[PASSED] Repeal "Foreign Patent Recognition"

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm making a note that this has been submitted, since my Invader Zim reference may have been obscure.

OOC: Is it not illegal in its current state in that it provides a pre-title for the coauthor?

[Wallenburg]

I'm making a note that this has been submitted, since my Invader Zim reference may have been obscure.

OOC: Is it not illegal in its current state in that it provides a pre-title for the coauthor?

OOC: Fuck. It didn't do that on the forum. Well, I guess we can just let it die, since it isn't getting enough approvals to go to vote.

[Wallenburg]

Last call for input. This will be submitted soon.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
I'll uh, take this time to again apologize for dropping the ball on the Campaign last time around.
In any case, you'll probably want to run one of those.

[Wallenburg]

OOC:
I'll uh, take this time to again apologize for dropping the ball on the Campaign last time around.
In any case, you'll probably want to run one of those.

OOC: That's all right. Besides, I am fairly certain I will have time to run the campaign program on Thursday or Friday, so this won't have to sit around much longer.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC:
I'll uh, take this time to again apologize for dropping the ball on the Campaign last time around.
In any case, you'll probably want to run one of those.

OOC: That's all right. Besides, I am fairly certain I will have time to run the campaign program on Thursday or Friday, so this won't have to sit around much longer.

OOC: Hoping that you make sure to use [nation=short]. Also, what campaign client do you use?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: That's all right. Besides, I am fairly certain I will have time to run the campaign program on Thursday or Friday, so this won't have to sit around much longer.

OOC: Hoping that you make sure to use [nation=short]. Also, what campaign client do you use?

OOC: Yeah, I learned that from my first submission.
I use your Communiqué program.

[Herby]

I'm surprised Mr. Fulton hasn't shown his face around here yet, he usually does when one of his resolutions is up for repeal.

[Central Asian Republics]

Last call for input. This will be submitted soon.

Just submit it already.

[Wallenburg]

Last call for input. This will be submitted soon.

Just submit it already.

I'd rather do so when I have the time to run a campaign. Otherwise I'm just wasting space on the proposal page.

[Railana]

You've made a number of changes to the original draft text, so rather than reply to your last post I'll comment directly on the new text, and we can continue from there if you'd like.

Noting that GA #347 provides insufficient framework to prevent industries and states from filing patents to block development of technology and science in other nations, even if they have no interest in developing said technologies themselves;

I don't understand this argument. The patent system is based on a bargain between the inventor and the state. In exchange for the grant of certain exclusive rights associated with a particular invention for a limited period of time, the inventor agrees to release the design of the invention to the public so that anyone can manufacture and sell that invention after the monopoly period expires.

Therefore, international patents actually serve as a fantastic technology equalizer. When individual in more advanced nations patent advanced technology, then this technology becomes a matter of public record; after ten years, anybody, including people living in less advanced nations, can use the technology freely. Of course, if the advanced nations fail to release the details of the patent, then other nations are not required to recognize the patents under clause 6(c).

Even before the ten year period expires, less advanced nations can purchase licenses for the new technology from the owner of the patent. If the owner of the patent refuses to sell any licenses at a reasonable price, intending simply to restrict access to the technology for ten years, then nations can use this as justification to nullify the patent under clause 6(b). (Even if this weren't the case, though, ten years really isn't a very long time.)

Regretting that the target resolution allows patents to severely restrict use of vital pharmaceutical products, thereby extending the suffering of citizens in WA countries that cannot afford to purchase exclusively patented medicines;

As I've already pointed out, under Access to Life-Saving Drugs, patents can be waived entirely under certain circumstances, negating any effects the resolution might have in such cases.

With that said, yes, pharmaceutical patents will still exist, even under Access to Life-Saving Drugs; yes, they will restrict access to drugs to some people who need them dearly; yes, pharmaceutical patents are still necessary because otherwise the drug in question would not have been developed in the first place, which would be a much bigger problem.

