Advertisement
by David l l l l » Mon Nov 24, 2014 4:28 pm
by Federation of Galice » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:50 pm
by Red Blackiland » Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:34 pm
by California Prime » Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:42 pm
Hakio wrote:Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as requiring member nations to recognize domestic patents.
So this resolution does nothing then? This entire thing has been mandatory explicit requirements of international patent acceptance and yet we can choose not to follow this? WA resolutions are not optional.
by Caprovia » Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:00 pm
by Kincoboh » Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:16 pm
Caprovia wrote:I know that similar things have already been said by others, but Caprovia as well as many other nations in Nations Under the Rador are opposed to this proposition. Caprovia, as well as Alstexan the region's founder, and Amslandia, the region's delegate, does not even grant domestic patents, so this resolution is completely against our interests. In fact, it was not until now that it was brought to my attention that there was already pro-patent legislation passed previously in the WA. Because of this, I move that these previous resolutions be brought back for review once the current one is resolved.
by Alstexan » Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:34 pm
Caprovia wrote:I know that similar things have already been said by others, but Caprovia as well as many other nations in Nations Under the Rador are opposed to this proposition. Caprovia, as well as Alstexan the region's founder, and Amslandia, the region's delegate, does not even grant domestic patents, so this resolution is completely against our interests. In fact, it was not until now that it was brought to my attention that there was already pro-patent legislation passed previously in the WA. Because of this, I move that these previous resolutions be brought back for review once the current one is resolved.
The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: By giving people the right to earn from their patent you are reducing barriers to commerce. Unless you think legalising theft is a form of Free Trade.
by Caprovia » Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:35 pm
Kincoboh wrote:Apparently there isn't. I received a telegram from the author informing me there were no laws regarding patents in the World Assembly. See my response on the previous page.
Interestingly enough though, the author of this proposition was the one who moved to repeal the General Patent Charter, so that it would be replaced with this new one. It would be quite the irony if this one is not passed, therefore leaving no WA resolutions directly regarding patents.Railana wrote:Well, then, it's rather unfortunate for you that the World Assembly has a strong tradition of recognizing intellectual property rights, isn't it?
by Roryntopia » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:43 am
by Federation of Galice » Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:32 am
by Bears Armed » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:20 am
Stretosa wrote:"Little Timmy needs his Insulin? Too bad you don't have $1,500 to spend on a single dose.
Grandma needs her chemotherapy? Sorry, pal, we know it was cheaper a few months ago, but now that we have the patent, it's suddenly become 680% more expensive.
by The Dark Star Republic » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:48 am
by Caprovia » Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:17 pm
by Alstexan » Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:19 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:"So - what is the alternative? How is the WA going to protect innovation?"
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:34 pm
Alstexan wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:"So - what is the alternative? How is the WA going to protect innovation?"
By NOT legislating on patents.
The simple fact is that patents prevent innovation. Some of the best forms of it come from reverse engineering inventions and improving them. Being able to produce things cheaper and better is the pinnacle of innovation and contributes to the betterment of humanity, regardless of whether these are novel ideas or they've been ripped off someone else's.
For this very simple reason Alstexan does not grant patents, and requiring their enforcement is something that we cannot and will not comply with.
by Alstexan » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:17 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Alstexan wrote:
By NOT legislating on patents.
The simple fact is that patents prevent innovation. Some of the best forms of it come from reverse engineering inventions and improving them. Being able to produce things cheaper and better is the pinnacle of innovation and contributes to the betterment of humanity, regardless of whether these are novel ideas or they've been ripped off someone else's.
For this very simple reason Alstexan does not grant patents, and requiring their enforcement is something that we cannot and will not comply with.
"People can still reverse engineer patented designs. They aren't some secret, and improvements on a design can be made...by Odin's E'er-Gyrating Pelvis, the utter lack of understanding patants by the opposition has done me in. Ambassador Fulton, I owe you apologies, and I'd like to switch my stance from Opposition to Support, for all it's worth."
by Sierra Lyricalia » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:22 pm
Caprovia wrote:...it is a law that only favorscapitalist nationsscientific development, which willactuallytemporarilyhurt a very large portion of theleave underdeveloped member nations a bit behind, but again, only for a defined span of years.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:38 pm
Alstexan wrote:Patents stifle the ability to distribute these improvements. That's the serious issue. It's one form of regulation that monopolizes rather than equalizes.
I want someone to really explain to me how patents supposedly "protect" innovation in terms that anyone can understand, because every argument I've seen for patent legislation doesn't do this.
by Caprovia » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:40 pm
by Old Hope » Tue Nov 25, 2014 3:10 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Alstexan wrote:Patents stifle the ability to distribute these improvements. That's the serious issue. It's one form of regulation that monopolizes rather than equalizes.
I want someone to really explain to me how patents supposedly "protect" innovation in terms that anyone can understand, because every argument I've seen for patent legislation doesn't do this.
You spend $5M to develop a widget. This money went toward research, materials, labor, and the initial cost of building a modestly-sized assembly line to manufacture them for sale to the public.
WITH PATENTS:
You manufacture widgets and sell them to the public (OR sell the patent to some outfit that can do this part better). The public, excited over a new widget, buys them. You make your $5M back, and then some. You grow bored with overseeing widget manufacture, so you take your $5+M and develop something else. Repeat until death or retirement.
WITHOUT PATENTS:
You manufacture widgets and try to sell them to the public. A manufacturer in some Most Favored Nation with shitty labor laws (or even across the street) reverse-engineers your product and makes cheaper versions (their assembly line was cheaper to set up, they use cheaper materials, and their workers make a pittance to what yours do). No matter how much you slash costs, you cannot compete on price, because your investors need to recoup the cost of development, not just the cost of the factory. Due to the presence of cheaper reverse-engineered competitors, your business is unable to turn a profit. You fail to make back your investment. If you're lucky, you don't have to declare bankruptcy to get creditors off your back; if you're not, you're never getting anyone to loan you anything again. You say "Fuck this racket!" and get a job as a mechanic or tech support person. You spend your life drearily working on technology that already exists, rather than making up something new.
Q.E.D.
Questions?
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Tue Nov 25, 2014 3:58 pm
Caprovia wrote:Edit: Also, it surprises me that a successful anarchist nation like yours would be a supporter of patents. It appears to go against your ideals.
by HMS Unicorn » Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:40 pm
by Kincoboh » Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:43 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:If we were talking about an unlimited term, you'd be right. But people can't eat of the fruit of their labor in a regime where their ideas aren't protected to some extent.
Maybe a flat 20-year term is unreasonable (particularly for something like computer hardware/software); but the idea of patent protection is necessary in all but the most strictly communist economies.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement