[PASSED] Foreign Patent Act

[Sciongrad]

"I see no problem here. Unless you are really arguing that member nations should prioritize the business interests of distant foreigners over their own legal citizens, treating patent claims equally ought to be protection enough of foreigners' intellectual property."

"Umm, you do realize why most reasonable nations recognize foreign patents, right? I'll give you a hint: it's not to protect foreign inventors. The purpose of international agreements on foreign patent recognition is for nations to protect their domestic inventors from having their inventions stolen in foreign markets. Without reciprocal recognition of foreign patents, inventors in all nations except those without patents are significantly disadvantaged."

[Wallenburg]

"I see no problem here. Unless you are really arguing that member nations should prioritize the business interests of distant foreigners over their own legal citizens, treating patent claims equally ought to be protection enough of foreigners' intellectual property."

"Umm, you do realize why most reasonable nations recognize foreign patents, right? I'll give you a hint: it's not to protect foreign inventors. The purpose of international agreements on foreign patent recognition is for nations to protect their domestic inventors from having their inventions stolen in foreign markets. Without reciprocal recognition of foreign patents, inventors in all nations except those without patents significantly disadvantage their innovators."

"I agree, Ambassador, but I fail to see your point. Prioritizing foreigners over citizens doesn't even remotely resemble protecting the intellectual property of domestic inventors. Equal treatment of patent claims ought to be quite conducive to this sort of reciprocal recognition."

[Separatist Peoples]

In a global economy where products are produced and marketed across legal jurisdictions, taking the intellectual property of another from a foreign jurisdiction disincentives trade and innovation. By allowing nations to pirate technology and reproduce it at a profit without paying licenses or obtaining permission, you are undermining the motivators of technological development and trade. The threat of piracy and loss of profit is a strong incentive for technology companies to focus their trade internally, or to limit it to partners who will respect their intellectual property, thus stifling trade.

"Such is the way of international trade, Ambassador. As it is, this proposal greatly limits those issues. If you wish to further reduce barriers to patent holders' monopolization of the international marketplace, you can try this newfangled concept called diplomacy."

"Diplomacy occasionally works between nations, ambassador, but it is notoriously ineffective when used against a foreign business entity, especially when it's host state is willing to run interference. Don't play naive, you and I both know there are hundreds of ways a nation can stonewall another while remaining perfectly diplomatic.

"Patent holders rarely monopolize the international market when patents are designed to stimulate competitive development. If a competitor creates a better mousetrap, it is in a company's best interest to reverse-engineer the better mousetrap and come up with a version of their own that is distinctly different to serve as a competing product. The only way a patent holder could monopolize the global market is if the market was unipolar."

Bell looks around, "I assure you, ambassador, that is not the case here."

"If you were limiting this use to noncommercial uses, such as a government reproducing, say, fiber optic cables to improve their emergency notification systems, I wouldn't have an issue with it. Noncommercial infringement isn't theft, because no profit is being generated. But to allow blatant commercial piracy? Any nation with an Information Technology sector worth a damn will see this as a source for trillions upon trillions of greenbacks lost to unauthorized resale of proprietary information."

"I fail to see how holding foreign patents to the same standards as domestic ones qualifies as 'blatant commercial piracy'."

"It allows overt and obvious patent infringement for commercial gain, depriving inventors and companies of profit rightfully theirs. It blocks the creation of a system of recourse for theft of intellectual property, ensuring that that commercial gain will remain in the hands not of those who created the technology, or who have permission to create it, but by those who copied it. It is plagiarism with a commercial twist, and that is a cocktail that nobody should have to choke down."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Umm, you do realize why most reasonable nations recognize foreign patents, right? I'll give you a hint: it's not to protect foreign inventors. The purpose of international agreements on foreign patent recognition is for nations to protect their domestic inventors from having their inventions stolen in foreign markets. Without reciprocal recognition of foreign patents, inventors in all nations except those without patents significantly disadvantage their innovators."

"I agree, Ambassador, but I fail to see your point. Prioritizing foreigners over citizens doesn't even remotely resemble protecting the intellectual property of domestic inventors. Equal treatment of patent claims ought to be quite conducive to this sort of reciprocal recognition."

"Except that it doesn't, ultimately, protect your domestic inventors. It removes any incentive foreign governments have of recognizing your nation's patents, which deprives your inventors of commercial gain, and therefore your government of a substantial tax base. The system of piracy only benefits your nation if your nation is the one most aggressively copying and out-producing others."

[Sciongrad]

"Umm, you do realize why most reasonable nations recognize foreign patents, right? I'll give you a hint: it's not to protect foreign inventors. The purpose of international agreements on foreign patent recognition is for nations to protect their domestic inventors from having their inventions stolen in foreign markets. Without reciprocal recognition of foreign patents, inventors in all nations except those without patents significantly disadvantage their innovators."

