[SCUTTLED] Repeal "Foreign Patent Recognition"

[Wallenburg]

Repeal "Foreign Patent Recognition"

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR#347 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the right to intellectual property, and the importance of safeguarding new inventions against theft;

Encouraging efforts to legislate on the issue of patent rights and intellectual property;

Noting that GA #347 allows industries and states to file patents that block development of essential technology and science in other nations;

Regretting that the target resolution prohibits the production or distribution of vital pharmaceutical products, thereby causing widespread suffering among the citizens of countless WA countries;

Noticing that GA #347 grants a monopoly on patents--and therefore all technology--to the authoring nation alone, and actually eliminates all intellectual rights of hardworking people in all other member states;

Aware that many member states may not be familiar with the concept of a patent;

Horrified that GA #347 forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, and threatens to obliterate all nations that do not through thermonuclear holocaust;

Disappointed that this resolution seeks to impose national law beyond its jurisdiction into other nations, compelling nations to recognize the legal power of contracts made in foreign nations;

Condemning this resolution's assertion that the nonreligious, homosexuals, and the elderly should be exterminated;

Further condemning its ban on the production of chocolate, small arms, and children's toys;

Alarmed at this resolution's objective to destroy all developing economies across the Multiverse, and to eliminate all fair and free trade between member nations;

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #347, "Foreign Patent Recognition".

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I don't know whether to applaud your nihilism and gall, or heave a grenade at you. So, well done, I suppose

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I don't know whether to applaud your nihilism and gall, or heave a grenade at you. So, well done, I suppose

OOC: Both.

[Wallenburg]

I think I should note that the falsehoods in this draft are, indeed, intentional. I'll probably submit this soon.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I don't know whether to applaud your nihilism and gall, or heave a grenade at you. So, well done, I suppose

OOC: Both.

OOC: I vote for both too. Though the grenade first.

As much fun as can be had on the expense of the new rule, we're actually just confirming it to the Powers That Be, that the rule was a good one. After all, they've long said that they want GA forum to be more active.

Ooh, hey, anyone volunteer to write a NAPA repeal?

[Bananaistan]

As much fun as can be had on the expense of the new rule, we're actually just confirming it to the Powers That Be, that the rule was a good one. After all, they've long said that they want GA forum to be more active.

Ooh, hey, anyone volunteer to write a NAPA repeal?

Or we'll run out of repeals eventually and then that will be the end of the GA

[John Turner]

As much fun as can be had on the expense of the new rule, we're actually just confirming it to the Powers That Be, that the rule was a good one. After all, they've long said that they want GA forum to be more active.

Ooh, hey, anyone volunteer to write a NAPA repeal?

Or we'll run out of repeals eventually and then that will be the end of the GA

Give a man a hammer, and he will destroy things with it.

[Old Hope]

Further condemning its ban on the production of chocolate, small arms, and children's toys;

OOC:This would sound suspicious even to new WA nations.

[Sapient Hammers United]

Or we'll run out of repeals eventually and then that will be the end of the GA

Give a man a hammer, and he will destroy things with it.

"We like to think of it as Alternative Construction, thank you very much."

[Wallenburg]

Or we'll run out of repeals eventually and then that will be the end of the GA

Give a man a hammer, and he will destroy things with it.

"Ambassador, it should please you to know that the new official symbol of the Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices is a hammer stamping on a World Assembly Resolution – forever."

[Separatist Peoples]

Give a man a hammer, and he will destroy things with it.

"Ambassador, it should please you to know that the new official symbol of the Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices is a hammer stamping on a World Assembly Resolution – forever."

"It isn't, by chance, a sapient hammer, is it?"

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, it should please you to know that the new official symbol of the Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices is a hammer stamping on a World Assembly Resolution – forever."

"It isn't, by chance, a sapient hammer, is it?"

