[DEFEATED] Foreign Patent Recognition

[Old Hope]

This is NOT free trade.

OOC: With one exception, every single IP proposal in the UN/WA has been passed under Free Trade.

Mandates that each member state recognize the exclusive rights associated with foreign patents for a minimum of twenty years after the date on which the patent was granted, or the period used by the member state that granted the patent;

Free trade:A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
This one:A resolution to increase barriers to commerce and free trade.

[The Dark Star Republic]

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. I explained my reasoning previously. And, as I already said, it's already been well established that IP law belongs in the Free Trade category.

[Old Hope]

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. I explained my reasoning previously. And, as I already said, it's already been well established that IP law belongs in the Free Trade category.

By mandating patents you are:
Allowing someone to restrict or stop production of something that was patented
Giving the right to compensation if someone violated the right to regulate and stop production.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Given you are clearly going to ignore all arguments and simply repeat over and over what a property right entails, I'm done.

[Old Hope]

Look at it:
A state does not recognize any patents.
Everyone may produce new inventions instantly if they know how to produce, and freely sell the products
A state recognizes patents
Only the one who owns the patent can produce, and products made by others without permission are illegal and cannot be sold.

[Separatist Peoples]

Look at it:
A state does not recognize any patents.
Everyone may produce new inventions instantly if they know how to produce, and freely sell the products
A state recognizes patents
Only the one who owns the patent can produce, and products made by others without permission are illegal and cannot be sold.

OOC: missed this, did you?

OOC: Given you are clearly going to ignore all arguments and simply repeat over and over what a property right entails, I'm done.

You're understanding of patents and their effects is...wrong at best.

[Railana]

((OOC: Submitted.))

[The Eternal Kawaii]

((OOC: Submitted.))

And approved. Congratulations, you've now reached quorum!

[Chester Pearson]

Not exactly. Under the Compact of Free Association between Auralia and Railana, Railana agrees to represent Auralian interests in the World Assembly.

That said, can we focus debate on this resolution, rather than on the precise details of the relationship between Auralia and Railana?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

Certainly.

OPPOSED

Wow the maturity levels have dropped to a new low....

On that note, I really am not seeing anything here that is deal breaking, so we will probably vote for it.

Warmest regards,

[Malkir]

As important as we think the protection of intellectual property rights is, this resolution offers patent protection for a minimum of 20 years - which in our opinion is far too long a time to suffer the monopoly power of an inventor. More flexibility in this regard would be preferable in our opinion. In addition extending patent protection to "compositions" is troubling to us. Does compositions include art? Software? The definition is not self-evident to us.

Tentatively opposed though open to persuasion

[Frisbeeteria]

All OOC

this resolution offers patent protection for a minimum of 20 years - which in our opinion is far too long a time to suffer the monopoly power of an inventor.

As a former employee of a Big Pharma corporation, I'd like to point out the difference between "20 years of patent life" and "20 years of monopoly power". In the drug biz, you get 20 years from when you file the patent. After that, you have a massive amount of regulatory steps to go through before the product goes on sale. On average, what with development staging, regulator preparation, four different phases of clinical trials (Phase III human trials take a minimum of 4 years), regulatory approval, and so on ... you can't even start manufacturing until the 12th to 16th year of the patent. For the really tricky new drugs, it's common that they have the entirely of only four years of patent life before generics can be produced.

It may be different in other fields (like tech), which is why a generic 20 year patent life is kinda dumb. Nonetheless, if you shortened patent life generically to say, 5 years; no modern pharmaceutical company would make any new drugs. There's nothing quite like spending $500 million to develop a drug, just to have your competitors manufacture it for pennies a dose.

[Malkir]

It may be different in other fields (like tech), which is why a generic 20 year patent life is kinda dumb. Nonetheless, if you shortened patent life generically to say, 5 years; no modern pharmaceutical company would make any new drugs. There's nothing quite like spending $500 million to develop a drug, just to have your competitors manufacture it for pennies a dose.

OOC: That's a very good point. I had been thinking of less regulated fields where the time to market is much shorter.

