[PASSED] Foreign Patent Act

[Wallenburg]

I think I voted for this - it makes trading easier right?

"It protects intellectual property on an international scale. Most consider that conducive to free trade."

[Wallenburg]

"In all honesty, I would have voted for Resolution 347 had it come across my desk in the World Assembly at that time (OOC: joined NationStates during 2015). Clear boundaries for patents, more allocation for national sovereignty, better guidelines for patent length, and the dispatching of international disputes to international trade law."

"Ambassador, I honestly don't see how banning ideologies that do not allow for patent systems is in any way protective of national sovereignty."

[Wacksytopia]

I think I voted for this - it makes trading easier right?

"It protects intellectual property on an international scale. Most consider that conducive to free trade."

Oops my bad! ^^

[Zjaum]

"Ambassador, let me ask for some clarification here. Is your concern that all national patents currently in effect will be brought to the international level? Am I missing some detail here?"

"Not quite, but close. Here are my arguments, as best as I can describe them:

First, that national patents (regardless of how poorly formed) would be reinforced by a WAPS patent. (We understand that the WAPS patent doesn't reflect the national patent, but our assumption is that WAPS patents would give bad national patents the World Assembly stamp of approval);

Second, that the WAPS would just bring another layer of bureaucracy to a system that already hinders economic expansion;

Third, that the WAPS's guidelines for determining patent length would not be based on what is best for the world economy, but rather 'the conditions of member states' economies';

Fourth, that there are no time or quality restrictions for either WAPS or national patents, yet that (by clause 7) WAPS patents must be recognized by the entire World Assembly, for however long the WAPS patent is.

I believe that is my argument, as best as I can describe it. I admit, the first point is the weakest, but the other three are strong enough reasons for the state of Zjaum to vote against this resolution."

[Zjaum]

"In all honesty, I would have voted for Resolution 347 had it come across my desk in the World Assembly at that time (OOC: joined NationStates during 2015). Clear boundaries for patents, more allocation for national sovereignty, better guidelines for patent length, and the dispatching of international disputes to international trade law."

"Ambassador, I honestly don't see how banning ideologies that do not allow for patent systems is in any way protective of national sovereignty."

"Please point out the clause that does so. If you are right, then I would agree completely. I could not find such a clause, but perhaps an implication."

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, let me ask for some clarification here. Is your concern that all national patents currently in effect will be brought to the international level? Am I missing some detail here?"

"Not quite, but close. Here are my arguments, as best as I can describe them:

First, that national patents (regardless of how poorly formed) would be reinforced by a WAPS patent. (We understand that the WAPS patent doesn't reflect the national patent, but our assumption is that WAPS patents would give bad national patents the World Assembly stamp of approval);

Second, that the WAPS would just bring another layer of bureaucracy to a system that already hinders economic expansion;

Third, that the WAPS's guidelines for determining patent length would not be based on what is best for the world economy, but rather 'the conditions of member states' economies';

Fourth, that there are no time or quality restrictions for either WAPS or national patents, yet that (by clause 7) WAPS patents must be recognized by the entire World Assembly, for however long the WAPS patent is.

I believe that is my argument, as best as I can describe it. I admit, the first point is the weakest, but the other three are strong enough reasons for the state of Zjaum to vote against this resolution."

"All right then, I'll do my best to address those points:

"On your first point, the WAPS does not simply grant an international patent for every national one. Inventors must make a request to the WAPS, and the WAPS will grant an international patent if the request meets stated criteria, and if the subject of the patent is not already patented by the WAPS.

"On the second, I firmly believe that the WAPS will make free trade easier, as we won't have to worry about nations fighting over which national patent carries precedence. The WAPS levels the playing field on the international scale, so that a first-come-first-serve system of granting patents doesn't unfairly benefit one nation or another.

"On the third, the world economy depends on the health of each individual national economy. If we overlook the needs of each national economy, a 'one size fits all' way of approaching patents will only cause economic havoc. That's hardly good on the national or international scale.

"On the fourth, the World Assembly has no authority, in my opinion, to decide how long a national patent should last. Similarly, it has no authority to impose a one size fits all time limit for international patents. A year means different things for different nations, especially considering that not all member nations are populated by humans. Many nations consist of races that live far longer, for centuries even, and others of races that live for only a handful of years, or even less. Applying the same length for patents to every nation would be ridiculous given the circumstances. And that's just addressing the issue of lifespan. Whether a nation is in an economic crisis or it is experiencing unprecedented growth is important when we consider how foreign patents may affect that nation. If a nation can hardly manage to feed its people, imposing a foreign patent on an essential piece of farming equipment would be nearly equivalent to World Assembly-sanctioned genocide."