Noticing that GA #347 essentially grants a monopoly on patents--and therefore all technology--to a handful of highly advanced civilizations, while less advanced member states are left to suffer the loss of their intellectual rights;

As I said earlier, this is a temporary problem that will only last at most ten years, since that is the minimum period of protection provided by the resolution.

Aware that many member states may not be familiar with what a patent even is;

This argument is absurd. You could say this about literally any resolution on the books. One of the assumptions of reasonable nation theory is that nations educate themselves about the topics of resolutions.

Worried that GA #347 effectively forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, without heed to the effects patents may have on their economic model or their ideological rights;

Yes. The World Assembly has every right to compel its member states, who have joined the organization voluntarily, to adopt trade rules that are ultimately in the interests of all member states. That's why a "Free Trade" category exists.

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;

Again, this resolution only requires nations to provide protection for foreign patents; this is a requirement of international law, not the national laws of other nations. Furthermore, national patent offices still have the authority to regulate recognized foreign patents under clause 6.

Alarmed at the destructive power of this resolution against developing economies across the Multiverse, and against free trade between member nations;

As I said earlier, you haven't made a compelling argument in the resolution for why this is the case. When I pointed this out, you gave the following example:

Say that someone invents a bolt-action rifle for the first time across the Multiverse. A while later, a guy in another nation in another universe invents the bolt-action rifle. These two nations know nothing of each other because they haven't made it to space. Yet if one of them patents their invention before the other, the other nation must recognize a patent it doesn't even know about? And even if they know each other, then what? What if the inventor refuses to let the other nation use his patented technology? What if--since this nation cannot make these rifles--the one that can invades them and slaughters the antiquated nation's musketmen?

There are at least a couple of problems with this example. First, if these nations know nothing of each other, how are they both members of the same international organization called the World Assembly? The assumption I made when writing the resolution was that all World Assembly members are aware of the existence of and can communicate with all other member states.

Second, if the inventor completely refuses to let the other nation use his patented technology, then the other nation is not required to recognize the patent under 6(b). The purpose of the resolution, as stated in the preamble, is to "incentivize the creation of new inventions throughout all member states while providing inventors with a fair reward for their labours", not to use patents as a weapon to prevent technological development or gain a military advantage.

Encouraging well-reasoned legislation on the issue of patent rights and intellectual property;

That is to say, legislation that is effectively optional (or better yet, no legislation at all).

I'm surprised Mr. Fulton hasn't shown his face around here yet, he usually does when one of his resolutions is up for repeal.

((OOC: I'm a university student, so I've been busy with final exams. I've been following this closely, though, and I intend to run a counter-campaign once it's submitted, of course.))

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

Noting that GA #347 provides insufficient framework to prevent industries and states from filing patents to block development of technology and science in other nations, even if they have no interest in developing said technologies themselves;

I don't understand this argument. The patent system is based on a bargain between the inventor and the state. In exchange for the grant of certain exclusive rights associated with a particular invention for a limited period of time, the inventor agrees to release the design of the invention to the public so that anyone can manufacture and sell that invention after the monopoly period expires.

That isn't what this clause refers to. Patent holders can refuse to share their designs to anyone and everyone, and many do. Have you not heard of businesses buying patents simply so they can sue those who infringe upon them?

Therefore, international patents actually serve as a fantastic technology equalizer. When individual in more advanced nations patent advanced technology, then this technology becomes a matter of public record; after ten years, anybody, including people living in less advanced nations, can use the technology freely. Of course, if the advanced nations fail to release the details of the patent, then other nations are not required to recognize the patents under clause 6(c).

And what about during those ten years? No advanced nation can afford to let progress stagnate for ten years.

Even before the ten year period expires, less advanced nations can purchase licenses for the new technology from the owner of the patent. If the owner of the patent refuses to sell any licenses at a reasonable price, intending simply to restrict access to the technology for ten years, then nations can use this as justification to nullify the patent under clause 6(b). (Even if this weren't the case, though, ten years really isn't a very long time.)