[Old Hope]

This greatly favors the most developed nations, while other nations cannot use patents much, widing the gap.
Guess who will do the new inventions: the developed countries, or the slightly less developed countries?
Yeah, no. The developed nations get the lions share of the benefits. The others have to pay only. Against!!!

[Kincoboh]

After voting against the current WA proposal, I received this message from the author of the resolution:

Dear Kincoboh,

I'm writing to ask that you vote FOR the current resolution at vote, Foreign Patent Recognition.

As you may know, a patent is a set of exclusive rights granted to the creator of an invention to enable them to profit from their invention. After a specified period of time, the patent expires and the design of the invention is released into the public domain. Patents are extremely effective at incentivizing the creation of new inventions, because they provide inventors with a fair reward for their labours while allowing society to freely benefit from the new invention after the patent expires.

At the moment, the World Assembly has no legislation governing patents. This is a serious problem, as it allows for the creation of piracy havens, which are nations that permit their citizens to steal inventions from inventors in other nations, causing them serious economic harm and making it a lot harder to create new inventions.

My resolution, Foreign Patent Recognition, aims to fix this problem by harmonizing patent law in all World Assembly member states. The resolution requires member nations to recognize foreign patents for at least 20 years (or the period used by the member nation of origin of the patent, to ensure fairness). At the same time, it provides several limitations and exceptions to foreign patents to ensure that nations are always free to act in the public interest.

Thank you very much for considering my request. Again, please vote FOR the current resolution at vote, Foreign Patent Recognition.

Best regards,

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

The response:

Thank you for writing to me, Chief Ambassador Fulton.

In Kincoboh, we believe that the idea of patents and intellectual property in general is a form of authoritarianism and impedes in free speech. Intellectual property creates a monopolistic system in which the creator is rewarded far in excess of her creation, and is able to extract a tribute for her creation in an arbitrarily decided upon time (twenty years in this case).

We believe that each nation should be able to choose how they deal with intellectual property, and we have no intention of forcing a particular ideology as divisive as a certain intellectual property regime. For Kincoboh, the very notion of owning information (and by extension, nature) is abhorrent and something that ought to be stamped out, not regulated by a faraway global bureaucracy.

Kincoboh believes that intellectual property is a hindrance to innovation, and is akin to exploitation. From the beginning of human history, we have all stood on the shoulders of giants, and the ability to innovate is based on an interrelationship of the free exchange of ideas.

Intellectual property right proponents seem to want to have their cake and eat it too; i.e. give the world knowledge and, by state sanctioned coercion, prevent others from using the knowledge you have given the world. Why should we give up our liberties to protect the creator from the consequences of creation?

Benjamin Tucker remarked: "Some man comes along with an invention and parades it in the streets; and we are told that, in consequence of this act on his part, we must either give up our liberty to walk the streets or else our liberty to invent the thing that he has invented! Not so fast, my dear sir. The boot is on the other leg. Were you compelled to parade your invention through the streets? Were you even invited to do so? No! Then why do you do that? And why do you ask us to protect you from the consequences? You want your invention to yourself? Then keep it to yourself."

As such, voting for this resolution would give creators authority over liberty, which is against the very foundation of what our confederacy was founded upon.
We in Kincoboh cordially decline your request to vote in favor of this resolution.

Respectfully,
Alinor Archer,
Representative from the Citizen's Assembly of the City-State of Wilmot in Free Association with The Confederacy of Kincoboh

[Mateara]

Saludos,

Mateara and Latinoamerica is against this proposal. Intellectual property is very very important but having a single international law regulate it will open up opportunities to abuse as well as excessive meddling by the WA in the affairs if individual member states. I too have attempted to write proposals and know the horrors of having one defeated. Yet, it's against my values to support this.

[Chostea]

This is blatant, filthy capitalism at work. The People's Republic of Chostea is disgusted that any WA member would even consider creating such a proposition.

OPPOSED

[The majestic Diminutive Agnostic Communi]

Would I be correct to assume that no currently existing technologies, ideas and products can be patented. Given the proliferation of such already 15,000+ existing WA members or potential member states. I can not foresee the how could we expect the regulatory body to enforce this resolution if we take into account existing technologies, ideas and products.

If the answer is, 'if you can show prior art then there is not an issue'. My reply would be, 'then the oldest member nations hold all patents, as they have been around so long, they can show existing or prior art'. So who are the oldest nation, as this resolution in effect means they own it all.

I am happy to accept the concept of Foreign Patent Recognition, if I am guaranteed this will be for novel technologies, ideas and products invented after the effective date of the resolution being passed. Further that existing biological information such as the genome or specific parts of the genome can not be patented . I am willing to accept the patent of a novel drug or procedure that targets a specific part of the genome. I would not accept the patenting of the genome or specific part of the genome that the drug/procedure targeted. I would consider that to be good research and not intellectual property.

[Elke and Elba]

Not seeing what is so different here compared to the original.

Seems like another Aurelian trick to add two WA medals by flogging the dead horse and reinventing the wheel.

Opposed, obviously.

---

Certainly.

OPPOSED

Wow the maturity levels have dropped to a new low....

On that note, I really am not seeing anything here that is deal breaking, so we will probably vote for it.

Warmest regards,

This must be the most ironic thing I've ever heard, given your usual behaviour, Ambassador.

[Panait]

"The whole proposal was fine, except for the part about the time period which states must recognize the foreign patents. 20 years is too rigid - setting it strictly 20 years can both stifle a sector's growth (too long patents) or promote a potentially unfair remuneration for the person who has made such nonobvious discovery (as in the drug industry, outlined by a person above) and result in a complete halt in that sector," Julius continues, "this would potentially nullify part of the following clause, I quote,

Believing that the international recognition of patents will incentivize the creation of new inventions throughout all member states while providing inventors with a fair reward for their labours,

Regarding the second part, we also believe it is somewhat nullified by the aforementioned reason, but also the fact that 'fair reward' is too open to interpretation by others."

"Our nation recognize the good intentions of this resolution, though we'll abstain for the time being."

[Belique]

Absolutely yes. We need to protect innovation and small business world wide. We need to encourage technological advancements to keep this world running.

[Burtonia WA Embassy]

Mandates that each member state recognize the exclusive rights associated with foreign patents for a minimum of twenty years after the date on which the patent was granted, or the period used by the member state that granted the patent;

So, to clarify, we recognize foreign patents for the lesser of 20 years or the time set by another nation's laws? There's no way my nation is stuck enforcing foreign patents for greater than 20 years?

[The Dark Star Republic]

So, to clarify, we recognize foreign patents for the lesser of 20 years or the time set by another nation's laws? There's no way my nation is stuck enforcing foreign patents for greater than 20 years?

OOC: That's correct.

[Emiton]

Apologies for not getting into this earlier. I have to vote against this on an issue I didn't (on an admittedly very fast scan) see in the debate. Essentially, Emiton doesn't trust other states to have rigorous, fair, competent, and honest evaluation of patent applications and requirements for granting of patents. We simply cannot be held liable for foreign patents issued when there are no international standards and requirements that level the playing field to assure that issued patents are sensible, well-researched and valid.

[Railana]

So, to clarify, we recognize foreign patents for the lesser of 20 years or the time set by another nation's laws? There's no way my nation is stuck enforcing foreign patents for greater than 20 years?

OOC: That's correct.

((OOC: Exactly. You have a choice: 20 years OR the period used by the member state, which could theoretically be less than 20 years.))

[Stretosa]

I tend to see this as a good idea at heart, but one that missed its mark. Here's why:

Patents are great, yes--they protect someone's intellectual property and inventions. However, they also stifle innovation--if someone makes something similar to a patented product, maybe it's better, but a patent would block improvements. Additionally, it puts too much power in the hands of wealthy corporations who can afford to just hire massive legal teams and patent everything they can think of, solely as a way of hindering free trade and innovation by eliminating any possible competition.

And then we get to things like medical and medicinal patents. I think that this resolution should have some sort of clause exempting pharmaceuticals from it. At the very least, have a much shorter time frame for pharmaceutical and medical patents. Maybe a couple of years, not 20. Having one entity in complete control of possibly life-saving medical inventions just doesn't seem right. It would essentially make a pharmaceutical company a monopoly--a monopoly that could decide whether a person lives or dies based on their geographic location, or their socio-economic status.

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.