[DEFEATED] Foreign Patent Recognition

[Divitaen]

Voted FOR this resolution, international copyright theft is a huge problem and prevents corporations from setting up shop in nations were this problem is rampant. It is harmful for both the nation conducting the theft and the nation with corporations that own the patents to such products.

[The Oan Isles]

Great idea. Too many loopholes and inadequacies for me to approve. Even if it passes, it'll be repealed relatively soon then we'd be back to square one.

[Racoda]

Foreign Patent Recognition
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Are you kidding me? Patents do quite the opposite: they hamper and limit free trade. More regulations is less freedom.

[Divitaen]

Foreign Patent Recognition
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Are you kidding me? Patents do quite the opposite: they hamper and limit free trade. More regulations is less freedom.

If a government chooses not to prosecute a local company for stealing or pirating a foreign product, it is a form of protectionism because the government is doing this in the hopes that the domestic firm gains at the expense of the foreign firm, although this hurts free and fair competition between the two.

[Racoda]

Are you kidding me? Patents do quite the opposite: they hamper and limit free trade. More regulations is less freedom.

If a government chooses not to prosecute a local company for stealing or pirating a foreign product, it is a form of protectionism because the government is doing this in the hopes that the domestic firm gains at the expense of the foreign firm, although this hurts free and fair competition between the two.

So it is the other way around. If patents are recognized, it's protectionism from which the foreign company benefits.

[Divitaen]

If a government chooses not to prosecute a local company for stealing or pirating a foreign product, it is a form of protectionism because the government is doing this in the hopes that the domestic firm gains at the expense of the foreign firm, although this hurts free and fair competition between the two.

So it is the other way around. If patents are recognized, it's protectionism from which the foreign company benefits.

It's only protectionism if the government favours one over the other with its laws. With this bill, a local company's innovations would have to be recognized in other countries as well, so competition is still fair.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

De

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.

That's absurd. Under that policy the only ones who'd ever create anything are the largest and most powerful concerns, since they're the only ones equipped to "face what happens" next. That's closer to feudalism than anything else.

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.

Possible the author could have broken this up, but until this very discussion that point wasn't raised. If it doesn't pass, there's some fodder for the next try.

In general, however, patents favour large corporations - pharmaceutical companies benefit the most from a copyright regime, as well as biotechnology firms.

I'm just gonna let this one sit here.

The only benefit that patents give is the ability for multinationals developers to extort from the masses make back the cost of development through a temporary state enforced monopoly.

Fixed that for ya. Without patents only multinationals would ever develop anything. It's not a perfect system, but it's a damn sight better than removing protections for small producers on the theory that you're somehow making things "fair" for them.

[Kincoboh]

De

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

That's absurd. Under that policy the only ones who'd ever create anything are the largest and most powerful concerns, since they're the only ones equipped to "face what happens" next. That's closer to feudalism than anything else.

There is no reason to assume that if we get rid of patents, it would turn into a feudal system. That assertion is itself absurd. It would at the very least get rid of patent trolls - a very real problem that, again, this resolution does not address.

This is another reason why this proposal is weak, then. There is no mention of software patents.

Possible the author could have broken this up, but until this very discussion that point wasn't raised. If it doesn't pass, there's some fodder for the next try.

Indeed. I would much rather support a resolution that allows countries to set their own patent regimes.

In general, however, patents favour large corporations - pharmaceutical companies benefit the most from a copyright regime, as well as biotechnology firms.

I'm just gonna let this one sit here.

And yet, this contradicts what you said earlier in that only large companies would be able to stand abolishing of patents. In fact, however, many fields actually retard scientific progress through overtly broad claims. A much better model would be open source and creative commons.

The only benefit that patents give is the ability for multinationals developers to extort from the masses make back the cost of development through a temporary state enforced monopoly.

Fixed that for ya. Without patents only multinationals would ever develop anything. It's not a perfect system, but it's a damn sight better than removing protections for small producers on the theory that you're somehow making things "fair" for them.

Small producers actually do benefit the most from a change in regime. In the end, however, it would create a level playing field. For example, in nanotech, I cite a researcher who wrote a paper on why IP laws are bad for scientific development:

i) higher transaction costs for information exchange slow progress
(even for publicly-funded research),
ii) patenting of building block technologies impedes downstream
research and development
iii) the flexible non-obvious requirement of patents locks away commonsense
approaches to solving problems, and basic, obvious algorithms for creating innovations, and
v) despite the increasing rate of patent applications, many patents are not used, providing road-blocks to
others working in the area.

And further, I largely agree with the writer, who offers an open-source alternative.

The open-source community runs on a gift economy, which rewards contributors through a process of peer review. In contrast to the IP system, it is actually better to freely share in an open-source framework. Yet, simultaneously, the open-source paradigm allows for commercial success, as demonstrated by the profits enjoyed by both traditional firms using open-source software, but also the plethora of businesses built on selling services around the open-source products they give away for free (...)

An open-source model of nanotechnology design would help to overcome the
limitations of the IP system by reducing the potential for stagnant monopolies, reducing roadblocks and
transaction costs to innovation, increasing the speed of innovation through collaborative production,
and by making knowledge open and accessible to a larger community

[Walamzia]

I offer my support to vote against this bill as it does nothing for the great region of Texas. We should be looking to cut the red tape, not jump through it. Pharmaceutical companies can deal with massive implications later as new developments are coming out within 2-3 years.

[The White Judgment]

Just out of curiosity,

If this act were passed, what would happen in the event of a double patent, one identical or similar patent in two separate nations? Would it go to whoever filed first? Or whoever had more corporate interests? Or what?

While the idea of this Act has potential, I cannot agree with it in it's current form. It has flaws and is excessively simplistic. I cannot vote for it and I hope to help you become aware of the fact that you shouldn't, either.

Sincerely,

The White Judgment

[Caprovia]

If this act were passed, what would happen in the event of a double patent, one identical or similar patent in two separate nations? Would it go to whoever filed first? Or whoever had more corporate interests? Or what?

That's a very good point. Yet another reason that this proposal is seriously flawed.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Well, it was a fairly close vote. We thought this proposal had potential, but in the end had to vote against it in keeping with our region's majority. We hope the author gives it another shot--with a few tweaks here and there they should get it to pass.