlands, the Netherlands Patent Office (Octrooicentrum Nederland, or OCNL) oversees the grant of those patents. The need of a translation during the validation process of European patents in the Netherlands stems from the fact that the official languages of the EPO are English, French, and German, as stated in article 14 paragraph 1 of the European Patent Convention (EPC).

Article 52 paragraph 1 of the Dutch Rijksoctrooiwet covers the translation

requirements for European patents, which depend on the language of the patent text itself, and a specific section of the patent text, called the claims. The claims (conclusies in Dutch) are defined in Article 84 of the EPC: “[t]he claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise […]”. Figure 1 below gives an overview of the different situations regarding translation.

Figure 1

PATENT TEXT TRANSLATE

English Claims into Dutch

German/French Entire text into English or Dutch + Claims

into Dutch

If the patent text is English, only the claims need to be translated into Dutch. If the patent text is German or French, the text needs to be translated into English or Dutch, while the claims need to be translated into Dutch. So, in all cases, the claims of a European patent need to be translated into Dutch.

It is important to note that whereas contemporary research presented by D’hulst et al. (2016), and González Núñez & Meylaerts (2017) in the form of collections of articles by a number of different researchers focuses (not solely) on policies which have already been implemented, the research in this thesis is purely hypothetical, as the abolishment of the translation requirement is not yet implemented. Nevertheless, the research in this thesis is valuable. There are strong indications that the Ministry will pursue this proposed change in

(6)

policy in the foreseeable future, and therefore, the research presented in this thesis is not to be disregarded. Interestingly, a similar change in policy was issued by the Belgian government in 2017, when Belgium entered the London Agreement. This will be examined in-depth later in this thesis.

Furthermore, the tenor of the message issued by the Ministry undeniably raises the issue of the status of the translator in the patent sector. Choosing the word outdated to refer to the work that translators carry out does not sound appreciative of their efforts, and has a somewhat derogatory connotation. Dam & Zethsen (2008) have written about the status of the translation profession, observing that the “consensus among translators and translation

scholars regarding translator status is that it is decidedly low” (2008, p. 71). This notion seems to be reflected in the removal of the translation requirement. In addition to influencing translator status, the proposed change in policy influences the status of the actual text type that is subject to translation, in this case, patents.

All in all, the change in policy proposed by the Ministry will affect individual translators immensely, and will most likely affect their status, and the position of the

translations they produce. Therefore, this thesis will argue that the change in policy proposed by the Dutch ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy is indeed a form of translation policy, affecting the status of the translator and the texts subject to translation. In the

following chapter, the research literature will be reviewed and reflected upon. Subsequently, in chapter three, the methodology will be thoroughly described in order to explain how the research was conducted. Furthermore, this chapter contains the models and ideas by González Núñez (2016), D’hulst et al. (2016), and Diaz Fouces (2017), and justifications for using these models. The fourth chapter contains the analysis and discussion of the topics central to this thesis and involves the application of the models and concepts explored above, essentially providing a case study. Additionally, an in-depth account of the relevant background literature and legal background will be incorporated into the analysis chapter. The final chapter contains concluding remarks and implications for future research on the topics of this thesis.

(7)

2. Literature Review

In this chapter, contemporary research literature associated with the main topics of this thesis will be reviewed and assessed. These topics are translation policy, and translator status. The topic of polysystem theory will be incorporated into the analysis chapter of this thesis to determine the possible consequences for the position of translated patents within a larger polysystem. González Núñez, Tesseur, D’hulst et al., and Diaz Fouces provide valuable models and ideas regarding translation policy, highlighting the inherent vagueness of the term, and stressing the need for a clear definition. González Núñez sets out to pursue this clear definition by borrowing concepts from language policy, and ultimately formulates a framework in which a translation policy can be defined. He then applies those concepts to translation policy by means of a case study. The connection between language policy and translation policy is reiterated by Tesseur, D’hulst et al., and Diaz Fouces. D’hulst et al. present several useful research issues and topics, which overlap to some extent with González Núñez’ model. Diaz Fouces, much like González Núñez, pursues a framework to better define translation policy. Diaz Fouces acknowledges the research done by González Núñez and sees its value, but wants to focus his own research on the role of translation practices in the process of turning beliefs about translation into translation policy. González Núñez’ framework is presented as clear and concise, whereas the framework provided by Diaz Fouces seems to lack this conciseness. This might be due to the fact that Diaz Fouces borrows ideas and models from several different fields of research including public policy and economics. However, the research by Diaz Fouces does offer insight into the fairness of a policy and what stance on language governments could be taking. González Núñez provides additional research on the topic of translation policy in the UK specifically, homing in on several different domains. Dam & Zethsen present research on the topic of translator status by focusing on the status of Danish company translators. Lastly, a report by the Dutch Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA), albeit indirectly, provides some insight into the status of translators in the Netherlands.

One of the main topics of this thesis is translation policy. Gabriel González Núñez, in his 2016 article On Translation Policy, states that translation policy is quite a broad and vague concept, which may cause scholars to “face conceptual challenges when trying to determine the exact nature of the phenomenon they are attempting to study” (p. 87). His article presents a case study of translation policy in Scottish local government. González Núñez sets out to formulate a clear definition of translation policy, by first reviewing definitions given by other scholars. The definition proposed by Meylaerts, according to González Núñez, is “a welcome

(8)

step forward, but it may warrant an expansion” (p. 89). González Núñez aims towards a more comprehensive definition of translation policy, referring to concepts from the field of

language policy, for “translation is bound up in language” (p. 89). He suggests that the three components of language policy according to Spolsky (2004), language practices, language beliefs, and laguage management, can also be applied to translation policy. González Núñez’ justifications for borrowing these concepts from the field of language policy are certainly evident, because translation policy and language policy are both “bound up in language” (González Núñez, 2016, p.89). The link between language policy and translation policy and the basis for their connection is explained further by González Núñez as follows:

“Thus, translation policy is linked to language policy, both being types of cultural policy aimed at goals which include managing the flow of communications among the masses, establishing certain types of relationships between groups and their

surroundings, or attributing a particular symbolic value to specific kinds of cultural products” (p. 91).