Clause 6.c reads, "Authorizes member states to create reasonable limitations and exceptions to the exclusive rights associated with certain foreign patents when...the invention that is the subject of the foreign patent is not currently being exploited in that member state, and the inventor has no good faith plans to exploit the invention in that member state in the near future." This clause is actually useless, since nations do not need exemptions from patents on technologies that they don't use. However, nations that do use this technology are not exempt, whether the patent holder has interest in extending patent rights to citizens of that nation or not. And yes, ten years is a long time to not be able to produce anything.

Regretting that the target resolution allows patents to severely restrict use of vital pharmaceutical products, thereby extending the suffering of citizens in WA countries that cannot afford to purchase exclusively patented medicines;

As I've already pointed out, under Access to Life-Saving Drugs, patents can be waived entirely under certain circumstances, negating any effects the resolution might have in such cases.

And I already said this in response.

Those are quite a few hoops to jump through. I imagine a powerful epidemic could wipe out millions before the first medicines arrive. And for anything that doesn't kill enough to constitute a "public health catastrophe", the medicine may never arrive. So no, it doesn't negate any effects this resolution has with regard to patented medicines.

With that said, yes, pharmaceutical patents will still exist, even under Access to Life-Saving Drugs; yes, they will restrict access to drugs to some people who need them dearly; yes, pharmaceutical patents are still necessary because otherwise the drug in question would not have been developed in the first place, which would be a much bigger problem.

I almost cracked my head open on that slippery slope.

Noticing that GA #347 essentially grants a monopoly on patents--and therefore all technology--to a handful of highly advanced civilizations, while less advanced member states are left to suffer the loss of their intellectual rights;

As I said earlier, this is a temporary problem that will only last at most ten years, since that is the minimum period of protection provided by the resolution.

Yes. Ten years of economic stagnation under the weight of countless corrupt patent holders.

Aware that many member states may not be familiar with what a patent even is;

This argument is absurd. You could say this about literally any resolution on the books. One of the assumptions of reasonable nation theory is that nations educate themselves about the topics of resolutions.

I just picked a random resolution. "Protection of Sapient Rights". I don't see how I could make the same claim about that resolution. Furthermore, I don't see how it is reasonable to expect my nation to educate itself on over twenty thousand nations.

Worried that GA #347 effectively forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, without heed to the effects patents may have on their economic model or their ideological rights;

Yes. The World Assembly has every right to compel its member states, who have joined the organization voluntarily, to adopt trade rules that are ultimately in the interests of all member states. That's why a "Free Trade" category exists.

I never said it couldn't. But your resolution hardly is in the interests of all member states.

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;

Again, this resolution only requires nations to provide protection for foreign patents; this is a requirement of international law, not the national laws of other nations. Furthermore, national patent offices still have the authority to regulate recognized foreign patents under clause 6.

I don't see where the clause you quoted contradicts your statement.

Alarmed at the destructive power of this resolution against developing economies across the Multiverse, and against free trade between member nations;

As I said earlier, you haven't made a compelling argument in the resolution for why this is the case.

That's your opinion.

When I pointed this out, you gave the following example:

Say that someone invents a bolt-action rifle for the first time across the Multiverse. A while later, a guy in another nation in another universe invents the bolt-action rifle. These two nations know nothing of each other because they haven't made it to space. Yet if one of them patents their invention before the other, the other nation must recognize a patent it doesn't even know about? And even if they know each other, then what? What if the inventor refuses to let the other nation use his patented technology? What if--since this nation cannot make these rifles--the one that can invades them and slaughters the antiquated nation's musketmen?

There are at least a couple of problems with this example. First, if these nations know nothing of each other, how are they both members of the same international organization called the World Assembly? The assumption I made when writing the resolution was that all World Assembly members are aware of the existence of and can communicate with all other member states.

That's an awful assumption. Wallenburg, and many other member states, know nothing of many members.

Second, if the inventor completely refuses to let the other nation use his patented technology, then the other nation is not required to recognize the patent under 6(b).

As I have outlined, 6.b does not do that.