"I agree, Ambassador, but I fail to see your point. Prioritizing foreigners over citizens doesn't even remotely resemble protecting the intellectual property of domestic inventors. Equal treatment of patent claims ought to be quite conducive to this sort of reciprocal recognition."

"You're not prioritizing foreign citizens, you're ensuring that the property rights of your own citizens are protected. You keep framing foreign patent regimes as advantageous exclusively for foreign inventors, but your own domestic investors are actually disadvantaged as well. An inventor from Wallenburg has absolutely no way of competing with a foreign manufacturer that producers cheap knock-offs of their products. Nations don't recognize foreign patents because they are altruistic and care for foreigners - they recognize foreign patent because they protect their own inventors as well."

[Wallenburg]

"Diplomacy occasionally works between nations, ambassador, but it is notoriously ineffective when used against a foreign business entity, especially when it's host state is willing to run interference. Don't play naive, you and I both know there are hundreds of ways a nation can stonewall another while remaining perfectly diplomatic.

"Ambassador, please explain to me, why would a nation intentionally target the economy of a nation that it is friendly with?"

"Patent holders rarely monopolize the international market when patents are designed to stimulate competitive development. If a competitor creates a better mousetrap, it is in a company's best interest to reverse-engineer the better mousetrap and come up with a version of their own that is distinctly different to serve as a competing product. The only way a patent holder could monopolize the global market is if the market was unipolar."

Bell looks around, "I assure you, ambassador, that is not the case here."

"I thought it was quite clear that, in an Assembly consisting of over twenty thousand member nations, I was not speaking of total monopolization. Apparently I was incorrect."

"It allows overt and obvious patent infringement for commercial gain, depriving inventors and companies of profit rightfully theirs. It blocks the creation of a system of recourse for theft of intellectual property, ensuring that that commercial gain will remain in the hands not of those who created the technology, or who have permission to create it, but by those who copied it. It is plagiarism with a commercial twist, and that is a cocktail that nobody should have to choke down."

"I cannot imagine in what ridiculous world equal treatment of patents allows for grave violation of intellectual property rights, nor how holding inventors to the same standards prohibits member nations from prosecuting the violation of patent rights. Honestly, Ambassador, how the hell does fair and equal treatment of patent claims lead to theft and corruption, while intentionally depriving honest inventors of their hard-earned property rights in favor of the interests of others steers nations away from those problems?"

---

"Except that it doesn't, ultimately, protect your domestic inventors. It removes any incentive foreign governments have of recognizing your nation's patents, which deprives your inventors of commercial gain, and therefore your government of a substantial tax base. The system of piracy only benefits your nation if your nation is the one most aggressively copying and out-producing others."

"I see. So you are arguing that the only way to get foreign nations to recognize your citizens' patents is to...deprive your citizens of their intellectual property rights, and hand them over to foreigners? That makes absolutely no sense, Ambassador."

---

"You're not prioritizing foreign citizens, you're ensuring that the property rights of your own citizens are protected.

"No, you really are prioritizing foreign citizens. The criticized clause mandated the equal consideration of foreign and domestic patent claims. The only alternatives to that are prioritizing citizens over foreigners, or prioritizing foreigners over citizens. When I have argued for the prioritization of citizens over foreigners, I have been labeled a supporter of theft and an enemy of basic property rights. Therefore, I must assume that you and Ambassador Bell champion the prioritization of foreigners over citizens."

You keep framing foreign patent regimes as advantageous exclusively for foreign inventors, but your own domestic investors are actually disadvantaged as well.

"I imagine you meant 'domestic inventors' and not 'domestic investors'. In that case, I agree completely. Letting foreigners run roughshod over citizens' intellectual property rights not only benefits foreigners but also disadvantages citizens."

An inventor from Wallenburg has absolutely no way of competing with a foreign manufacturer that producers cheap knock-offs of their products.

"Really? Because in many industries, cheap 'knock-offs' tend to fail quite often, and the quality product demonstrates itself as far superior in functionality and longevity."

Nations don't recognize foreign patents because they are altruistic and care for foreigners - they recognize foreign patent because they protect their own inventors as well."

"In that case, why prioritize every foreign patent over domestic patent claims?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Diplomacy occasionally works between nations, ambassador, but it is notoriously ineffective when used against a foreign business entity, especially when it's host state is willing to run interference. Don't play naive, you and I both know there are hundreds of ways a nation can stonewall another while remaining perfectly diplomatic.

"Ambassador, please explain to me, why would a nation intentionally target the economy of a nation that it is friendly with?"