González Núñez finds Spolsky’s definition useful for four reasons. First, because translation policy exists in dynamic, interrelated contexts. Second, in terms of methodology, it allows scholars to research one or more of these three topics while still acknowledging the other(s). Third, management, practices, and beliefs can be researched without excluding one or the other. Last, the definition is broad enough to include matters like power relations and linguistic culture (p. 90-91). After having established a definition of translation policy, González Núñez presents his case study of local government in Scotland. He starts by addressing the different languages of Scotland, namely Scottish Gaelic, Scots, and English, and observes that “English has a privileged position” (2016, p. 94). He selects the local government as the domain because “interactions with government and its services are more likely to occur at a local level than with legislators at the national level” (2016, p. 94). According to González Núñez, translation policy manifests itself through translation

management as “the result of decisions made by policymakers outside the local government domain”. He observes that such decisions come from Parliament and the devolved

government of Scotland (2016, p. 97). González Núñez then explores translation practices, and states that he gathered information on those practices by consulting online resources and via the 32 councils in charge of Scotland’s local government. The translation practices for include “online, non-post-edited machine translation of [the councils’] websites” for new

(9)

minority languages (2016, p. 99). For interpreting, councils offer both “over-the-phone and face-to-face interpreting”. González Núñez observes that councils often rely on private companies to provide translation and interpreting services (2016, p. 100). He then moves on to the third and final element of his definition, namely translation beliefs. He observes that translation beliefs are often hard to define because they are often not made explicit. González Núñez analyzes translation management and practices, to see how translation beliefs are reflected in those two elements of his definition. According to González Núñez, one translation belief is that translation is a tool for integration and equality. A second belief is that translation is often deemed “too costly and that it hinders the integration of linguistic minorities” (2016, p. 102). Another belief identified by González Núñez is that “translation is a tool for revitalizing weakened languages” (2016, p. 102). With this case study, González Núñez has shown that his definition yields valuable insight into translation policy within a given domain. Therefore, applying this comprehensive definition of translation policy will serve as the basis for the methodology of this thesis.

Wine Tesseur agrees with González Núñez and highlights the strong connection between language policy and translation policy in an article published in 2017 (p. 632). Tesseur’s article focuses on translation policy within the context of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs). Her research is essentially a case study of Amnesty International, an international human rights organization. Tesseur aims to investigate whether quotations were translated differently per Amnesty branch, and to “illustrate wider tensions within Amnesty on de/centralization and the position of English” (Tesseur, p. 636). Much like the research in this thesis, Tesseur uses González Núñez’ model for the analysis of her

research. This involves an analysis of translation management, practices and beliefs. She concludes that quotations were occasionally either adapted to the local context, replaced by quotations from a local spokesperson, or omitted entirely (Tesseur, 2017, p. 639). She considers translation a social activity, and notes that translation in this context is a “site of struggle […] over who decides what is translated, in what way, [and] in what languages […]” (p. 631). The issue of who decides what is translated is one of the main issues explored in this thesis, and indeed the main focus of translation management proposed by González Núñez, and Spolsky’s language management. Tesseur analyzes the translation practices of different Amnesty International branches. She collected her data from her own doctoral research on translation policies at Amnesty International in 2014, and by conducting additional interviews with Amnesty International staff members. She subsequently conducted a textual analysis of several different quotations and observes that “the translations of quotations by LRC Paris

(10)

rarely included any changes, Amnesty Flanders’ translations contained shifts on a regular basis” (Tesseur, 2017, p. 639).

Like Tesseur, D’hulst et al. (2016) reiterate the connection between language policy and translation policy proposed by González Núñez and Tesseur by writing that “[o]ne would […] expect the study of language and translation policy to meet and interact on a similar basis”. Their work is essentially a historical overview of past and present translation policies, which they deem necessary to understand the specifics of translation policy. In the preface to the book, D’hulst et al. provide four methodological questions:

(1) Metalanguage: how were policies named and defined in the past?

(2) Categories: is it necessary to categorise translators, publishers, translator’s techniques, and translation norms?

(3) Periodization: the temporal status of translation policies; were some historical translation policies perhaps influenced by earlier translation policies?

(4) Space: where do translation policies emerge and take shape? At what governmental level are they imposed; locally, nationally, or internationally? (2016, pp. 9-10)

Metalanguage is not immediately relevant to this thesis, because analyzing the name and definition of past policies would not yield data that is valuable for the analysis of the case at hand. The questions of categories, periodization, and space do contain insightful questions which will certainly be taken into account during the analysis of the case study at hand. These questions serve the purpose of contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of

translation policy in the case at hand.

The concepts and ideas put forth by Oscar Diaz Fouces, in his 2017 article from language planning to translation policy, serve that same purpose. Similarly to González Núñez, and D’hulst et al., Diaz Fouces,, aims to “outline an overall framework for the study of Translation Policy”, with language planning as his starting point. Furthermore, he states that the research aims to “approach the general contents suggested by Spolsky (2004)” (p. 58-59), also referring to the article by González Núñez analyzed above. Diaz Fouces wants to reach these general contents by focusing on a very specific perspective, namely the role that translation practices play in the process of turning beliefs about translation and translation policy into practice. He continues by classifying language policies as public policies,

(11)

highlighting models by Lasswell (1956), Brewer (1974), and Lowi (1972). Furthermore, Diaz Fouces distinguishes between the nature and contents of translation policies. Whereas the nature of a policy is geared towards what that policy aims to do, the contents of the policy are focused more on the issues that the policy addresses. “[G]overnments can design and

implement policies on a virtually unlimited range of issues[, such as] gender, environment, housing, etc.” (p. 61). He analyzes language policy in regards to language planning, referring to models by Haugen (1966), Rubin (1983), Kloss (1952), Cooper (1989). Effectiveness, efficiency, and fairness are key parameters to be taken into account when evaluating public policies. Effectiveness “assesses the degree of achievement of the expected outcome”;

Efficiency relates to the relationship between the costs and benefits of a policy; fairness refers to the potential consequences of a policy (p. 63). Diaz Fouces points out that even though scholars like Grin & Gazzola state that fairness should not be understood in the moral sense of the word, it does inevitably involve “consequences to […] individuals which must be

justified”. In other words, “public authorities must defend the appropriateness of their interventions” (p. 64).