The purpose of the resolution, as stated in the preamble, is to "incentivize the creation of new inventions throughout all member states while providing inventors with a fair reward for their labours", not to use patents as a weapon to prevent technological development or gain a military advantage.

And the purpose of my upcoming resolution to establish socialism in all member states is to establish prosperity and equality across the Multiverse. What you want your resolution to do does not equate to what it actually does. It stifles innovation, strips inventors of their intellectual property, and facilitates corrupt patent behavior.

Encouraging well-reasoned legislation on the issue of patent rights and intellectual property;

That is to say, legislation that is effectively optional (or better yet, no legislation at all).

So you agree that your resolution is not reasonable. Okay then.

I'm surprised Mr. Fulton hasn't shown his face around here yet, he usually does when one of his resolutions is up for repeal.

((OOC: I'm a university student, so I've been busy with final exams. I've been following this closely, though, and I intend to run a counter-campaign once it's submitted, of course.))

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

Then I shall be certain to thoroughly outline my arguments and warn delegates of your intent to misinform them.

[Tinfect]

Therefore, international patents actually serve as a fantastic technology equalizer. When individual in more advanced nations patent advanced technology, then this technology becomes a matter of public record; after ten years, anybody, including people living in less advanced nations, can use the technology freely. Of course, if the advanced nations fail to release the details of the patent, then other nations are not required to recognize the patents under clause 6(c).

"And therein lies the problem. A Member State is unable to prevent its technologies from ending up in the hands of possibly hostile, or largely unknown states."

Even before the ten year period expires, less advanced nations can purchase licenses for the new technology from the owner of the patent. If the owner of the patent refuses to sell any licenses at a reasonable price, intending simply to restrict access to the technology for ten years, then nations can use this as justification to nullify the patent under clause 6(b).

"Thus allowing any Member State to simply decide that the reasonable price is, for example, free, and when the patent-holder rejects that, the Member State can then violate any protections it granted without consequence."

With that said, yes, pharmaceutical patents will still exist, even under Access to Life-Saving Drugs; yes, they will restrict access to drugs to some people who need them dearly; yes, pharmaceutical patents are still necessary because otherwise the drug in question would not have been developed in the first place, which would be a much bigger problem.

"This hinges on a system by which private industries or individuals are allowed to claim ownership or jurisdiction over Medical technologies and medicines. The Imperium has made advancements in Medical Technology that will likely not be developed in your nation for decades, at best, without any system of patents."

As I said earlier, this is a temporary problem that will only last at most ten years, since that is the minimum period of protection provided by the resolution.

"And the cessation of any and all progress by a Member State, for any amount of time, is absolutely unacceptable. The fact that you seem so keen to allow a technological monopoly shows that you believe your Nation to be one of the aforementioned advanced Member States. This, is simply not the case."

That is to say, legislation that is effectively optional (or better yet, no legislation at all).

"That is exactly the idea, Ambassador."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Excidium Planetis shall be voting against this proposal, as we find no fault with the current resolution on Patents. After all, nearly every technology Excidium Planetis uses was probably patented longer than ten years ago in more advanced nations. Anything that wasn't was probably patented by us more than ten years ago, and anything that wasn't either of those the other nation(s) probably deserve to have a patent on to prevent us from making cheap knock-offs of and selling to them to the detriment of inventors.

"Additionally, as pointed out by Bananistan's Ambassador, actual protection from patent infringement is virtually impossible under the target resolution, so any nation can pretty much circumvent it."

Given its utter failure to achieve the imperialist aims of its author, we are inclined to oppose any repeal as it blocks anyone from introducing substantive provisions relating to patents that might actually affect member states.

"On a side note, we must disagree with the Bananistani delegation, in that Foreign Patent Recognition is most definitely not a good way to block other patent regulation:"

Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as limiting the World Assembly from further legislating on patents.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as limiting the World Assembly from further legislating on patents.

On the note of these clauses. I don't believe for a second that these clauses prevent duplication claims. I mean quite simply, these are entirely filler, as these clauses do absolutely nothing to allow further legislation on patents. Either it isn't duplication and this clause therefore doesn't do anything or it is duplication and this clause doesn't make a future proposal legal for that reason.