"The nations don't do the targeting, the business does. It might not be the case in Wallenburg, but C.D.S.P. private business interests are constrained only in the least sense by government interests. We are almost always fighting a low-level war with Bigtopia along our northern naval border, and tolerate their embassies only to avoid communication blackout between our governments, but we have businesses aplenty that deal with them."

"I cannot imagine in what ridiculous world equal treatment of patents allows for grave violation of intellectual property rights, nor how holding inventors to the same standards prohibits member nations from prosecuting the violation of patent rights. Honestly, Ambassador, how the hell does fair and equal treatment of patent claims lead to theft and corruption, while intentionally depriving honest inventors of their hard-earned property rights in favor of the interests of others steers nations away from those problems?"

"By allowing nations the opportunity to only selectively enforce patents in particular fields, you are opening the door to abuse. A nation without an innovative electronics and IT development field and a strong manufacturing base could maliciously ignore the validity of any IT-related patent from anywhere, and flood the market with clones of the most advanced technologies by merely reverse-engineering and replicating.

"As a counterexample, a nation that respects foreign patents might still reverse-engineer a product, but they would have to change it sufficiently to ensure there is no infringement, resulting in a similar, but fundamentally different product."

"I see. So you are arguing that the only way to get foreign nations to recognize your citizens' patents is to...deprive your citizens of their intellectual property rights, and hand them over to foreigners? That makes absolutely no sense, Ambassador."

"Intellectual property is very much a field of firsts. If a foreign inventor patented a product first, they own the idea. It would be just as much theft to deprive them of their benefits in favor of our citizens as if we were doing it to others. Pretending that theft is justifiable to benefit one's own nation is appalling. The nature of the crime doesn't change from perspective.

"It bears noting that just because a nation fails to procure the patent first, they cannot benefit from it. Licensing and access to specialized manufacturing make the guarding of intellectual property from theft valuable even to those nations that are not innovative by nature. I am, frankly, shocked that you don't see intellectual property theft as a much larger issue, ambassador."

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, please explain to me, why would a nation intentionally target the economy of a nation that it is friendly with?"

"The nations don't do the targeting, the business does. It might not be the case in Wallenburg, but C.D.S.P. private business interests are constrained only in the least sense by government interests. We are almost always fighting a low-level war with Bigtopia along our northern naval border, and tolerate their embassies only to avoid communication blackout between our governments, but we have businesses aplenty that deal with them."

"That makes enough sense. In that case, business negotiations ought to be at least an option where private entities wish to iron out their interests. In other words, private sector diplomacy. It is quite common in Wallenburg, and I imagine your nation's businesses negotiate with others as well."

"I cannot imagine in what ridiculous world equal treatment of patents allows for grave violation of intellectual property rights, nor how holding inventors to the same standards prohibits member nations from prosecuting the violation of patent rights. Honestly, Ambassador, how the hell does fair and equal treatment of patent claims lead to theft and corruption, while intentionally depriving honest inventors of their hard-earned property rights in favor of the interests of others steers nations away from those problems?"

"By allowing nations the opportunity to only selectively enforce patents in particular fields, you are opening the door to abuse. A nation without an innovative electronics and IT development field and a strong manufacturing base could maliciously ignore the validity of any IT-related patent from anywhere, and flood the market with clones of the most advanced technologies by merely reverse-engineering and replicating.

"Ambassador, I see what you are getting at to some extent. This proposal does not allow member states to pick and choose which industries can file patents, and so such an issue of abuse should be, at the very least, unlikely to arise. The quite clear reality that prohibiting patenting within particular industries would affect citizens just as strongly--if not more so--than foreigners ought to further reduce a member nation's very interest in discriminating between industries. However, I'm quite confused as to how a nation with absolutely no 'IT' industry can flood international marketplaces with 'IT' products."

"I see. So you are arguing that the only way to get foreign nations to recognize your citizens' patents is to...deprive your citizens of their intellectual property rights, and hand them over to foreigners? That makes absolutely no sense, Ambassador."

"Intellectual property is very much a field of firsts. If a foreign inventor patented a product first, they own the idea. It would be just as much theft to deprive them of their benefits in favor of our citizens as if we were doing it to others. Pretending that theft is justifiable to benefit one's own nation is appalling. The nature of the crime doesn't change from perspective.

"So any inventor who independently produces his own invention and seeks a patent is totally screwed if there is even one member nation in which another inventor has invented a nearly identical product. That, Ambassador, is absolutely appalling. To take the hard, decent work of your own citizens and throw it into the fire because some person off on the other end of the Multiverse did it last week is absolutely unacceptable, and is in every way a violation of those citizens' intellectual property rights. Do not lecture me on theft when you pressure me to force member states to strip their own people of their intellectual property."