The notions of effectiveness and efficiency can not yet be analyzed for this thesis as the intended policy change is not yet crystallized and implemented. As Diaz Fouces rightfully writes: “effectiveness, […] by its very nature, can only be taken into account a posteriori” (p. 63). In other words, the effectiveness of a policy can only be gauged after it has been

implemented and thus has had time to be active. Fairness, however, if understood in moral terms of who wins and who loses can in this case be researched a priori, because it essentially involves the removal of a step in the validation process of European patents. The

consequences are perhaps more suitable to prediction. Therefore, fairness will be analyzed in the analysis chapter of this thesis.

Diaz Fouces continues by addressing two distinct and opposite language approaches: instrumentalism and constitutivism. The instrumentalist language approach views languages as “mere tools whose only value lies in allowing an efficient way to reach a non-linguistic goal, namely human communication. For this perspective, therefore, the role of the state in linguistic matters must be limited to ensure the achievement of the intended objective (communication)”. The constitutivist language approach, on the other hand, “assumes that there is an identification between a language and its speakers, inasmuch as it is a part of themselves. This asserts the legitimacy of claiming protection for the linguistic communities” (p. 65). These language approaches differ in the value they attribute to language in general. Where the instrumentalist approach views language as a plain communication tool, the

(12)

constitutivist approach attributes a certain intrinsic value to all languages, even if those languages are not spoken by a large number of users. Diaz Fouces refers to Ruíz (1984), another scholar who researched approaches in language policy. He proposed three different approaches governments can take to essentially manage, or handle language in society: “language-as-problem”, “language-as-right”, and “language-as-resource”. The first approach views linguistic diversity as a “problem in terms of social cohesion, with the lack of

proficiency in a particular language […] seen as a handicap to be corrected”. Language

policies would focus on solving this “problem” by using bilingual education, which would not be the goal in itself, but merely a tool — this resembles the instrumentalist approach. The second approach is similar to constitutivism, as it “claims the right to use one’s language in common life, even as a minority, and not to be discriminated against for that reason” (p. 65). The third approach proposed by Ruíz involves bestowing a specific value upon languages such as “the usefulness of its knowledge for international relations […]” (p. 66). It essentially turns language into some sort of economic commodity. Diaz Fouces refers to Grenier & Vaillancourt (1983), stating that language “is a type of human capital, a form of knowledge useful for individuals, with a supercollective character and whose value increases as the number of people that use it grows, broadening its communication effectiveness” (p. 67).

As stated before, multilingualism in the European Union and more specifically, in the EPO, is the reason why there is a need for a translation of European Patents in the

Netherlands. Diaz Fouces defines multilingualism as “a recognition of linguistic rights to the individuals subject to the jurisdiction of a government in a given territory”. However, he also comments on the viability of multilingualism: “[c]ertainly, multilingualism is adjustable and it is unrealistic to expect any institution, including international bodies, to be able to interact and translate all languages” (p. 72). Perhaps the most prominent example is the European Union, as highlighted by Diaz Fouces:

Here, the well-known case of the European Union, as a supranational entity, will serve as an example. The only EU official languages are the official languages of the

member states, and every European citizen is guaranteed the right to be attended in these languages, and all institutional documents must be translated into them (p. 72).

The EU currently counts 27 member states and 24 official languages, meaning that every official document issued by the EU has to be available in those languages. As stated on the official website under the section regarding language policy, the EU has access to a limited

(13)

number of translators and the financial means available for translation are also subject to restrictions. Perhaps this could be part of the reason why the official languages of the EPO are reduced to English, German, and French, as accepting every patent application in all 24 official languages would greatly increase the workload of the translators and the EPO’s administration.

Another interesting observation made by Diaz Fouces is that “language policy [and, by extension, translation policy] and planning can be used as a mechanism to recover, increase, or decrease the value of a language” (p. 74). The fact that the Ministry aims to remove the requirement of a translation from a foreign language to Dutch can be viewed as a policy change that essentially decreases the value of Dutch in favor of the official EPO languages. This correlates with research by Alison Edwards, a sociolinguist affiliated with Leiden University and Utrecht University. In her 2016 book entitled English in the Netherlands: Functions, Forms and Attitudes, she states that “the [Dutch] government seems to take a favourable stance towards English, particularly where it will enhance Dutch business interests and its prospects or image on the world stage”. Although Dutch is the language “of the

government, parliament and the courts”, it is not explicitly codified as such in the Constitution (p. 42). It is codified elsewhere, namely in paragraph 1 of art. 2:6 of the General

Administrative Law Act. However, according to paragraph 2 of that same article,

governments may opt to use another language if that is deemed more appropriate (art. 2:6 AWB). Interestingly, Diaz Fouces states that “codification and standardization are the most effective defences against the break-up of a linguistic system” (2017, p. 69). To propose that the whole Dutch linguistic system will break up if it is not codified and standardized is clearly an exaggeration and perhaps a completely different matter, but it might be part of the reason why the Dutch in general are quite open to receiving the English language. Edwards continues by highlighting the widespread use of the English language in the Dutch public space, in internal government communications, and in governmental communications abroad. According to Edwards, the proficiency in English of the Dutch population even resembles bilingualism and the function of English is expanded:

With respect to the spread of bilingualism, […] the widespread

competence in English indicated by ‘official’ surveys (e.g. Education First 2013; European Commission 2012) is supported implicitly by the assumption of English competence that prevails in the media, advertising, business, public signage and other areas. With respect to expansion in function, it was found that English is

(14)

unmistakeably part of life in the Netherlands even for those without international aspirations, and is used internally – even when not strictly necessary – for signalling functions (as a marker of prestige or group membership). In this way it serves as an additional linguistic resource, allowing users to construct cosmopolitan, scholarly or subculture identities (p. 191-192).