[Excidium Planetis]

Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as limiting the World Assembly from further legislating on patents.

On the note of these clauses. I don't believe for a second that these clauses prevent duplication claims. I mean quite simply, these are entirely filler, as these clauses do absolutely nothing to allow further legislation on patents. Either it isn't duplication and this clause therefore doesn't do anything or it is duplication and this clause doesn't make a future proposal legal for that reason.

I don't believe it prevents duplication either. But expansion on latent restrictions is not prevented by this resolution due to that clause. In other words, it serves to make the resolution not a blocker (as not all resolutions are blockers, but all are unable to be duplicated).

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Noting that GA #347 provides insufficient framework to prevent industries and states from filing patents to block development of technology and science in other nations, even if they have no interest in developing said technologies themselves;

"This is adequately addressed by 6b."

Regretting that the target resolution allows patents to severely restrict use of vital pharmaceutical products, thereby extending the suffering of citizens in WA countries that cannot afford to purchase exclusively patented medicines;

"It's a trade-off to be sure; but between international aid and charity efforts, some of those suffering the most are treated; and as the author already pointed out, without the profitable exclusivity period, most of these drugs simply wouldn't be developed anyway without a fundamental shift in the way biological research is funded and conducted - such a very basic, radical shift that pushing it by WA action might essentially become an ideological ban on markets in the scientific sector."

Noticing that GA #347 essentially grants a monopoly on patents--and therefore all technology--to a handful of highly advanced civilizations, while less advanced member states are left to suffer the loss of their intellectual rights;

"If the advanced states have had a patented technology for a decade, it becomes open season thereafter for anyone who wants to build and sell it - the only limits are your production capacity and your - ugh - advertising budget. Nothing is preventing someone from a less advanced nation from developing anything even the advanced states haven't come up with yet; literally the only constraint is that imitators and people who were a little slower to develop their invention have to wait ten years to sell substantially similar products without paying for a license. This is not a serious impediment to research in the less advanced state unless they slavishly commit themselves to only work on stuff that other people are also already working on."

Aware that many member states may not be familiar with what a patent even is;

"I think they can figure it out."

Worried that GA #347 effectively forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, without heed to the effects patents may have on their economic model or their ideological rights;

"You should list some of these; there might be something worrisome in there."

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;

"Every economic treaty and international law in history has done this. The question is whether the results are good for the people of the affected countries. We see nothing detrimental in that sense here."

Alarmed at the destructive power of this resolution against developing economies across the Multiverse, and against free trade between member nations;

"This sounds really dire and awful - what destruction is being wrought?"

Encouraging well-reasoned legislation on the issue of patent rights and intellectual property;

"Such as the target resolution?"

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

"Against."

"Even if we did not believe that a limited patent system is overall good for the disparate peoples of the multiverse and the wealth of their societies, we'd still oppose this repeal on the admittedly cynical, but well-reasoned grounds that Mr. Hornwood cited."

[Imperium Anglorum]

On the note of these clauses. I don't believe for a second that these clauses prevent duplication claims. I mean quite simply, these are entirely filler, as these clauses do absolutely nothing to allow further legislation on patents. Either it isn't duplication and this clause therefore doesn't do anything or it is duplication and this clause doesn't make a future proposal legal for that reason.

I don't believe it prevents duplication either. But expansion on latent restrictions is not prevented by this resolution due to that clause. In other words, it serves to make the resolution not a blocker (as not all resolutions are blockers, but all are unable to be duplicated).

All resolutions are blockers. If I pass a resolution which says 'member nations must force kittens to vote', then I have blocked off the subject of kittens and their eligibility to vote.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I don't believe it prevents duplication either. But expansion on latent restrictions is not prevented by this resolution due to that clause. In other words, it serves to make the resolution not a blocker (as not all resolutions are blockers, but all are unable to be duplicated).

All resolutions are blockers. If I pass a resolution which says 'member nations must force kittens to vote', then I have blocked off the subject of kittens and their eligibility to vote.