"It bears noting that just because a nation fails to procure the patent first, they cannot benefit from it. Licensing and access to specialized manufacturing make the guarding of intellectual property from theft valuable even to those nations that are not innovative by nature.

"It is the very nature of this 'first past the post' mentality that I find unacceptable for the World Assembly, Ambassador. In a tightly knit world, say, a single nation or even an entire planet, it is quite reasonable to grant patent rights to the first person to seek them. However, when the international community expands to such an extent that communication from nation to nation is astronomically tedious and transportation even more so, where any one member nation will only ever encounter a handful of others, it loses its value entirely. The purpose of a 'first past the post' patent system is to, of course, avoid a situation where one individual seeks a patent for their invention, and another steals that intellectual property and tries to patent it as their own. In the World Assembly, it is far more likely that inventors will independently produce nearly identical inventions, wholly unconscious of the other's efforts or existence. Any reasonable individual would agree that both of them should be able to claim a patent and assert their property rights, should their nation use a patent system."

I am, frankly, shocked that you don't see intellectual property theft as a much larger issue, ambassador."

"Excuse me, but am I or am I not writing a proposal on that very subject? I don't see you working, and the only other delegation that seems to care enough to put pen to paper would rather send developing nations into the dark ages and obliterate ideological rights than seek a reasonable compromise between foreign and domestic patents."

[Separatist Peoples]

Ambassador, I see what you are getting at to some extent. This proposal does not allow member states to pick and choose which industries can file patents, and so such an issue of abuse should be, at the very least, unlikely to arise.

"If that is true, perhaps you could clarify it. The way I read your Grants clause, states have no small amount of leeway on that front.

The quite clear reality that prohibiting patenting within particular industries would affect citizens just as strongly--if not more so--than foreigners ought to further reduce a member nation's very interest in discriminating between industries. However, I'm quite confused as to how a nation with absolutely no 'IT' industry can flood international marketplaces with 'IT' products."

"There is a difference between IT development and IT manufacturing. It requires vast amount of research and high-order developers to make a piece of innovative technology in the IT market these days. It takes a few clever engineers to pick it apart, and a standard manufacturing entity to reproduce them."

"So any inventor who independently produces his own invention and seeks a patent is totally screwed if there is even one member nation in which another inventor has invented a nearly identical product. That, Ambassador, is absolutely appalling. To take the hard, decent work of your own citizens and throw it into the fire because some person off on the other end of the Multiverse did it last week is absolutely unacceptable, and is in every way a violation of those citizens' intellectual property rights.

OOC: Do you have any idea what intellectual property rights even are? You keep throwing that term around incorrectly.

IC: "Generally speaking in international patent law theory, international patent violation is only important when the infringement crosses international borders, ambassador. Your people would otherwise be able to license a product domestically. Depending on the detail through which you're willing to go in drafting, you might even be able to ensure that international IP rights belong to the first inventor to patent them internationally, instead of simply domestically. There is room for nuance, ambassador, but ultimately, if somebody beat you to the idea, they own it, you don't. The same is applicable in academia, I don't see why it wouldn't be here."

Do not lecture me on theft when you pressure me to force member states to strip their own people of their intellectual property."

"Who's lecturing? I'm applying the basic premises of patent law to the international landscape."

"It is the very nature of this 'first past the post' mentality that I find unacceptable for the World Assembly, Ambassador. In a tightly knit world, say, a single nation or even an entire planet, it is quite reasonable to grant patent rights to the first person to seek them. However, when the international community expands to such an extent that communication from nation to nation is astronomically tedious and transportation even more so, where any one member nation will only ever encounter a handful of others, it loses its value entirely. The purpose of a 'first past the post' patent system is to, of course, avoid a situation where one individual seeks a patent for their invention, and another steals that intellectual property and tries to patent it as their own. In the World Assembly, it is far more likely that inventors will independently produce nearly identical inventions, wholly unconscious of the other's efforts or existence. Any reasonable individual would agree that both of them should be able to claim a patent and assert their property rights, should their nation use a patent system."

OOC: It doesn't necessarily follow that all nations, or even most of them, occupy the same universe. We can assume the individual universes of the multiverse are multipolar only because of the sheer number of developed nations in existence, but it stands to reason that we can treat the political landscape of the WA as roughly analogous to the real world, because the alternative is to expect that tens of thousands of nations exist side by side. Of the two of them, one is much more difficult to suspend reality for. So, arguing that "first past the post is unacceptable when there are tens of thousands of us" isn't really going to work as a sound argument on that front.

First past the post is absolutely reasonable in terms of property. Making some broad assumptions about the contractual nuance here, the first person to make a legal claim on unclaimed land owns it. The first to write a book owns the litterary rights to it. Businesses regularly operate one a first-come first-serve basis. First past the post has a pretty strong foundational basis in law, even if only as a historical principal.