"Ambassador, I honestly don't see how banning ideologies that do not allow for patent systems is in any way protective of national sovereignty."

"Please point out the clause that does so. If you are right, then I would agree completely. I could not find such a clause, but perhaps an implication."

"The previous patent resolution mandated in its fourth clause that member states recognize national patents, effectively forcing a patent system on all member nations. That banned the implementation of any economic ideology or philosophy that is incompatible with patents."

[Excidium Planetis]

I think I voted for this - it makes trading easier right?

"No."

OOC:
In retrospect, someone should have filed a legality challenge against this. Free Trade? Really?

[Wallenburg]

I think I voted for this - it makes trading easier right?

"No."

OOC:
In retrospect, someone should have filed a legality challenge against this. Free Trade? Really?

OOC: Was "Foreign Patent Recognition" inappropriate as a free trade proposal as well?

[United States of Stalinia]

My only problem with the proposal is over the "invention" of sapient life, otherwise, a good idea.

[Separatist Peoples]

I think I voted for this - it makes trading easier right?

"No."

OOC:
In retrospect, someone should have filed a legality challenge against this. Free Trade? Really?

OOC: Patents stimulate trade by establishing a system of intellectual property recognition, which in turn facilitates fair use and trade. Patents are a huge part of free trade in that they promote competition and innovation, while opening an entire industry in licensing and transfer. I can't see how Free Trade wouldn't be appropriate.

[The Atlae Isles]

My only problem with the proposal is over the "invention" of sapient life, otherwise, a good idea.

So...patenting a human being? That's a bit of a touchy subject, patenting genetic material.

[Wallenburg]

My only problem with the proposal is over the "invention" of sapient life, otherwise, a good idea.

"Patenting a sapient life form would champion the concept that one sapient being can own another. That is called slavery, and I will absolutely not leave any room for such an abominable practice."

[Pallaith]

Office of the Minister of World Assembly Affairs
November 25, 2016

The diverse needs and makeup of this assembly's nations make legislating patents incredibly difficult, and this assembly has passed and repealed multiple resolutions on this subject. Even if we believed this proposal intended to create a means to regulate patents across the varied worlds and nations of this assembly, it places a great burden on nations filing patents without guaranteeing they will be honored by other member nations and would subject them to restrictions by less than scrupulous actors. These nations acting in bad faith could bind other nations with the same rules supposedly designed to protect their intellectual property, or overlook or ignore patents entirely if they were so inclined. As if these barriers were not enough, the proposal would also penalize nations who are economically disadvantaged, a factor that has no bearing on the validity of a patent and further allows nations with more means and opportunity to benefit. The true intention of this proposal, after all, is to prevent nations from being required to recognize patents. Any mechanism this proposal contemplates is made irrelevant by a nation's ability to ignore those provisions. If we are to go through the effort to create a patent recognition system, we must do so without sanctioning intellectual property theft.

For these reasons, the North Pacific Ministry of World Assembly Affairs encourages a vote against this resolution.

[Bananaistan]

"No."

OOC:
In retrospect, someone should have filed a legality challenge against this. Free Trade? Really?

OOC: Patents stimulate trade by establishing a system of intellectual property recognition, which in turn facilitates fair use and trade. Patents are a huge part of free trade in that they promote competition and innovation, while opening an entire industry in licensing and transfer. I can't see how Free Trade wouldn't be appropriate.

OOC: I think that this would be perfectly valid were you referring to the typical and ordinary meaning of the words "free trade". However, the category we have is not synonymous with the RL phrase. The category definition explicitly refers to "reducing barriers to trade", "Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry", and "Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy."¹

Patents are regulations on what everyone other than the patent holder can do. For everyone bar the patent holder, they reduce their economic freedoms as they are prohibited from utilising whatever it is that is patented without the permission of the patent holder. That some sort of subsidiary trade might arise in them does not make it an increase in economic freedoms for anyone other the person with the exclusive rights to the invention. I can't see how they couldn't be seen as anything other than a regulation on business/industry as the exclusive rights aren't worth jot without state enforcement through the courts etc.

1: I'm not intending to selective quote the rules here, only the elements dealing with free trade rather social justice.
2: I'm also not challenging this proposal even though I think the category is wrong. I did point this out at the start if voting though: linky.