A better example would be, you pass a resolution that says "kittens must be permitted to vote, but only if they're not 1. insane, and 2. mangy. Also nothing herein blocks further laws on kitten voting." Do I have to repeal your resolution in order to legislate that convicted felons may always be barred from voting, even if they're kittens? How about if I want to make a law saying kitten votes count for two human votes? Or for half a human one? Not every law blocks off every single thing it happens to touch. This kind of clause just makes that explicit.

Edit: Didn't mean to single out any one thing in this whole discussion as more preposterous than any other

[Imperium Anglorum]

All resolutions are blockers. If I pass a resolution which says 'member nations must force kittens to vote', then I have blocked off the subject of kittens and their eligibility to vote.

A better example would be, you pass a resolution that says "kittens must be permitted to vote, but only if they're not 1. insane, and 2. mangy. Also nothing herein blocks further laws on kitten voting." Do I have to repeal your resolution in order to legislate that convicted felons may always be barred from voting, even if they're kittens? How about if I want to make a law saying kitten votes count for two human votes? Or for half a human one? Not every law blocks off every single thing it happens to touch. This kind of clause just makes that explicit.

Okay. Well, if you want to say that convicted kitten felons must be barred from voting, then that contradicts the original resolution. If you want to make a law saying that kitten votes count for two human votes, that isn't blocked by anything in the resolution. I mean to say that the inclusion of the not-a-blocker clause is pointless, since anything which isn't covered by the resolution is fair game with or without the clause and anything that contradicts or duplicates the original is illegal with or without that clause as well.

[EDIT 1] The only way I can see such a clause working is if you include a 'The World Assembly, hereby enacts, with clauses to take effect immediately and to no longer have effect should future legislation supersede' clause.

[EDIT 2] Well, its either that duplication and contradiction exist with or without the clause ... or, Wallenburg can pass a resolution which simply says 'The World Assembly hereby resolves that foreign patents need not be recognised by any member nation'. Because nothing in FPR should be interpreted as infringing future legislation, we are therefore forced to interpret that FPR's 'reasonable limitations' clause really means 'any limitation you want' and 'requires' means 'recommends'. Naturally, I am against that kind of shenanigans, so I don't believe these not-a-blocker clauses mean anything.

Edit 3: Cleared up some pronoun-gaming.

[Wallenburg]

Noting that GA #347 provides insufficient framework to prevent industries and states from filing patents to block development of technology and science in other nations, even if they have no interest in developing said technologies themselves;

"This is adequately addressed by 6b."

That hardly seems adequate to me.

Regretting that the target resolution allows patents to severely restrict use of vital pharmaceutical products, thereby extending the suffering of citizens in WA countries that cannot afford to purchase exclusively patented medicines;

"It's a trade-off to be sure; but between international aid and charity efforts, some of those suffering the most are treated; and as the author already pointed out, without the profitable exclusivity period, most of these drugs simply wouldn't be developed anyway without a fundamental shift in the way biological research is funded and conducted - such a very basic, radical shift that pushing it by WA action might essentially become an ideological ban on markets in the scientific sector."

How will this aid and charity come about if patent holders refuse production rights to humanitarian organizations? And how does bending patent rules in the event of a major health crisis act as such a disincentive to medical research and technological development? It seems to me that any sane society would foster medical research regardless of the financial gains to producing medicine.

Noticing that GA #347 essentially grants a monopoly on patents--and therefore all technology--to a handful of highly advanced civilizations, while less advanced member states are left to suffer the loss of their intellectual rights;

"If the advanced states have had a patented technology for a decade, it becomes open season thereafter for anyone who wants to build and sell it - the only limits are your production capacity and your - ugh - advertising budget. Nothing is preventing someone from a less advanced nation from developing anything even the advanced states haven't come up with yet; literally the only constraint is that imitators and people who were a little slower to develop their invention have to wait ten years to sell substantially similar products without paying for a license. This is not a serious impediment to research in the less advanced state unless they slavishly commit themselves to only work on stuff that other people are also already working on."