"Excuse me, but am I or am I not writing a proposal on that very subject? I don't see you working, and the only other delegation that seems to care enough to put pen to paper would rather send developing nations into the dark ages and obliterate ideological rights than seek a reasonable compromise between foreign and domestic patents."

OOC: Are you asking me to snipe your proposal? Cuz my mentor here at school is doing hard IP law, and I bet he'll help me out for a case of beer...

[Wallenburg]

Ambassador, I see what you are getting at to some extent. This proposal does not allow member states to pick and choose which industries can file patents, and so such an issue of abuse should be, at the very least, unlikely to arise.

"If that is true, perhaps you could clarify it. The way I read your Grants clause, states have no small amount of leeway on that front.

"Very well, then. I shall see what I can do."

The quite clear reality that prohibiting patenting within particular industries would affect citizens just as strongly--if not more so--than foreigners ought to further reduce a member nation's very interest in discriminating between industries. However, I'm quite confused as to how a nation with absolutely no 'IT' industry can flood international marketplaces with 'IT' products."

"There is a difference between IT development and IT manufacturing. It requires vast amount of research and high-order developers to make a piece of innovative technology in the IT market these days. It takes a few clever engineers to pick it apart, and a standard manufacturing entity to reproduce them."

"So, to clarify, your hypothetical speaks of a situation in which this nation's 'IT' industry is based on technologies either bought or stolen from other nations and their people?"

OOC: Do you have any idea what intellectual property rights even are? You keep throwing that term around incorrectly.

OOC: I know what they are, and I fail to see how I am misusing the term.

IC: "Generally speaking in international patent law theory, international patent violation is only important when the infringement crosses international borders, ambassador. Your people would otherwise be able to license a product domestically. Depending on the detail through which you're willing to go in drafting, you might even be able to ensure that international IP rights belong to the first inventor to patent them internationally, instead of simply domestically. There is room for nuance, ambassador, but ultimately, if somebody beat you to the idea, they own it, you don't. The same is applicable in academia, I don't see why it wouldn't be here."

IC: "You know, I'll dig into the draft and see whether I can satisfy your concerns here. As it is, I find few of them all that legitimate, but I agree on where you see room for improvement."

OOC: It doesn't necessarily follow that all nations, or even most of them, occupy the same universe. We can assume the individual universes of the multiverse are multipolar only because of the sheer number of developed nations in existence, but it stands to reason that we can treat the political landscape of the WA as roughly analogous to the real world, because the alternative is to expect that tens of thousands of nations exist side by side. Of the two of them, one is much more difficult to suspend reality for. So, arguing that "first past the post is unacceptable when there are tens of thousands of us" isn't really going to work as a sound argument on that front.

OOC: How does it not? You have even detailed exactly why a first past the post basis is unacceptable: while the political landscape of the Multiverse may be similar to our own at the most fundamental level, its geographic and physical nature make it entirely unreasonable to deny one person patent rights because another person in another universe happened to patent a near identical invention a couple minutes ago.

First past the post is absolutely reasonable in terms of property. Making some broad assumptions about the contractual nuance here, the first person to make a legal claim on unclaimed land owns it. The first to write a book owns the litterary rights to it. Businesses regularly operate one a first-come first-serve basis. First past the post has a pretty strong foundational basis in law, even if only as a historical principal.

OOC: Those first three don't really compare to patents. Patents apply to inventions that, given the vastness of the Multiverse, are bound to show up in many, many places in almost exactly the same way. The exact same technologies will be invented in different places independently, without anyone aware of it until, some day, one patent holder comes in contact with another who holds a patent for the same invention. Why should either of them have to cede their patent rights to the other just because their technologies are the same, when the invention clearly belongs to both of them?

OOC: Are you asking me to snipe your proposal? Cuz my mentor here at school is doing hard IP law, and I bet he'll help me out for a case of beer...

OOC: No, I'm not. That would be unnecessary and, quite frankly, highly unprofessional. I'm asking your ambassador why he accuses mine of trivializing intellectual property theft. On that note, could you refrain from responding to IC comments OOC? I don't need another IA on my hands.

[Sciongrad]

"No, you really are prioritizing foreign citizens. The criticized clause mandated the equal consideration of foreign and domestic patent claims. The only alternatives to that are prioritizing citizens over foreigners, or prioritizing foreigners over citizens. When I have argued for the prioritization of citizens over foreigners, I have been labeled a supporter of theft and an enemy of basic property rights. Therefore, I must assume that you and Ambassador Bell champion the prioritization of foreigners over citizens."

