NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal "The General Patent Charter"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Railana
Diplomat
 
Posts: 518
Founded: Apr 11, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[PASSED] Repeal "The General Patent Charter"

Postby Railana » Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:27 am

The former half of an repeal and replace campaign for GAR #93, The General Patent Charter.

Repeal "The General Patent Charter"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #93

Affirming the practice of granting inventors certain exclusive rights associated with their inventions in exchange for the detailed public disclosure of that invention, which promotes scientific and technological innovation,

Believing that World Assembly harmonization of patent law, as attempted by GAR #93, "The General Patent Charter", is necessary, as the effectiveness of patents is substantially reduced when other member states fail to recognize them,

Regretting, however, that the target resolution's myriad flaws necessitate its repeal,

Concerned that the target resolution fails to clarify the extent to which member nations are required to recognize the validity of patents issued by other member nations, especially:
  1. whether the right of national patent offices to renew patents under clause 2 of the target resolution compels all member nations to recognize such a renewal, as patents must always be "recognized in all member countries" under clause 1 of the target resolution,
  2. whether, if this is in fact the case, this seemingly unrestricted renewal right would effectively allow a single member nation to prevent a patent from entering the public domain in all member nations indefinitely,
  3. whether, if this is not the case, the target resolution effectively prohibits all member nations from renewing patents, as patents must always be "recognized in all member countries" under clause 1 of the target resolution,
Saddened that this lack of clarity largely prevents the target resolution from accomplishing its stated purpose of ensuring the "mutual recognition of patents issued by member countries,"

Disappointed that the target resolution fails to provide adequate protection against "submarine patents", or patents whose issuance and publication are intentionally delayed with the intent of launching litigation against infringing industries that developed during the delay,

Alarmed that the target resolution compels member nations to offer patent protection to domestic inventors, even though member nations may prefer to implement some other form of recognition for intellectual property for their own citizens, which is an issue with no international significance,

Hoping that a replacement resolution governing the foreign recognition of patents will soon be passed,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #93, "The General Patent Charter".
Last edited by Mallorea and Riva on Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:22 pm, edited 14 times in total.
Reason: passed
Dominion of Railana
Also known as Auralia

"Lex naturalis voluntas Dei est."

User avatar
Railana
Diplomat
 
Posts: 518
Founded: Apr 11, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Railana » Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:07 pm

((OOC: Bumping this.))
Last edited by Railana on Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dominion of Railana
Also known as Auralia

"Lex naturalis voluntas Dei est."

User avatar
Jarish Inyo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Jul 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jarish Inyo » Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:24 pm

The government of Jarish Inyo does not recognize patents. Nor do we have a patent office.
Ambassador Nameless
Empire of Jaresh Inyo

User avatar
Railana
Diplomat
 
Posts: 518
Founded: Apr 11, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Railana » Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:32 pm

Jarish Inyo wrote:The government of Jarish Inyo does not recognize patents. Nor do we have a patent office.


Then you are failing to comply with your international obligations as a member of the World Assembly.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly
Dominion of Railana
Also known as Auralia

"Lex naturalis voluntas Dei est."

User avatar
Jarish Inyo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Jul 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jarish Inyo » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:14 pm

I'm in compliance with my international obligations as a member of the WA. GAR#93 does not require that a nation have patent laws or even to recognize patents.
Ambassador Nameless
Empire of Jaresh Inyo

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:28 pm

Railana wrote:Distressed that, notwithstanding the controversy surrounding the patentability of biological matter, member nations are prohibited from recognizing the patentability of such matter even when protection is only granted within national borders, which is not an international issue,

OOC: I'm not sure it makes much difference to include this argument. People who want the WA to take action on biological patents will oppose this argument even where they might otherwise support the repeal; people who don't want the WA to take action on biological patents will probably support the repeal without it.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3385
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:38 pm

You might add that Clause 3 pays mere lip service to filed but yet-to-be-granted patents with a weak "calls for," rather than actually mandating protection against intentional infringement for pending patents that are later granted, retroactively to the filing date. Also there is nothing in the target resolution that prevents submarine patents, the granting of which is antithetical to the goals, intentions, and entire point of the whole idea of patent protection. Hoping these protections are politically possible in a replacement resolution, we register tentative support for this repeal.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
Stephanie Athena Zakalwe
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279



User avatar
Ra Rosulh
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Jul 10, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Ra Rosulh » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:42 pm

Jarish Inyo wrote:I'm in compliance with my international obligations as a member of the WA. GAR#93 does not require that a nation have patent laws or even to recognize patents.

"The Mandate in Cause 1 reads as such;
to have their patents recognized in all member countries; and to exclude unauthorised persons or private entities from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention;
It would seem you are not in compliance, if you do not recognize patents."

OOC; As for the repeal draft, I see no issues, but I am not really of a position to present support, being Non-WA.