The “assumption” in the citation above refers to how the Dutch perceive their own

proficiency in English. Perhaps an assumption is not the strongest base for an argument when conducting research, but in Edwards’ research, the assumption is not made by herself, but by respondents to a survey.

Returning to the case at hand, besides the reducing the administrative workload, this assumption of bilingualism may be another part of the reason why the policy change was proposed by the Ministry in the first place. It is not difficult to see why such a translation requirement would be superfluous if the Dutch are supposedly bilingual. Figure 1 is

essentially a simplified version of article 52 of the Rijksoctrooiwet, which shows that if the language of a patent text is in German or French, the text may be translated to either Dutch or English. This is due to the fact that the Netherlands have entered into the London Agreement, which will be discussed later in this thesis. Taking the previous observations into account, the fact that a patent text may also be translated into English is hardly surprising.

Edwards observes that English does indeed “[enjoy] high status in the Netherlands”, and, perhaps more importantly, she observes that several other scholars have commonly claimed that Dutch people are not known for being proud of their language, and even “undervalue” it (p. 70). As previously stated, the intended policy change seems to be an example of this notion of undervaluing a language. This is against the ideology of the EU, which is centered around preserving and promoting unique, individual cultures and languages while still striving for collective prosperity. Jose Manuel Barroso, former president of the European Commission, in his foreword to the book by Domenico Cosmai, entitled The Language of Europe: Multilingualism and Translation in the EU Institutions: Practice, Problems and Perspectives, emphasizes this culturally diverse and multilingual nature of the European Union:

The basis of our unity lies in the diverse and multilingual nature of Europe’s culture, which has ever been open to assimilating elements from the cultures of others. European unity is clearly not, therefore, the result of some kind of uniformisation or

(15)

levelling, but of a productive inclusiveness of differences, of contrasts, and, to a certain degree, even of tensions. In this way, the diversity of languages and cultures which co-exist side by side at the heart of the European Union are in no way exclusive, in the sense that they do not mutually exclude each other but instead reciprocally strengthen one another. The European Union is thus a place where we hear many languages being spoken; it is also a place in which equality between its languages is ensured by translation, because not a single one of these is deemed to be a minority language (2014, p. 7).

Barroso highlights and praises the role that translation plays in preserving equality between different languages. If all languages of the European Union are equal, that means they have to be valued equally as well. Clearly, the removal of the translation requirement reflects the notion that the Dutch government, in the case pertaining to this thesis, undervalues Dutch in favor of the official EPO languages.

In his book Translating in Linguistically Diverse Societies: Translation Policy in the United Kingdom González Núñez once again addresses translation policy. The research he presents in his book is essentially similar to what this thesis aims to do: present a case study of a translation policy of a government. The scope of his research is somewhat larger than the scope of this thesis, as he analysis translation policy in the UK (England, Wales, Northern-Ireland, and Scotland). Furthermore, his research differs from the research in this thesis because he focuses on the role that translation plays “in the integration of linguistic minorities” (2016, p. 215). He analyses translation policy in the following domains:

International law, the UK as a whole, local governments in the UK, the healthcare system of the UK, and the judicial system of the UK.

Focusing on the domain of international law, González Núñez observes that the

“obligations under international law on which minimum standards for translation policy could be set” are “rather narrow” (2016, p. 215). However, in judicial matters, especially in criminal proceedings, an obligation to translate under international law is made explicit. This

obligation to translate functions as a “procedural safeguard aimed at securing the right to a fair trial” (2016, p. 91).

González Núñez then moves on to the domain of the UK, and notes that equality/non-discrimination legislation is the basis “on which translation takes place in order to overcome language barriers when attempting to access services” (2016, p. 139). According to González Núñez, translation policy in the UK has two different aims: (1) overcoming language barriers

(16)

when accessing services; (2) social inclusion. Aside from “pressure toward translation”, González Núñez has also identified a “pressure against translation”, which stems from a policy aimed at moving away from multiculturalism in order to promote social cohesion and intergration (2016, p. 140).

Moving from the UK as a whole to the domain of local governments, González Núñez observes that local governments “rely on written translations and interpreting in order to facilitate access to their services by those who would have difficulty doing it in English”, and that translating for new minority languages can hinder integration in England because

“English is one of the main binding agents of English society, if not the main one” (2016, p. 168). Another issue highlighted in his research is the fact that local governments rely on machine translation for their websites. While this may seem like it provides a widespread equality between speakers of English and minority languages, it is problematic because the “translation output is not post-edited by humans. This means that the translations tend to be low quality” (2016, p. 169).

The next domain analyzed by González Núñez pertains to healthcare in the UK. He observes that “there is no single coordinated translation policy aimed at greater access for minorities or inclusiveness in the healthcare system”, but there are patterns to be observed (2016, p. 194). The patterns are listed and described as follows: health boards have chosen translation as a tool to fulfill legal obligations to give everyone equal access to healthcare; translation policy in healthcare seems to be more inclined to opt for professional translation instead of non-professional translation; translation policy in healthcare applies almost exclusively to new minority languages as opposed to old minority languages.

The final domain analyzed by González Núñez is the judiciary or court system of the UK. This domain is deemed very important because it allows “everyone to fully enjoy their rights in society” (2016, p. 197). Therefore, the obligation to translate for anyone who does not speak the court language is codified in UK-wide legislation incorporating international commitments specifically (2016, p. 212). Translation in the judiciary stems directly from the law, whereas in the other domains, translation is the result of management decisions. This right to have access to translation in (criminal) proceedings “is meant to guarantee a fair trial for the defendant who would otherwise not be able to participate in his or her own case (2016, p. 212).

While the research by González Núñez analyzes translation policy from a different perspective — the perspective of equality/non-discrimination — than this thesis, it has shown that an analysis of the legal footing on which translation policy is based should be mandatory

(17)

in any case study pertaining to translation policy. Such an analysis containing the legal background of the change in translation policy will be provided in the analysis chapter of this thesis.

Having reviewed the relevant research literature on the topic of translation policy, the following paragraphs will analyze the literature regarding translator status. Part of the aim of this thesis is to chart and predict the possible consequences for the translators and the status of the translation profession, at least in the Netherlands. Dam & Zethsen, in their 2008 article Translator Status: a Study of Danish Company Translators, observe that translation is a “low-status profession” (p. 71). They refer to a study by Hermans & Lambert (1998) which showed that translators occupy a peripheral position in business life. Furthermore, Dam & Zethsen quote a wide array of scholars reporting on their assessment of external views on the low status of translators and the translation profession. Terms such as “non-creative”,

“secondary”, “inferior”, and “derivative” are unfortunately commonplace (2008, p. 73). According to Dam & Zethsen, status is not “an absolute notion, but [it] is a complex, subjective and context-dependent construct” (p. 74). This low status of the translator is also highlighted by Geoffrey Samuelsson-Brown. In his book Managing Translation Services, he makes the following statements:

“Translation as a profession is underrated and underpaid. […] Not only does the translator need to have the command of at least one source language and a target language plus a subject knowledge in these languages, he needs the skills to use the IT tools that are indispensable for the elements of the work to be done. […] Fees offered to freelances have declined significantly over the last few years and thus the volume of work a freelance needs to get through to generate an acceptable income has increased proportionately” (2006, p. 2).

Much like the observations made by Dam & Zethsen, Samuelsson-Brown thinks the

translation profession is undervalued in general, but especially salary-wise. Returning to the article by Dam & Zethsen, they set out to define status or prestige in regards to an occupation, and refer to a Danish study on occupational status carried out in 2006. This study presented four parameters which determine status in Denmark: (1) a high salary, (2) a high level of education, (3) visibility/fame, (4) power/influence. These four parameters were used by Dam & Zethsen in the questionnaires presented to the company translators and other employees. Their research shows that translators and the translation profession were ranked low on the

(18)

parameters of salary, visibility/fame, and power/influence by the company translators themselves and by other employees. Interestingly, translators were ranked high on the parameter of education. In other words, translators and other employees perceived the education or expertise needed in order to carry out the translation to be high. The citation above from Samuelsson-Brown indicates that he made the same observation regarding the skill required to be a successful translator.

In 2017, the Dutch Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA) published a report on the status and image of teachers in the Netherlands in the 21st century. While teacher status is not directly relevant to this thesis, the occupational prestige ladder presented in the report is valuable in assessing perceived prestige of occupations included in the ladder. The occupational prestige ladder features 138 different occupations, ranging from surgeon (ranked most prestigious) to waste collector (ranked least prestigious). The

translation profession, one would assume, would be situated somewhere in between those two occupations. However, the translator and the translation profession as a whole are excluded entirely from the occupational prestige ladder. The fact that translators are excluded shows that the perceived status of translators is perhaps even lower than Dam & Zethsen claim, at least in the Netherlands. This makes it worthwhile to take a closer look at the case at hand from the perspective of the translator and the translator’s status.

2.1 Concluding remarks

In this chapter, relevant research literature was reviewed and discussed. The research topics this chapter focused on were translation policy, which is the main topic of this thesis, and translator status. González Núñez provided a clear definition of translation policy, borrowing concepts from the field of language policy. This connection between language policy and translation policy was also observed by other researchers such as Tesseur, D’hulst et al., and Diaz Fouces. The research presented by Tesseur is essentially a case study of translation policy within an international non-governmental organization, namely Amnesty International. She researched the translation practices of several Amnesty branches and concluded that quotations are translated differently per branch or that they are sometimes omitted completely. D’hulst et al. provide a collection of papers which serves as an historical overview of translation policy, while also providing a set of research topics. These research topics, except for the topic of metalanguage, which is not relevant to this thesis, will be used in the analysis chapter. Like González Núñez, Diaz Fouces sets out to formulate a framework in which translation policy can be analyzed. He even refers to González Núñez in his article,

(19)

stating that he too aims to approach the contents of Spolsky’s language policy. He aims to do this by borrowing from several different disciplines, including economics and public policy. While the article itself is quite ambitious, the framework proposed by Diaz Fouces lacks the conciseness and comprehensiveness that the definition proposed by González Núñez does have. This results in a framework that is quite broad, and therefore risks becoming vague. On the other hand, while this general framework proposed by Diaz Fouces is not suitable as a basis for the methodology of this thesis, his article does provide several issues which will be addressed in the analysis chapter of this thesis. These issues include fairness, instrumentalism versus constitutivism, and approaches on language policy borrowed from Ruíz. Diaz Fouces observes that language, and by extension, translation policy, can affect the value of a

language. The proposed change in policy in the case at hand seems to be an example of the Dutch government undervaluing the Dutch language in favor of the official EPO languages. This observation, pertaining to the status of Dutch, was researched by Edwards. Her research focuses on the English language in the Netherlands. Indeed, she observes that the Dutch generally undervalue their own language. Furthermore, she sees that English enjoys a high status in the Netherlands, and that there is an assumption of bilingualism among Dutch native speakers. This supposed undervaluing of the Dutch language seems to conflict with the ideology of the European Union, the core of which focuses on preserving the uniqueness and identity of the culture of every member state, while still striving for collective prosperity, both economic and cultural. Former president of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso even highlights the the diversity of languages and cultures within the EU and the precious role translators play in preserving that diversity. Other research by González Núñez focused on translation policy in the UK, where he made case studies of the following distinct domains: international law; the UK as a whole; local governments in the UK; the healthcare system; the judiciary. His research focuses on equality and non-discrimination of minority languages in the UK and showed that a thorough analysis of the legal footing on which a translation policy is based provides a better understanding of that translation policy.

