[DEFEATED] Foreign Patent Recognition

[David l l l l]

Patents are a form of protectionism. Favoring the big corporations who buy out ideas with piles of money, then either exploit the idea for significant profit, or stifle the idea to protect there own industry. For example, Pharmaceutical companies stifling a cheap inexpensive natural remedy in favor of their own product. If someone invents a drug based on natural products, etc. then a few million dollars to buy them out and bury the idea makes business sense.

It is with this principle, that I urge all small nations, who may not be in the top 1% economically, and who are not nests to multi-national conglomerate corporations to vote No on this and any other anti-free-market resolutions.

[Federation of Galice]

I believe this is a good idea, as credit is due to the creator, and as it states, everyone benefits from the said invention/discovery... only if the person patenting WANTS to give it out, and that is my only concern. I only skimmed it, and the reply's, so I will come back when I'm more informed. But as of yet, I think that it is a good idea, with slight issues with the individualizing of it all. EXAMPLE: Man creates a reverse aging serum, patents it, and keeps it for himself. What's to profit from that? Who knows, but in the end it's all in the hands of who patented the discovery.

There is also the problem that people will steal technologies/discoveries.etc and patent them for themselves, leaving the real creator, in the dust. It's dirty play and is a very poor way of individualizing and gaining credit for a discovery.

But as I said... I will analyze it further and come to a final decision.

[Red Blackiland]

Red Blackiland will give a response,more later.

[California Prime]

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.

a nation does not have to recognize it's own citizen's patents, but does have to recognize patents from other nations. I don't see the issue here. It is about nations ripping off patent holders of other nations, not legislation that forces a nation to recognize it's own citizen's patent.

[Caprovia]

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.

[Kincoboh]

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.

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.

[Alstexan]

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.

I do not grant patents at all, and I must say that this is an inherent trespass on the sovereignty of nations.

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.

OH, GOD, NO, NO, NO! Intellectual property cannot be stolen!

[Caprovia]

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.

Actually, the author cited three examples of intellectual property related resolutions in a reply to another nation on the first page of the thread:

Well, then, it's rather unfortunate for you that the World Assembly has a strong tradition of recognizing intellectual property rights, isn't it?

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.

Also, I received that telegram too. It seems to have been sent out to all WA members, or possibly all members in opposition to the resolution.

[Tantricia]

As with all campaigners that practice telegram spamming, Tantricia will vote against their proposal.

[Roryntopia]

As it stands, Roryntopia must vote against the resolution.

Corporations are imaginary entities. Our nation, therefore, does not recognize their right to own property of any sort (intellectual included).

Were this resolution to include wording that only legally recognized entities (within each nation) may benefit from the protections, we would reconsider our stance.

[Federation of Galice]

The people of Galiceia have repeatedly petitioned against this bill, their claims being that there is just too much of a risk, with intellectual stealing of data/property before the individual can get it patented. The region of Galiceia is in full rejection of this bill and do not support it. There are other reasons, however, there is no swaying my opinion anyway.

We, and all of the Galicean Nations, have decided against this bill.

[Bears Armed]

"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.

There's already a resolution that lets the WA intervene in the case of medicines needed for saving lives...

[The Dark Star Republic]

"This isn't intended to be an argument in favour of the resolution. But, to the opponents: what is the alternative? The rigidity of The General Patent Charter was rightly determined to be harmful, and the resolution repealed. There is now no international law on patents, other than a few stray references on minor issues. That's obviously not an ideal situation, and it means that at present, your patents can be freely ignored by other nations. Yet there was very little contribution to discussion on this draft in the seven months from its first being posted to its being voted on.

"So - what is the alternative? How is the WA going to protect innovation?"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Socialist Assembly Marxists]

Abstain.

[Caprovia]

If this resolution fails, then there will indeed be no major legislation concerning patents, and we believe that it would be best to keep it that way, allowing nations to determine their own patent policies. It is simply not the World Assembly's place to set international laws regarding patents, because they are not unequivocally beneficial to all member nations. Clearly, it is a law that only favors capitalist nations, which will actually hurt a very large portion of the member nations.

[Alstexan]

"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.

[Separatist Peoples]

"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.

"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."

[Alstexan]

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."

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.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...it is a law that only favors capitalist nations scientific development, which will actually temporarily hurt a very large portion of the leave underdeveloped member nations a bit behind, but again, only for a defined span of years.

Fixed that for ya.

I'm unclear as to how the modest and temporary protections herein will do more harm to poor countries and poor people than preventing innovators from being rewarded for developing new stuff. Stuff doesn't get invented in a vacuum. The patent economy is at least as important to general innovation as the open-source economy; they do fundamentally different things, and relying exclusively on the open-source economy for innovation will lead to the stagnation of everything requiring initial investment to develop. That course is self-evidently self-defeating.

My government has a history (short though it may be) of vehement disagreement with the large majority of the Railana/Auralia bloc's WA agenda; as well as what we regard as a healthy skepticism about the goals, ethics, morals, and trustworthiness of market forces acting without direction or publicly-imposed discipline. But this resolution is kind of a no-brainer.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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?

[Caprovia]

First of all, that's why tariffs exist. Additionally, why not instead have strict international labor laws and make it illegal to trade with nations that refuse to comply? That would effectively level the market and eliminate the need for patents.
But really in the end, it's all a capitalist problem. It's completely irrelevant to countries that don't wish to let individuals essentially imaginary entities own ideas that society as a whole can benefit from sharing.

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.

[Old Hope]

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?

That sounds like the cost of reverse engineering is zero. It isn't. Ok, it might be cheaper, but you get to sell the product first, so...

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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.

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. It's not a "capitalist" problem when an employee-owned syndicate gets screwed in the marketplace for being the chump who spent resources developing something that some asshole comes along a year later and sells cheaper intending to drive them out of business (then recoup that cost by jacking the price afterwards).

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.

[HMS Unicorn]

I have cast an early vote against this proposal, following as always the running tally of The North Pacific's forum vote.

[Kincoboh]

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.

If they are not prepared to face what happens after they create something, then they should not make it in the first place.

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.

This is another reason why this proposal is weak, then. There is no mention of software patents.
In general, however, patents favour large corporations - pharmaceutical companies benefit the most from a copyright regime, as well as biotechnology firms.
The only benefit that patents give is the ability for multinationals to extort from the masses through a state enforced monopoly.