"No, that is not what I'm criticizing. The absence of required foreign patent recognition is what I'm criticizing. You keep on framing an international foreign patent regime as detrimental to domestic patents, but that so obviously doesn't make sense because international foreign patent regimes are inherently reciprocal. In other words, any advantages conferred to foreign inventors affect domestic inventors equally because they themselves are foreign inventors from the perspective of other countries. So this whole "foreign patents only benefit foreigners" argument is not only a blatant appeal to xenophobia, but it doesn't even make sense!"

"I imagine you meant 'domestic inventors' and not 'domestic investors'. In that case, I agree completely. Letting foreigners run roughshod over citizens' intellectual property rights not only benefits foreigners but also disadvantages citizens."

OOC: My posts are probably full of typos because I'm on holiday and I'm using my phone.

IC: "Requiring recognition of a patent owned by a foreign inventor is not 'running roughshod over citizens' intellectual property rights' if that inventor legitimately patented the invention first. In fact, by allowing your own citizens to patent an invention that has already been produced elsewhere is actually a fundamental violation of intellectual property rights."

"Really? Because in many industries, cheap 'knock-offs' tend to fail quite often, and the quality product demonstrates itself as far superior in functionality and longevity."

OOC: That's demonstrably false. If you've ever met a legitimate manufacturer whose product is being undermined by cheap foreign knock offs, they absolutely would not say "our high quality product will prevail thanks to the fair and just invisible hand of the free market!" A real person in this thread has actually already admitted that without foreign patent recognition, they would be bankrupted.

"In that case, why prioritize every foreign patent over domestic patent claims?"

"That doesn't make any sense. Either the foreign inventor had the patent first or the domestic inventor had the patent first. If you're arguing that government's should recognize a new patent for a domestic invention when there is uncertainty or ambiguity over whether or not it violates a foreign patent, then I have the following counterarguments. Firstly, competent patent lawyers could obviously determine whether or not the invention is truly novel enough to deserve its own patent for reasons more compelling than its production by a domestic inventor. But secondarily, if the invention is similar to a foreign invention but truly novel enough to warrant its own patent, then the previous resolution that you repealed did not prohibit you from recognizing that new patent!"

[Wallenburg]

"No, that is not what I'm criticizing. The absence of required foreign patent recognition is what I'm criticizing. You keep on framing an international foreign patent regime as detrimental to domestic patents, but that so obviously doesn't make sense because international foreign patent regimes are inherently reciprocal. In other words, any advantages conferred to foreign inventors affect domestic inventors equally because they themselves are foreign inventors from the perspective of other countries.

"Except where patents conflict, and both inventors clearly have legitimate claims to their patents. Where is the balance, the reciprocal benefit, in that situation?"

So this whole "foreign patents only benefit foreigners" argument is not only a blatant appeal to xenophobia, but it doesn't even make sense!"

"I never made such an argument, so I shall disregard that attempt to stain my character."

IC: "Requiring recognition of a patent owned by a foreign inventor is not 'running roughshod over citizens' intellectual property rights' if that inventor legitimately patented the invention first. In fact, by allowing your own citizens to patent an invention that has already been produced elsewhere is actually a fundamental violation of intellectual property rights."

"By allowing our own citizens to patent technologies they independently and legitimately developed, by allowing them to seek and obtain protection of their intellectual property, we violate nothing. We will not let some obscure foreign national from some until recently unknown foreign nation dictate that we hand our citizens' property to them because they have a slightly older patent for the same general invention."

OOC: That's demonstrably false. If you've ever met a legitimate manufacturer whose product is being undermined by cheap foreign knock offs, they absolutely would not say "our high quality product will prevail thanks to the fair and just invisible hand of the free market!" A real person in this thread has actually already admitted that without foreign patent recognition, they would be bankrupted.

OOC: We must be thinking of different things when you say "cheap foreign knock off". Also, the OOC/IC thing goes for you, too. It's rather disrespectful to force a change of perspective from IC to OOC.

"That doesn't make any sense. Either the foreign inventor had the patent first or the domestic inventor had the patent first. If you're arguing that government's should recognize a new patent for a domestic invention when there is uncertainty or ambiguity over whether or not it violates a foreign patent, then I have the following counterarguments. Firstly, competent patent lawyers could obviously determine whether or not the invention is truly novel enough to deserve its own patent for reasons more compelling than its production by a domestic inventor. But secondarily, if the invention is similar to a foreign invention but truly novel enough to warrant its own patent, then the previous resolution that you repealed did not prohibit you from recognizing that new patent!"

"Ambassador, you fail to recognize that different nations have different standards for patenting technologies. When conflicting patents meet, which standards are they to go by then?"