User avatar
Jarish Inyo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Jul 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jarish Inyo » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:51 pm

Actually it states the following:

1. MANDATES that national patent laws must grant the following rights to patent holders, whose patents are granted and filed at their patent office: to have their patents recognized in all member countries; and to exclude unauthorised persons or private entities from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention


As my nation has no patent laws or offices, I am in compliance. It's cute that you left out the part that states national patents and patent office.
Ambassador Nameless
Empire of Jaresh Inyo

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:03 pm

Jarish Inyo wrote:Actually it states the following:

1. MANDATES that national patent laws must grant the following rights to patent holders, whose patents are granted and filed at their patent office: to have their patents recognized in all member countries; and to exclude unauthorised persons or private entities from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention


As my nation has no patent laws or offices, I am in compliance. It's cute that you left out the part that states national patents and patent office.

You're missing the point. Whether or not you grant domestic patents, you still have to recognise patents where they are granted by other WA nations. If a single WA nation grants a patent, then every member nation is obligated to recognise that patent ("to have their patents recognized in all member countries").

User avatar
Jarish Inyo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Jul 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jarish Inyo » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:10 pm

I'm not missing the point. GAR#93 doe not require me to recognize international patents if my nation has no patent laws.
Ambassador Nameless
Empire of Jaresh Inyo

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:21 pm

Again, Article 1 requires that every member nation recognise a patent if it is accorded by any WA nation. So long as there is at least one WA nation granting patents, every WA member nation is obligated to recognise those patents.

User avatar
Jarish Inyo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Jul 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jarish Inyo » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:37 pm

Actually, it doesn't requires that every member nation recognize a patent if it is accorded by any WA nation. It requires a nation's patent laws to grant certain rights to patent holders. One being having their patents recognized in all member countries.

My nation has no patent laws. Without parent laws, patent holders are not granted those rights, including having their patents recognized.

My nation not having patent laws is not obligated to recognize those patents.
Ambassador Nameless
Empire of Jaresh Inyo

User avatar
Railana
Diplomat
 
Posts: 518
Founded: Apr 11, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Railana » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:43 pm

The Dark Star Republic wrote:
Railana wrote:Distressed that, notwithstanding the controversy surrounding the patentability of biological matter, member nations are prohibited from recognizing the patentability of such matter even when protection is only granted within national borders, which is not an international issue,

OOC: I'm not sure it makes much difference to include this argument. People who want the WA to take action on biological patents will oppose this argument even where they might otherwise support the repeal; people who don't want the WA to take action on biological patents will probably support the repeal without it.


((OOC: I'm not certain the latter is true, but you might be right about the former. I'll think about it.))

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:You might add that Clause 3 pays mere lip service to filed but yet-to-be-granted patents with a weak "calls for," rather than actually mandating protection against intentional infringement for pending patents that are later granted, retroactively to the filing date. Also there is nothing in the target resolution that prevents submarine patents, the granting of which is antithetical to the goals, intentions, and entire point of the whole idea of patent protection. Hoping these protections are politically possible in a replacement resolution, we register tentative support for this repeal.


We've added a clause about submarine patents. Thank you for your support.

Jarish Inyo wrote:Actually, it doesn't requires that every member nation recognize a patent if it is accorded by any WA nation. It requires a nation's patent laws to grant certain rights to patent holders. One being having their patents recognized in all member countries.

My nation has no patent laws. Without parent laws, patent holders are not granted those rights, including having their patents recognized.

My nation not having patent laws is not obligated to recognize those patents.


The resolution implicitly requires that you create such laws if they do not yet exist. This is quite obvious to any reasonable person reading the resoluton's text, given the object and purpose of the resolution.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly
Dominion of Railana
Also known as Auralia

"Lex naturalis voluntas Dei est."

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:45 pm

But it's not your nation's laws that are relevant, Rybergification of the proposal language notwithstanding.

Let's say Nations A and B are both WA members. A patent is granted in Nation A for a piece of technology that magically causes lead not to be toxic. Nation A's patent laws now require that the patent be recognised in every WA nation, including Nation B. That Nation B claims not to have any patent laws is irrelevant to the Compliance Ministry.

User avatar
Jarish Inyo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Jul 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jarish Inyo » Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:02 pm

Railana,

The resolution does not implicitly requires a nation to create such laws if they do not yet exist. The resolution only does what it says it does. No where in it's text does it require laws to be created if none exist.

The Dark Star Republic,

My nation's laws are not irrelevant to GAR#93 or the Compliance Ministry. GAR#93 requires that if a nation has patent laws, that those laws give certain rights to patent holders. The Compliance Ministry only ensures that the nation's laws are in compliance with the resolution. Without patent law and GAR#93 not requiring patent laws to be created, a nation is not required to recognize any patent.
Ambassador Nameless
Empire of Jaresh Inyo

User avatar
Railana
Diplomat
 
Posts: 518
Founded: Apr 11, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Railana » Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:12 pm

Jarish Inyo wrote:The resolution does not implicitly requires a nation to create such laws if they do not yet exist. The resolution only does what it says it does. No where in it's text does it require laws to be created if none exist.