For the topic of translator status, research by Dam & Zethsen was reviewed. Additionally, a report by the Dutch Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA) was analyzed. Dam & Zethsen researched the status of Danish company translators, and note that status is often complex and context-dependent, and that the status of the translator is very low. Furthermore, translator status is also often referred to by means of derogative terms. Dam & Zethsen analyzed translator status based on questionnaires which were filled in by the company translators and their colleagues. Their questionnaires contained

(20)

four main parameters: salary, education, visibility/fame, and power/influence. In the questionnaire, subjects were asked to rank translators on each parameter from low to high. Interestingly, the results showed that translators ranked low on the parameters of salary, visibility/fame, and power/influence, but ranked high on the parameter of education. Finally, the ROA report presented an occupational prestige ladder in which 138 occupations in the Netherlands were ranked. Alarmingly, the translation profession was excluded entirely from the list, suggesting that the status of translators in the Netherlands is perhaps even lower than Dam & Zethsen claim.

This concludes the literature review of this thesis. The following chapter contains the methodology, and will provide an in-depth discussion of the models and their value for the research in this thesis.

(21)

3. Methodology

The research was conducted by performing a case study of the abolishment of the translation requirement for the validation of European patents proposed by the Ministry. This case study involved the application of models and concepts provided by D’hulst et al.,

González Núñez, and Diaz Fouces to the case at hand. The main focus of this chapter is the model by González Núñez, as it is the most clear and concise, and will thus yield valuable insight into translation policy. Notwithstanding, the ideas and concepts proposed by D’hulst et al. and Diaz Fouces will be analyzed thoroughly as well, as the application of those models in conjunction with the model by González Núñez will only yield a more comprehensive notion of translation policy. It should be noted that the model by D’hulst et al. is not a model in the traditional sense of the word, but rather a set of questions or issues raised which, when answered, can help provide a better understanding of the case study analyzed in this thesis. The same holds true for the ideas proposed by Diaz Fouces, which are in themselves not necessarily models, but instead function as areas of focus which can contribute to a better understanding of translation policy in general. Still, for the sake of cohesion, the ideas by D’hulst et al. and Diaz Fouces will be referred to as models.

3.1 Model by D’hulst et al.

As stated earlier, D’hulst et al. provide four “methodological issues”:

(1) Metalanguage: how were policies named and defined in the past?

(2) Categories: is it necessary to categorise translators, publishers, translator’s techniques, and translation norms?

(3) Periodization: the temporal status of translation policies; were some historical translation policies perhaps influenced by earlier translation policies?

(4) Space: where do translation policies emerge and take shape? At what governmental level are they imposed; locally, nationally, or internationally? (2016, pp. 9-10)

While the first methodological issue dealing with metalanguage is not directly relevant to this thesis, the remaining issues can provide a better understanding of the case at hand and

translation policy in general. The issue of categories pertains to whether it is necessary to categorize the different agents in any given case. This issue overlaps with the concept of

(22)

participants, which, in turn, is part of the idea of domains borrowed from Spolsky and

Fishman by González Núñez. Categorizing these participants gives a clear overview of who is involved in the design of the policy or policy change, and whom the policy affects. The third issue listed by D’hulst et al., entitled periodization, discusses whether it is possible for

translation policies to be influenced by or designed on the basis of earlier translation policies. In the case at hand, the situation regarding the translation requirement of European patents in Belgium mentioned briefly in the introduction will be further analyzed. While it might be difficult to scientifically prove that the Ministry was influenced by the Belgian government in their proposal to abolish the translation requirement without data such as statements from employees from the Ministry itself, it is nevertheless useful to examine the situation in Belgium as it could provide information for analyzing the situation in the Netherlands. The issue of space shows even more overlap with domains, as it refers to where policies are designed and at what governmental level the policy design occurs. Analyzing this

methodological issue gives insight into how the policy will be enforced and in what manner it will be codified. At the local level, a policy could take the form of an APV, which stands for algemene plaatselijke verordening, or general municipal bylaw in English. At the national level, a policy could take the form of codified law. In the case at hand, the translation

requirement is codified in national law, therefore the relevant legislation has to be amended in order to facilitate a change in policy, as was made clear in the introduction to this thesis. Finally, on the international level, a state could enter into a European treaty or agreement governing the validation of European patents in that state. This means surrendering a portion of their sovereignty, as treaties and other forms of international law are generally binding and therefore render national law void.

3.2 Model by González Núñez

The main model utilized in this thesis is proposed by González Núñez in his 2016 article On Translation Policy, and borrows concepts from Spolsky, a scholar in the field of language policy. In his paper, González Núñez gives an overview of language policy according to Spolsky, stating that it essentially comprises three key elements:

(1) Language practices: actual language practices of the members of a speech community.

(2) Language beliefs: values assigned by members of a speech community to each variety […] and their beliefs about the importance of these values.

(23)

(3) Language management: efforts by some members of a speech community who have or believe they have authority over other members to modify their language practice1 (2016, p. 90).

González Núñez gives examples of languages practices, beliefs, and management to further illustrate the meaning of these three terms. An example of a language practice is the fact that American English speakers generally refer to the path on the side of a road as a sidewalk, whereas British English speakers would use the term pavement. Another example would be the fact that in English football, the London-based football club Arsenal is often referred to as “the gunners”. In other words, language practices focus on the linguistic choices the speakers of a language make. An example of language beliefs is the opinion that a language such as Spanish is corrupted by adopting indigenous words from Latin America. Another example could be the opinion — either positive or negative — that Dutch native speakers have about the West Frisian language. This notion is explained as follows by Spolsky in his book

Language Policy: “[l]anguage ideology or beliefs designate a speech community’s consensus on what value to apply to each of the language variables or named language varieties that make up its repertoire” (2004, p. 14). It can be seen as a collective ideology of users of a certain language regarding certain language characteristics or varieties. Lastly, an example of language management given by González Núñez is naming Albanian as the official language of the Republic of Albania. Another example could be the recognition of the Croatian

language as an official language of the European Union when Croatia joined the EU in 2013. Spolsky borrows from Cooper (1989) by saying that language management is centered around the question of “who plans what for whom and how” (2004, p. 14).

Another concept González Núñez borrows from Spolsky which is related to language practices, beliefs, and management is the notion that language policy operates in specific domains. Spolsky borrowed this idea from American linguist Joshua Fishman. A domain is defined by González Núñez as a “sociolinguistic context that can be identified in terms of three key criteria: location, participants, and topic” (p. 91). An example of a domain in which language policy operates could be a court system of a state. The location would be a specific court, for example a magistrates’ court in England which deals with less serious summary offences. The participants would be virtually every person involved in the court proceedings, such as judges, barristers, and clerks to the court. The topic can be the criminal trial between

(24)

several parties, for example if a person is accused of minor assault against another person. Another example of a domain could be an author giving a public interview about his or her latest book during a book literature convention. The location would be the physical location where the convention takes place, for example an event center. The participants would include: the interviewer, the author, and the people attending the event. Incorporating the concept of domains in the analysis of a translation policy serves the purpose of providing a clear overview of who is involved in said policy, and also what its boundaries are. To put it differently, the concept of domains gives insight into the scope of a translation policy.

Thus, after having established the foundation of his with the relevant background information, borrowing from the field of language policy, González Núñez proposes that translation policy “encompasses translation management, translation practice, and translation beliefs” (p. 92). He explains these three core elements of his definition as follows:

1. Translation management refers to the decisions regarding translation made by people who have the authority to decide the use or non-use of translation within a domain.

2. Translation practice refers to the actual translation practices of a given community. 3. Translation beliefs refer to the beliefs that members of a community hold about issues

such as what the value is, or is not, of offering translation in certain contexts for certain groups or to achieve certain ends (p. 92).

As can be gathered from this definition, its three core elements are virtually identical to the elements in the model for language policy offered by Spolsky.

González Núñez elaborates on the three components of his model by stating that decisions pertaining to translation management can be made by someone who is directly involved in the translation process, for example a project manager, or by someone who is not directly involved, such as lawmakers. Translation management, he continues, mostly takes the form of overt policy. An overt policy would generally be codified in national or international law, or, on a smaller scale, in the guidelines for in-house translators at a translation agency. These forms of policy are explicit, and publicly available for anyone who is interested in consulting them, hence the term “overt” (p. 92). Translation practices, much like language practices, refer to the actual practices, or usual procedures of a given community during the translation process. According to González Núñez, translation practices may be the result of an overt, codified policy, “or they may also be the result of implicit or covert policy” (p. 92). In either case, translation practices help crystallize translation policy in a genuine manner.

(25)

González Núñez observes that translation practices occur in every given domain, involving issues of what texts get selected for translating, and which source and target languages are used (p. 92). Linked closely to the idea of translation practices are translation beliefs. The idea of translation beliefs focuses on the beliefs members of a community may hold regarding the value of translation or non-translation in a specific domain, to achieve specific ends. González Núñez points out that multiple translation beliefs may be at play at the same time in the same domain, even if those beliefs conflict with each other. Perhaps the most effective way to gather data on translation beliefs would be to conduct interviews with patent translators and Ministry officials. Taking the scope of this thesis into consideration, this method was not feasible. Instead, in the analysis of this thesis, translation beliefs will be analyzed by how they are reflected in translation practices and management.

Translation management, practices, and beliefs do not necessarily have to be perfectly in line with each other, as “there may also be tension between management, practice, and belief, and the relationship between each of these three aspects is complex, as they affect each other in continuous dynamic ways that are hard to measure” (p.92). Still, this definition of translation policy can provide valuable insight into the way translation is managed and regulated by applying the three core elements in any given domain.

3.3 Model by Diaz Fouces

Like the ideas and concepts proposed by D’hulst et al., the ideas proposed in the article entitled From Language Planning to Translation Policy: Looking For a Conceptual Framework by Oscar Diaz Fouces are not necessarily models but points of focus to take into account during the analysis of the case study. As stated before, the issue of fairness raised by Diaz Fouces will be addressed to gain a clear view of the moral implications that the removal of a translation requirement may have. It essentially provides an overview of who wins and who loses. Additionally, Diaz Fouces examines the instrumentalist and constitutivist approach when it comes to language. Lastly, the approaches on language policy he borrowed from Ruíz (1984) encompass “language-as-problem”, “language-as-right”, and “language-as-resource”, and consider in what manner governments manage language in society. Applying these last two approaches during the case study in this thesis will provide insight into which stance on language and translation the Dutch government is taking.

(26)

3.4 Concluding remarks

In this chapter, the methodology used in this thesis was analyzed by addressing all the different models and concepts which are going to be applied in the following chapter. As stated before, the concepts provided by D’hulst et al. and Diaz Fouces present research topics rather than models in the traditional sense of the word. Applying the model by González Núñez and these topics to the case at hand will prove that the proposed removal of the

translation requirement is indeed a form of translation policy with consequences for the status of the patent translator in the Netherlands.

(27)

4. Analysis & Discussion

The previous chapter analyzed the different models which are going to be applied to the case at hand. This chapter will focus on the case study and its analysis. The case study involves the application and discussion of the models by D’hulst et al., González Núñez, and Diaz Fouces. First, the model by D’hulst et al. will be applied, which involves categorizing the “actors” in the chain, and addressing the issues of periodization and space. Then, the model by González Núñez will be applied to the case at hand, providing valuable insight into the inner workings of this case. Subsequently, the domain in which this case finds itself will be specified. Then, the models by Diaz Fouces will be applied and discussed. Finally, the general concept of polysystem theory and the implications for the case at hand will be discussed.

4.1 Applying the model by D’hulst et al.

As was previously explained in the literature review, the issue of metalanguage is not relevant to this thesis, and is therefore left out of the analysis. The topics of categories, periodization, and space will be applied below.

4.1.1 Categories

This section covers the categorization, or rather the classification of the agents in the case at hand. It provides an overview of the institutions and individuals who are involved in designing the policy, and those who are affected by it. Because this case study effectively deals with translators, policy makers, and translation norms only, the publishers and

translator’s techniques in the model by D’hulst et al. are not relevant to this thesis, and will not have to be addressed. After all, the removal of the translation requirement is not

governing the techniques a translator should or should not be utilizing, as it completely removes the need for a translation. The case at hand comprises the following agents: the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, in-house translators, freelance translators, translation companies, patent owners, and the readership.