Ten years of total economic stagnation is a serious impediment, the last time I checked. And I resent your suggestion that anyone who happens to complete his invention only moments after someone else, after doing exhaustive independent work, is merely a copycat.

Aware that many member states may not be familiar with what a patent even is;

"I think they can figure it out."

We have some significantly primitive member states, Ambassador.

Worried that GA #347 effectively forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, without heed to the effects patents may have on their economic model or their ideological rights;

"You should list some of these; there might be something worrisome in there."

List what? Do you refer to economic models? Intellectual rights? Nations without patent systems?

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;

"Every economic treaty and international law in history has done this. The question is whether the results are good for the people of the affected countries. We see nothing detrimental in that sense here."

I am not concerned with treaties. Treaties are agreements. Laws do not need everyone to agree on them to go into effect. Also, I'd like an example of where international law has imposed national law on other member states, and good has come out of it.

Alarmed at the destructive power of this resolution against developing economies across the Multiverse, and against free trade between member nations;

"This sounds really dire and awful - what destruction is being wrought?"

Less advanced nations are being forced into further stagnation, intellectual property is being stolen, and patent monopolies naturally spring forward from this resolution.

Encouraging well-reasoned legislation on the issue of patent rights and intellectual property;[/quote
]"Such as the target resolution?"

Clever, but the target is hardly reasonable.

[Excidium Planetis]

"This is adequately addressed by 6b."

That hardly seems adequate to me.

"Forgive me if I'm wrong, Ambassador, but your concern in the repeal specifically says:"

Noting that GA #347 provides insufficient framework to prevent industries and states from filing patents to block development of technology and science in other nations, even if they have no interest in developing said technologies themselves;

"Despite 6b of the target resolution specifically allowing nations to refuse recognitions of patents if the nations holding them have no interest in developing said technologies themselves. I'd say that pretty adequately addresses your concern."

"It's a trade-off to be sure; but between international aid and charity efforts, some of those suffering the most are treated; and as the author already pointed out, without the profitable exclusivity period, most of these drugs simply wouldn't be developed anyway without a fundamental shift in the way biological research is funded and conducted - such a very basic, radical shift that pushing it by WA action might essentially become an ideological ban on markets in the scientific sector."

How will this aid and charity come about if patent holders refuse production rights to humanitarian organizations?

"Perhaps by buying the medicine from the manufacturers, like any reasonable organization? Or, better yet, buy identical (but cheaper) medicines from non-member nations, which are not required to recognize the patents of WA nations. We have a great supply of generic brand cancer cures that we've been stealing purchasing from a non-member nation."

And how does bending patent rules in the event of a major health crisis act as such a disincentive to medical research and technological development?

"It doesn't, which is why during a major health crisis, patents on life saving medicine can be nullified, as Railana already pointed out."

It seems to me that any sane society would foster medical research regardless of the financial gains to producing medicine.

"I don't believe I have ever seen a sane society. Could you please point me to it? I'd like to visit it sometime."

"If the advanced states have had a patented technology for a decade, it becomes open season thereafter for anyone who wants to build and sell it - the only limits are your production capacity and your - ugh - advertising budget. Nothing is preventing someone from a less advanced nation from developing anything even the advanced states haven't come up with yet; literally the only constraint is that imitators and people who were a little slower to develop their invention have to wait ten years to sell substantially similar products without paying for a license. This is not a serious impediment to research in the less advanced state unless they slavishly commit themselves to only work on stuff that other people are also already working on."

Ten years of total economic stagnation is a serious impediment, the last time I checked.

"Ten years of total economic stagnation because of one patent? What bizarre world do you live in, Ambassador? I can't believe your society would cease to function for ten years because a Patent in a foreign nation stopped one invention from being produced without a license, despite the fact that you can produce it with a license or just buy it from the manufacturer."

And I resent your suggestion that anyone who happens to complete his invention only moments after someone else, after doing exhaustive independent work, is merely a copycat.