"I'm afraid not, Ambassador. There are no sapient hammers in Wallenburg. It does, however, feature a grieving Ambassador screaming as the hammer comes down on the resolution. We're thinking of a motto something like, 'No! No, Notch, please no! No!'"

[Ovybia]

I think I should note that the falsehoods in this draft are, indeed, intentional. I'll probably submit this soon.

OOC: Although it is allowed, I still don't think it's a good idea to intentionally lie in repeals. You're effectively playing on player's gullibility.

[Wallenburg]

I think I should note that the falsehoods in this draft are, indeed, intentional. I'll probably submit this soon.

OOC: Although it is allowed, I still don't think it's a good idea to intentionally lie in repeals. You're effectively playing on player's gullibility.

OOC: The main objective of this proposal is to protest the new honest mistake rule. I have simply chosen a target that I do not like because I don't want to remove perfectly good legislation in doing so.

[Railana]

OOC: Although it is allowed, I still don't think it's a good idea to intentionally lie in repeals. You're effectively playing on player's gullibility.

OOC: The main objective of this proposal is to protest the new honest mistake rule. I have simply chosen a target that I do not like because I don't want to remove perfectly good legislation in doing so.

((OOC: I wonder -- is there a single resolution I've written that you like? Maybe the Minimum Standard of Living Act...))

[Wallenburg]

OOC: The main objective of this proposal is to protest the new honest mistake rule. I have simply chosen a target that I do not like because I don't want to remove perfectly good legislation in doing so.

((OOC: I wonder -- is there a single resolution I've written that you like? Maybe the Minimum Standard of Living Act...))

OOC: I've only been around for two of your passed resolutions. I'd say 50/50 is a fairly good indication that your name doesn't enter into how I view the resolutions you write.

[Railana]

((OOC: I wonder -- is there a single resolution I've written that you like? Maybe the Minimum Standard of Living Act...))

OOC: I've only been around for two of your passed resolutions. I'd say 50/50 is a fairly good indication that your name doesn't enter into how I view the resolutions you write.

((OOC: Oh, I wasn't accusing you of anything like that. I was just making a jokey comment about our divergent political views, that all.))

[Ovybia]

Horrified that GA #347 forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, and threatens to obliterate all nations that do not through thermonuclear holocaust;
...
Condemning this resolution's assertion that the nonreligious, homosexuals, and the elderly should be exterminated;
...
Further condemning its ban on the production of chocolate, small arms, and children's toys;
...
Alarmed at this resolution's objective to destroy all developing economies across the Multiverse, and to eliminate all fair and free trade between member nations;

OOC: Although it is allowed, I still don't think it's a good idea to intentionally lie in repeals. You're effectively playing on player's gullibility.

OOC: The main objective of this proposal is to protest the new honest mistake rule. I have simply chosen a target that I do not like because I don't want to remove perfectly good legislation in doing so.

OOC: What's wrong with patent recognition? It sounds like a good and logical proposal.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I've only been around for two of your passed resolutions. I'd say 50/50 is a fairly good indication that your name doesn't enter into how I view the resolutions you write.

((OOC: Oh, I wasn't accusing you of anything like that. I was just making a jokey comment about our divergent political views, that all.))

OOC: Oh, well...

<===JOKE=====
_________
(MY HEAD)

OOC: The main objective of this proposal is to protest the new honest mistake rule. I have simply chosen a target that I do not like because I don't want to remove perfectly good legislation in doing so.

OOC: What's wrong with patent recognition? It sounds like a good and logical proposal.

My objections to it can be found here, here, and here, as well as in a previous draft that I wrote far more seriously than this one.

[Tinfect]

OOC: What's wrong with patent recognition? It sounds like a good and logical proposal.

OOC:
The Resolution severely cripples states that do not utilize patents, and is totally incompatible with the concept of communal ownership. As such, it adversely effects Socialist and Communist States, though the latter would not have much of a State in any recognizable form, by forcing them to abide by the national patents of the many thousands of other Nations. I hope we can see why that is damaging.

[John Turner]

OOC: The main objective of this proposal is to protest the new honest mistake rule. I have simply chosen a target that I do not like because I don't want to remove perfectly good legislation in doing so.

((OOC: I wonder -- is there a single resolution I've written that you like? Maybe the Minimum Standard of Living Act...))

You seem to be missing the point here. It is not about repealing the actual resolution, it is about the author.

[Wallenburg]

((OOC: I wonder -- is there a single resolution I've written that you like? Maybe the Minimum Standard of Living Act...))

You seem to be missing the point here. It is not about repealing the actual resolution, it is about the author.

Please don't lie.

[Ovybia]

You seem to be missing the point here. It is not about repealing the actual resolution, it is about the author.

Please don't lie.

Hmm...I'm considering saying 'take your own advice.'

OOC: What's wrong with patent recognition? It sounds like a good and logical proposal.

OOC:
The Resolution severely cripples states that do not utilize patents, and is totally incompatible with the concept of communal ownership. As such, it adversely effects Socialist and Communist States, though the latter would not have much of a State in any recognizable form, by forcing them to abide by the national patents of the many thousands of other Nations. I hope we can see why that is damaging.

How does it cripple those states? I don't think it forces people to file patents. People should a right to their intellectual property if they so choose to exercise that right, even in nations that work on a communist/socialist system.

[Wallenburg]

Please don't lie.

Hmm...I'm considering saying 'take your own advice.'

I see what you did there.

[Tinfect]

How does it cripple those states? I don't think it forces people to file patents. People should a right to their intellectual property if they so choose to exercise that right, even in nations that work on a communist/socialist system.

OOC:
Okay, since it appears that you don't know enough about how Communist/Socialist States actually work to see the problem, let's get in-depth!

First of all, the basic difference between the two, you should already know this, but because it is rather key to comprehension, we'll cover it briefly. At their simplest terms, Communism, is Communal Ownership, sort of an 'everybody owns everything' sort of deal. Socialism, is the practical application of the same line of thought. All ostensibly Communist states that have ever existed IRL have been Socialist States in practice. Center point here is that the State owns everything.*
*note that I'm boiling it down for the sake of brevity and because you don't actually need to know every aspect of the ideology to understand the problem here.

The key issue here is that neither of those are fully compatible with the concept of Patents. In an ideologically Communist State, holding a Patent is absolutely incompatible with the most basic tenet of the Ideology, literally what it's named for, Communal Ownership. In a Socialist State, a Patent is an obstruction at best, and is damaging to the power of the State, as it restricts the rights of production to only what the Patent Holder wants. As much as I dislike using the USSR as an example, it didn't have patents, merely copyright for creative works, as the State needed to be able to produce whatever it needed whenever it needed it. In effect, the patent-holder, was the State; even though there was no actual patent involved, the Technology belonged to the State.

Moving into how Foreign Patent Recognition fucks over Socialist/Communist States in particular, the base point of contention should now be clear. Patents, are entirely incompatible with Socialist/Communist States. Specifically, Foreign Patent Recognition forces them to accept Foreign Patents, due to Socialist/Communist States not having a Patent System, nothing they have is protected by it. This means that things commonly produced or distributed in those states, are now suddenly the intellectual property of someone else off in another Nation, in order to continue production of this thing, the State now has to deal with someone that never even entered into the equation when the State was doing its thing. The Technology in question may very well have been in production and widespread use in the Socialist/Communist State long before the Patent-Holder in Overthereistanialand even filed their patent. However, since no patent was filed over in the Socialist/Communist State, it is now the Property of some foreigner who may very well decide that they don't get to produce/use the patented technology anymore.

The problem should be pretty damn obvious now.

Oh, and, for the record, the only defense Socialist/Communist States have against this nonsense? Completely cutting themselves off from all International Trade, as in that situation, the foreign patent holder cannot reasonably hold any good faith intentions to exploit the patent in that state.