[Wallenburg]

(Image)

Office of the Minister of World Assembly Affairs
November 25, 2016

The diverse needs and makeup of this assembly's nations make legislating patents incredibly difficult, and this assembly has passed and repealed multiple resolutions on this subject. Even if we believed this proposal intended to create a means to regulate patents across the varied worlds and nations of this assembly, it places a great burden on nations filing patents without guaranteeing they will be honored by other member nations and would subject them to restrictions by less than scrupulous actors. These nations acting in bad faith could bind other nations with the same rules supposedly designed to protect their intellectual property, or overlook or ignore patents entirely if they were so inclined. As if these barriers were not enough, the proposal would also penalize nations who are economically disadvantaged, a factor that has no bearing on the validity of a patent and further allows nations with more means and opportunity to benefit. The true intention of this proposal, after all, is to prevent nations from being required to recognize patents. Any mechanism this proposal contemplates is made irrelevant by a nation's ability to ignore those provisions. If we are to go through the effort to create a patent recognition system, we must do so without sanctioning intellectual property theft.

For these reasons, the North Pacific Ministry of World Assembly Affairs encourages a vote against this resolution.

"Ambassador, your argument seems to depend heavily on the argument that nations that do not like this resolution will simply ignore it. That argument is entirely toothless, as it can be used on any resolution with equal relevance and strength.

"Furthermore, your assertions that this would harm poor nations and primarily seeks to make patent systems optional are incorrect. This resolution is designed with developing nations in mind, and primarily seeks to establish a fair and impartial international patent system."

[Kaboomlandia]

For: 8,244
Against: 8,089

With a day and a half to go. Cue the usual freaking out and questioning what would hypothetically happen if it's a tie.

[Separatist Peoples]

For: 8,244
Against: 8,089

With a day and a half to go. Cue the usual freaking out and questioning what would hypothetically happen if it's a tie.

OOC: Theoretically, it wouldn't pass, because it failed to earn a majority.

OOC: Patents stimulate trade by establishing a system of intellectual property recognition, which in turn facilitates fair use and trade. Patents are a huge part of free trade in that they promote competition and innovation, while opening an entire industry in licensing and transfer. I can't see how Free Trade wouldn't be appropriate.

OOC: I think that this would be perfectly valid were you referring to the typical and ordinary meaning of the words "free trade". However, the category we have is not synonymous with the RL phrase. The category definition explicitly refers to "reducing barriers to trade", "Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry", and "Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy."¹

Patents are regulations on what everyone other than the patent holder can do. For everyone bar the patent holder, they reduce their economic freedoms as they are prohibited from utilising whatever it is that is patented without the permission of the patent holder. That some sort of subsidiary trade might arise in them does not make it an increase in economic freedoms for anyone other the person with the exclusive rights to the invention. I can't see how they couldn't be seen as anything other than a regulation on business/industry as the exclusive rights aren't worth jot without state enforcement through the courts etc.

1: I'm not intending to selective quote the rules here, only the elements dealing with free trade rather social justice.
2: I'm also not challenging this proposal even though I think the category is wrong. I did point this out at the start if voting though: linky.

IIRC, we've allowed limited barriers that ultimately improve free trade, taking a more holistic approach rather than a strict one. Otherwise, the category is nearly useless. I'll have to dig around to see rulings, but I think that isn't how Free Trade works these days.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I think that this would be perfectly valid were you referring to the typical and ordinary meaning of the words "free trade". However, the category we have is not synonymous with the RL phrase. The category definition explicitly refers to "reducing barriers to trade", "Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry", and "Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy."¹

Patents are regulations on what everyone other than the patent holder can do. For everyone bar the patent holder, they reduce their economic freedoms as they are prohibited from utilising whatever it is that is patented without the permission of the patent holder. That some sort of subsidiary trade might arise in them does not make it an increase in economic freedoms for anyone other the person with the exclusive rights to the invention. I can't see how they couldn't be seen as anything other than a regulation on business/industry as the exclusive rights aren't worth jot without state enforcement through the courts etc.

1: I'm not intending to selective quote the rules here, only the elements dealing with free trade rather social justice.
2: I'm also not challenging this proposal even though I think the category is wrong. I did point this out at the start if voting though: linky.

IIRC, we've allowed limited barriers that ultimately improve free trade, taking a more holistic approach rather than a strict one. Otherwise, the category is nearly useless. I'll have to dig around to see rulings, but I think that isn't how Free Trade works these days.

Surely you can't take a narrow view of one category (IE the most recent ruling in respect of the Trade in Endangered Species proposal not fitting moral decency) and then decide that you quite like having all sorts of "holistic" proposals in free trade so give them a pass?

I challenged Vancouvia's auditing proposal. The mods upheld the challenge on the basis that auditing is a government regulation on business and not a reduction in barriers to trade. Patents are also a government regulation on business and are a classic example of a barrier to trade, particularly they are a barrier to any and all new entrants into a particular market.