"Unless your nation has FTL communications and a direct line from rival nations' inventors to your inventors, I don't think your inventor who completed his invention 'only moments after' will be aware of the other invention until he has already secured a patent at your nation's office."

"I think they can figure it out."

We have some significantly primitive member states, Ambassador.

"This argument is shockingly similar to an earlier repeal argument that nations may be confused as to what 'debris' is."

"You should list some of these; there might be something worrisome in there."

List what? Do you refer to economic models? Intellectual rights? Nations without patent systems?

"Nations without patent systems, I presume. Likely, the adoption of a Patent system will greatly benefit them."

"This sounds really dire and awful - what destruction is being wrought?"

Less advanced nations are being forced into further stagnation, intellectual property is being stolen, and patent monopolies naturally spring forward from this resolution.

"Your claims that less advanced nations lose out are false. Less Advanced nations get public access to every single parent from advanced nations in ten years at most! Imagine primitive 'Modern Tech' nations having access to warp drives in just ten years! How is that stagnation, when it is advancement far beyond what they'd accomplish in their own. Not to mention nearly every technology a primitive nation would be developing in the next ten years has probably already been patented by advanced nations greater than ten years ago, and so is probably public anyways.I know our nuclear fission-fusion hybrid patents have long been expired. "

[Bananaistan]

"On a side note, we must disagree with the Bananistani delegation, in that Foreign Patent Recognition is most definitely not a good way to block other patent regulation:"

Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as limiting the World Assembly from further legislating on patents.

"Firstly I would point out that the demonym is Bananamen.

"Once more we are in agreement with Ambassador Parsons. The above clause has no material effect and is completely superfluous as no future resolution can contradict or duplicate the target resolution while it remains in force. Specifically, no future resolution can stop member states from creating "reasonable limitations and exceptions" under section 6, although there is likely some leeway in expanding or reducing what limitations and exceptions could be justified without contradicting the target resolution. More importantly any future resolution cannot force member states to enter into a compulsory dispute resolution mechanism while both the target resolution and GAR#208 remain unrepealed.

"We remain opposed to the repeal on this principle."

- Ted Hornwood

[Tinfect]

"Your claims that less advanced nations lose out are false. Less Advanced nations get public access to every single parent from advanced nations in ten years at most! Imagine primitive 'Modern Tech' nations having access to warp drives in just ten years! How is that stagnation, when it is advancement far beyond what they'd accomplish in their own. Not to mention nearly every technology a primitive nation would be developing in the next ten years has probably already been patented by advanced nations greater than ten years ago, and so is probably public anyways.I know our nuclear fission-fusion hybrid patents have long been expired. "

"We fail to see how this is in any form an argument for the Resolution. The Imperium will not be forced to practically give away our Technologies to largely unknown, or hostile states. Such a thing would be the absolute devastation of the Imperium."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Your claims that less advanced nations lose out are false. Less Advanced nations get public access to every single parent from advanced nations in ten years at most! Imagine primitive 'Modern Tech' nations having access to warp drives in just ten years! How is that stagnation, when it is advancement far beyond what they'd accomplish in their own. Not to mention nearly every technology a primitive nation would be developing in the next ten years has probably already been patented by advanced nations greater than ten years ago, and so is probably public anyways.I know our nuclear fission-fusion hybrid patents have long been expired. "

"We fail to see how this is in any form an argument for the Resolution. The Imperium will not be forced to practically give away our Technologies to largely unknown, or hostile states. Such a thing would be the absolute devastation of the Imperium."

"I highly doubt your Imperium has much technology that other nations did not develop long before you. If you believe so, Markhov, you are clearly delusional. As such, nearly anything of importance to your nation was probably already patented by a more advanced nation more than ten years ago, and is already public domain. The sad fact is that the Imperium of Tinfect does not need to be forced to hand over its technology to primitives... Only more advanced nations than yours need to be forced to hand over their tech (which, I may add, you can benefit from as a less advanced nation). If anything, you stand to lose nothing and have the potential gain of more advanced technology. Why oppose the target resolution?"