[Sciongrad]

"No, that is not what I'm criticizing. The absence of required foreign patent recognition is what I'm criticizing. You keep on framing an international foreign patent regime as detrimental to domestic patents, but that so obviously doesn't make sense because international foreign patent regimes are inherently reciprocal. In other words, any advantages conferred to foreign inventors affect domestic inventors equally because they themselves are foreign inventors from the perspective of other countries.

"Except where patents conflict, and both inventors clearly have legitimate claims to their patents. Where is the balance, the reciprocal benefit, in that situation?"

"In which case, you refer to the date the patent is filed. The individual that patented the item first has the legitimate claim, even if the two inventions were developed independently. Can you specify? In what instance would there be two legitimate claims to a patent that couldn't either be determined through 1. referral to the patent dates or 2. comparative analysis of the inventions?"

"By allowing our own citizens to patent technologies they independently and legitimately developed, by allowing them to seek and obtain protection of their intellectual property, we violate nothing. We will not let some obscure foreign national from some until recently unknown foreign nation dictate that we hand our citizens' property to them because they have a slightly older patent for the same general invention."

"First of all, I hope you understand you are appealing to the basest of instincts when you rely on appeals to xenophobia like referring to a foreign patent holder as 'some obscure foreign national from some until recently unknown foreign nation' in a pejorative sense. But on to the substance: legitimate development doesn't matter if one invention was patented first. That's how most nations handle domestic patent law, otherwise, it would be anarchy. Thought experiment. Someone that has been living under a rock independently invents radio in Wallenburg centuries after it has been invented and patented. Can this individual file a patent, even though that invention was not only previously patented, but had its patent expire long ago, simply because the individual independently reinvented radio? Your nation's patent system would accommodate that?"

OOC: We must be thinking of different things when you say "cheap foreign knock off". Also, the OOC/IC thing goes for you, too. It's rather disrespectful to force a change of perspective from IC to OOC.

OOC: This is a hybrid OOC/IC forum, and players have resorted to OOC evidence to substantiate their arguments for more than a decade. I try to avoid it when possible, but it is sometimes impossible to prove a point in an IC context without RL evidence.

"Ambassador, you fail to recognize that different nations have different standards for patenting technologies. When conflicting patents meet, which standards are they to go by then?"

"Care to specify? What specific differences in patent standards do you think would complicate a patent claim to such an extent that the issue could not be resolved either by identifying which patent was filed first or through standard arbitration?"

[Excidium Planetis]

"In what is, according to my colleague the distinguished Madam Delegate Schultz, a rare occasion, the delegation of Excidium Planetis, until otherwise stated, voices the same objections as the Scionite delegation and concurs with Madam Santos."

OOC: We must be thinking of different things when you say "cheap foreign knock off".

OOC: I think that Sciongrad means "inexpensive from-another-country imitation", and you are thinking "low-quality from-another-country imitation".

[Wallenburg]

After a long period spent alone in redrafting, Ogenbond emerges from his office. "I present a new version of my draft. I hope that the mandates are sufficiently capitalist for you all. Notch knows I'll suffer for abandoning the ideals of the Revolution."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Patent time limits?

[Wallenburg]

Patent time limits?

"Excellent point, Ambassador Parsons. We certainly can't let patents last forever, but an arbitrary number as Auralia would force upon member nations is absolutely incompatible with the most basic realities of the World Assembly. I'll put my assistants to work on that. For now, I have to decompress and let myself accept that I have become a capitalist pig."

[Tahkranul]

Patent time limits?

"Excellent point, Ambassador Parsons. We certainly can't let patents last forever, but an arbitrary number as Auralia would force upon member nations is absolutely incompatible with the most basic realities of the World Assembly. I'll put my assistants to work on that. For now, I have to decompress and let myself accept that I have become a capitalist pig."

"I must say, darling, that this draft is shaping up rather nicely. I suspect, from what I've seen of the Assembly thus far, that you'll receive a few complaints opposing the creation of a new committee, but I should think that the complexities and nuances of the subject matter genuinely necessitates it in this case. The presence of impartial arbitration to turn to ought to ease concerns of conflict arising.
"Oh, and dear? Don't trouble yourself too much over becoming a 'capitalist pig' overnight. Speaking as a citizen of a nation that blends 'socialist' and 'capitalist' ideals, I think it does much to strengthen a nation, as, properly balanced, each curbs the harsher excesses of the other."

[Araraukar]

OOC: So if you strip away the Legalese, does this 1) force nations to adopt a patenting system, 2) if nation has no patenting system, force it to recognize foreign patents anyway, and 3) favour foreign patents over domestic ones, if foreign patent was applied for prior to domestic one?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: So if you strip away the Legalese, does this 1) force nations to adopt a patenting system, 2) if nation has no patenting system, force it to recognize foreign patents anyway, and 3) favour foreign patents over domestic ones, if foreign patent was applied for prior to domestic one?