For the most comprehensive understanding of the case at hand, it is important to identify where in the Dutch government the policy change originated. As stated before in the introduction, the change in translation policy is proposed by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. The Ministry is headed by Minister Wiebes and State Secretary Keijzer. A description of the aims and tasks of the Ministry is found on the official website:

(28)

The Ministry promotes the Netherlands as a country of enterprise with a strong international competitive position and an eye for sustainability. It is committed to creating an excellent entrepreneurial business climate, by creating the right conditions and giving entrepreneurs room to innovate and grow. By paying attention to nature and the living environment. By encouraging cooperation between research institutes and businesses. This is how we enhance our leading positions in agriculture, industry, services and energy and invest in a powerful, sustainable country.

The validation of European patents is managed by the Netherlands Patent Office, a

department of the Netherlands Enterprise Agency. In turn, the Netherlands Enterprise Agency is commissioned by the Ministry. European patent validation falls under the category of IP, which is listed as a topic of the Ministry. It is likely that the change in policy originated from within the Netherlands Patent Office, as they specialize in patents, and are governed by the Ministry.

Having established where the proposed change in policy has its roots on one end, the patent translators are inevitably on the receiving end of the situation. The proposed change in policy directly affects them, as their career is potentially at risk. It is important to divide the translators into two groups, as both groups might deal with the consequences of the change in policy in different ways. On the one hand, there are the in-house translators, employed by translation companies or companies who offer translation services. Samuelsson-Brown (2010), in his book A Practical Guide for Translators notes that being a “staff translator” has certain advantages: it provides a stable income; there is the opportunity to learn from

experienced translators; you have access to dictionaries and other reference literature needed to perform the translation; the opportunity to discuss your work with your colleagues and learn from the feedback (p. 12). On the other hand, there are the freelance translators who are hired by a company but are not officially employees. Still, Samuelsson-Brown notes that freelance translators should treat their job as if they were in-house translators, lest they become mentally fatigued. He stresses that freelance translators should not try to “work more than 24 hours a day” (p. 17). All in all, being a staff translator generally provides a more structured career and stable income, whereas freelance translators have more freedom in structuring working hours, but have to deal with lower fees and manage their personal working capacity.

(29)

the translation requirement in different ways. The in-house translators may be offered a different position at the company that employs them. This may however involve the need of retraining, as the competences for translation may not be sufficient or adequate for their new tasks. Freelance translators do generally not enjoy the support from an employer in finding a new job, causing them to face this issue alone (help and support from family members, friends, partners, etc. not taken into consideration). Conversely, freelance translators are generally not bound by having one single employer, as they can work for multiple different clients simultaneously.

The translation companies which employ patent translators will also have to deal with the consequences of the removal of the translation requirement. The severity of those

consequences will depend on the fields of translation in which the translation company provides services. The consequences will be far greater if a company focuses on patent translation only, than when a company focuses on legal translation in general. This could also influence whether patent translators get retrained to work in a different field of translation or if they get dismissed.

Patent owners are also affected by the policy change, as the validation process of European patents in the Netherlands changes. For patent owners, validation in the Netherlands becomes more attractive without the additional step of having to supply a translation. The validation process will be less time consuming, and obviously less costly. In contrast to the other parties affected by the policy change, patent owners will experience practically no negative consequences.

Lastly, the readership will be affected by the removal of the translation requirement. The readership in the case at hand consists of OCNL, which regulates the validation of European patents in the Netherlands; patent watch teams of intellectual property firms, which are tasked with seeking out patents that are similar to each other, preventing patent

infringement; other parties with an interest in patent texts, such as individuals who have an affinity for technology and like to be up-to-date on the latest developments in that sector. As previously stated before, the official EPO languages are English, German, and French. Because European patents in the Netherlands may be written in Dutch or in English, removing the translation requirement becomes problematic for the readership if their proficiency in German or French is lacking.

4.1.2 Periodization

(30)

policies. By considering this issue, one is analyzing whether some historical translation policies were perhaps influenced by earlier translation policies. While it may be difficult to prove that the change in policy in the case at hand is indeed influenced by or based on some earlier translation policy without consulting the individuals from the Ministry who are responsible for initiating said change, it is worth noting that a similar change in policy happened in Belgium in 2017. In that year, Belgium entered into the London Agreement, the official title of which is Agreement on the application of Article 65 EPC — London

Agreement. As can be drawn from the title, it addresses the implementation of article 65 EPC, which deals with the translation of European patents. It is described as follows on the official EPO website: “[the London Agreement] is an optional agreement aiming at reducing the costs relating to the translation of European patents. It is the fruit of the longstanding efforts to provide for a cost attractive post-grant translation regime […]” (EPO). Article 1 of the Agreement describes the implementation as follows:

(1) Any State party to this Agreement having an official language in common with one of the official languages of the European Patent Office shall dispense with the translation requirements provided for in Article 65, paragraph 1, of the European Patent Convention.

(2) Any State party to this Agreement having no official language in common with one of the official languages of the European Patent Office shall dispense with the translation requirements provided for in Article 65, paragraph 1, of the European Patent Convention, if the European patent has been granted in the official language of the European Patent Office prescribed by that State, or translated into that language and supplied under the conditions provided for in Article 65, paragraph 1, of the European Patent Convention.

(3) The States referred to in paragraph 2 shall continue to have the right to require that a translation of the claims into one of their official languages be supplied under the conditions provided for in Article 65, paragraph 1, of the European Patent Convention.

(4) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as restricting the right of the States parties to this Agreement to dispense with any translation requirement or to apply more liberal translation requirements than those referred to in

Translation Policy within the Dutch Government: A Comprehensive Case-Study of European Patent Translation

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Literature Review

3. Methodology

4. Analysis & Discussion