Also, the distinction between economic strength and economic freedom in that ruling is very relevant. A patent system may very well increase economic strength by encouraging development but it does not increase economic freedom. And perhaps there's a prevalent viewpoint based RL neoliberal politics and neoclassical economics that anything that increase economic freedoms also strengthens the economy; and therefore "freed trade" = good and "social justice" = bad. I would take a different view.

[Separatist Peoples]

Surely you can't take a narrow view of one category (IE the most recent ruling in respect of the Trade in Endangered Species proposal not fitting moral decency) and then decide that you quite like having all sorts of "holistic" proposals in free trade so give them a pass?

2 things:

1. I don't speak for the entirety of GenSec. I was the (currently) lone vote against, though my colleagues made excellent points that I can respect and abide.
2. I'm referring to the historical approach, not the new approach going forward.

I challenged Vancouvia's auditing proposal. The mods upheld the challenge on the basis that auditing is a government regulation on business and not a reduction in barriers to trade. Patents are also a government regulation on business and are a classic example of a barrier to trade, particularly they are a barrier to any and all new entrants into a particular market.

A critical part of that ruling is the section reading "making it difficult or even impossible for violators to conduct business". Patent systems provide a system by which disputes can be easily resolved and create no significant barrier for economic development, and even open up new industries. The qualification is critical, in my mind, or it wouldn't have been included.

Also, the distinction between economic strength and economic freedom in that proposal is very relevant. A patent system may very well increase economic strength by encouraging development but it does not increase economic freedom. And perhaps there's a prevalent viewpoint based RL neoliberal politics and neoclassical economics that anything that increase economic freedoms also strengthens the economy; and therefore "freed trade" = good and "social justice" = bad. I would take a different view.

An unfortunate correlation, yes, but as I noted, the qualification about the degree of restrictions is important. I don't believe that was dicta in a ruling as short as that. You'd ultimately need a formal challenge to resolve that, but that's how I read it.

I also haven't had the chance to dig up more rulings, so I'm working off what you give me.

[Auralia]

((OOC: I think there's way too much precedent against moving towards a more narrow view of the Free Trade category. I don't think there's a single Free Trade resolution on the books that simply removes government regulation. I think it's also important to keep in mind that not every barrier to trade is governmental, as SP pointed out. Some barriers to legitimate trade can be removed through government regulation.))

[Leruc]

My only problem with the proposal is over the "invention" of sapient life, otherwise, a good idea.

This proposal specifically forbids any such patent.
"3. Forbids member nations from granting or recognizing patents for illegal inventions, as well as patents for any form of sapient life,"

[The Atlae Isles]

My only problem with the proposal is over the "invention" of sapient life, otherwise, a good idea.

This proposal specifically forbids any such patent.
"3. Forbids member nations from granting or recognizing patents for illegal inventions, as well as patents for any form of sapient life,"

That's probably a good thing. That means you could patent a human, which is an ethical nightmare, or just slavery.

[Patrykstan]

The Nation of Patrykstan supports this Act. But we are a nation that is naturally very capitalistic, we believe that capitalism without government corruption through extreme checks and balances means taxation actually goes to the efforts that most require them and the people still get to keep the majority of their wealth.

I find it ironic to see this vote split almost 50/50, given that one time there was some vote for a World Assembly ambassador as part of April Fools and the Communistic candidate won in a huge stretch. Could Nationstates be finally rejecting this flawed form of state control?

[Excidium Planetis]

"No."

OOC:
In retrospect, someone should have filed a legality challenge against this. Free Trade? Really?

OOC: Was "Foreign Patent Recognition" inappropriate as a free trade proposal as well?

Yes. In my opinion, both should have been Advancement of Industry resolutions, especially as patent systems exist to protect businesses from foreign (and domestic) competition.

I concur with Bananaistan here: Patent systems are barriers to trade by creating monopolies, especially in such an international system as this. Giving one nation the sole right to produce a product is not free trade, that's the opposite of free trade.

A critical part of that ruling is the section reading "making it difficult or even impossible for violators to conduct business". Patent systems provide a system by which disputes can be easily resolved and create no significant barrier for economic development, and even open up new industries. The qualification is critical, in my mind, or it wouldn't have been included.

But Free Trade, while it promotes economic development, is not solely about actions that increase economic development and help businesses operate. The exact opposite of free trade, Advancement of Industry: Protectionist Tariffs, also encourages economic development and helps businesses operate. I firmly believe that patent systems more directly represent the Advancement of Industry category rather than Free Trade.

[Araraukar]

I concur with Bananaistan here: Patent systems are barriers to trade by creating monopolies, especially in such an international system as this. Giving one nation the sole right to produce a product is not free trade, that's the opposite of free trade.

OOC: For what it's worth, you can throw my opinion behind that as well.