OOC: yes, all of which is fair.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: So if you strip away the Legalese, does this 1) force nations to adopt a patenting system, 2) if nation has no patenting system, force it to recognize foreign patents anyway, and 3) favour foreign patents over domestic ones, if foreign patent was applied for prior to domestic one?

OOC:
1) No - Clause 1's pretty clear about that
2) No - Same, clause 1 also serves to grant member states the right to recognize them or not.
3) Yes - In fact, if the foreign patent is one granted by the WAPS, it can be more recent than the domestic patent and still be favored over the domestic one. Essentially, the WAPS asserts precedence in the international patent system.

[Separatist Peoples]

"It might be beneficial to require a standardization of patents for ease of international reference. Not a standardization of laws regarding patents, such as length of exclusivity or fair noncommercial use policy, but on details like how much detail is required to adequately patent something, or the degree to which something must be demonstrably unique to earn a patent. Establishing a WA committee to help would go a long way to accomplishing this. Additionally, in order to apply for international patent recognition, an inventor should have to apply separately to such committee, the better to definitively prove which patents were secured first internationally.

"This way, the barrier of navigating an unstandardized system and avoid a lot of the ambiguity inherent when trying to force two distinctly separate national systems to communicate."

[Wallenburg]

"It might be beneficial to require a standardization of patents for ease of international reference. Not a standardization of laws regarding patents, such as length of exclusivity or fair noncommercial use policy, but on details like how much detail is required to adequately patent something, or the degree to which something must be demonstrably unique to earn a patent. Establishing a WA committee to help would go a long way to accomplishing this. Additionally, in order to apply for international patent recognition, an inventor should have to apply separately to such committee, the better to definitively prove which patents were secured first internationally.

"This way, the barrier of navigating an unstandardized system and avoid a lot of the ambiguity inherent when trying to force two distinctly separate national systems to communicate."

"Ambassador, you really ought to read clauses four through six."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It might be beneficial to require a standardization of patents for ease of international reference. Not a standardization of laws regarding patents, such as length of exclusivity or fair noncommercial use policy, but on details like how much detail is required to adequately patent something, or the degree to which something must be demonstrably unique to earn a patent. Establishing a WA committee to help would go a long way to accomplishing this. Additionally, in order to apply for international patent recognition, an inventor should have to apply separately to such committee, the better to definitively prove which patents were secured first internationally.

"This way, the barrier of navigating an unstandardized system and avoid a lot of the ambiguity inherent when trying to force two distinctly separate national systems to communicate."

"Ambassador, you really ought to read clauses four through six."

OOC: This is what I get for checking new posts between classes and not looking at the OP... Sorry bud.

IC: "Er...right...very good! Glad you took my advice. A note, though. While the committee guarantees objective analysis of all patents, it doesn't require any degree of standardization for those applying or attempting to research. Ensuring standardization in international patents explicitly, at least, would help. It might make life difficult for the Hothian Ice-People, who only write on chunks of ice as a matter of religion, but we can't please everybody.

"Further, such patents should be placed into a database that can be freely accessed. After all, ensuring that one is not infringing on existing patents is important, if only to prevent wasted time."

[Wallenburg]

OOC: This is what I get for checking new posts between classes and not looking at the OP... Sorry bud.

OOC: Hehe, no problem.

IC: "Er...right...very good! Glad you took my advice. A note, though. While the committee guarantees objective analysis of all patents, it doesn't require any degree of standardization for those applying or attempting to research. Ensuring standardization in international patents explicitly, at least, would help. It might make life difficult for the Hothian Ice-People, who only write on chunks of ice as a matter of religion, but we can't please everybody.

"While I see no substantial reason to discriminate against patent requests due to their format or medium, I agree that standardization of patent requirements ought to be guaranteed at the international level. I believe that clause six largely addresses this, but if you have any further suggestions, I'm open to them."

"Further, such patents should be placed into a database that can be freely accessed. After all, ensuring that one is not infringing on existing patents is important, if only to prevent wasted time.

"Agreed, I shall introduce a clause to do so immediately."

"Lastly, there should be a requirement that, if a nation does, in fact, have a patent system, holding a patent recognized by the host nation should be a prerequisite for holding an international patent. It delays the process, but prevents preemptive patent sniping across international jurisdictions. An exception could be made for those inventors who live in states with no patent recognition. Your current situation also allows inventors to circumvent their own patent system by appealing to the international level, which makes prosecuting patent infringement very difficult."

"I suppose this is reasonable. I'll consider it, and shall see whether it fits in well with existing requirements."