"The resolution only does what it says it does" is a vague and poor interpretative philosophy. Resolutions should be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the resolution, in the context in which they are used, in light of the object and purpose of the resolution, and without prejudice to any special meaning given to a term as defined in the resolution. ((OOC: That is to say, in accordance with real life international norms.))

In any event, I don't think I'm going to convince you of anything, so why don't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly
Dominion of Railana
Also known as Auralia

"Lex naturalis voluntas Dei est."

User avatar
Jarish Inyo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Jul 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jarish Inyo » Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:29 pm

I didn't give any special meaning given to any term as defined in the resolution when I read GAR#93. You may not like the fact that that the resolution can only do what it mandates, but is what it is.

We will have to agree that we will disagree on this.
Ambassador Nameless
Empire of Jaresh Inyo

User avatar
Louisistan
Diplomat
 
Posts: 810
Founded: Sep 10, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Louisistan » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:55 am

OOC: "submarine patents"? That's not actually patents on submarines, right? I don't know if that is a widely recognized term in the U.S. but for us non-native speakers that is just gibberish.

IC: Tentative support, though we have to have a little talk with the Ministry of Commerce.
Last edited by Louisistan on Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Knight of TITO, Senator of 10000 Islands

User avatar
Railana
Diplomat
 
Posts: 518
Founded: Apr 11, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Railana » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:20 am

Louisistan wrote:OOC: "submarine patents"? That's not actually patents on submarines, right? I don't know if that is a widely recognized term in the U.S. but for us non-native speakers that is just gibberish.


((OOC: No; it's a colloquial term (which is why it is surrounded by quotation marks) that is defined in the resolution.))

Louisistan wrote:IC: Tentative support, though we have to have a little talk with the Ministry of Commerce.


Again, thank you for your tentative support.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly
Dominion of Railana
Also known as Auralia

"Lex naturalis voluntas Dei est."

User avatar
Railana
Diplomat
 
Posts: 518
Founded: Apr 11, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Railana » Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:13 pm

((OOC: I'll be submitting this soon if there are no further comments.))
Dominion of Railana
Also known as Auralia

"Lex naturalis voluntas Dei est."

User avatar
SkillCrossbones
Diplomat
 
Posts: 797
Founded: Jun 30, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby SkillCrossbones » Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:47 am

Aw rats, I was hoping this was a thread for the other Repeal "The General Patent Charter" proposal!

Repeal "The General Patent Charter"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA #93

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #93: The General Patent Charter (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Because someone asked me too, and I'm a nice person
The Noblest Motive Is the Public Good

The contents of this post may not be reproduced or disseminated without the express written consent of the office of the President of SkillCrossbones
SkillCrossbones; 1%ers in: Public Sector, Public Healthcare, Citizen's Health, Tax Rates, Lifespan, Safety, Low Crime Rate, Welfare, Most Godforsaken, Most Scientifically Advanced, and Best Weather.

NS'er since 2005.

Do It For Torty

"I think it was Napoleon who said 'Without discipline, an army is just a bunch of guys all wearing the same color clothes.'"

"The new thing is to care passionately and be right wing."

User avatar
The Eternal Kawaii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1749
Founded: Apr 21, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Eternal Kawaii » Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:40 pm

Railana wrote:
Jarish Inyo wrote:The resolution does not implicitly requires a nation to create such laws if they do not yet exist. The resolution only does what it says it does. No where in it's text does it require laws to be created if none exist.


"The resolution only does what it says it does" is a vague and poor interpretative philosophy.


Actually, "the law means what the law says" is a long-standing maxim when interpreting WA resolutions.

We have approved this proposal in the hope that a better-worded version be passed as a replacement. It should include language closing Jarish Inyo's loophole.
Learn More about The Eternal Kawaii from our Factbook!

"Aside from being illegal, it's not like Max Barry Day was that bad of a resolution." -- Glen Rhodes
"as a member of the GA elite, I don't have to take this" -- Vancouvia

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:48 pm

Image
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Lexicor
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1022
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Lexicor » Sat Oct 04, 2014 12:03 am

OOC: Support

IC: "We hope to see this repeal pass."

- Funky Dela
Head Lemon Harvester
Lexicorian WA Office, Left of the Lemonade Stand
"The less one knows about the Civil War the more likely one is to think the North fought to free the slaves."
"As hours worked by an individual approaches zero, the probability of engagement in political activism approaches one."
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of the mention of inter-sectional group identities approaches one."

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads