[PASSED] Foreign Patent Act

[United Irish Counties]

O'Donnel: "Mr. Ogenbond, if I understand your proposal correctly, you seek to create a committee to administrate patents, which member states are then free to ignore on the grounds of not accepting patents at all? Seems like a waste of perfectly fine paper to me..."

"Yes and no. In order to respect nations' right to their own economic ideology, we must not attack the economies of nations without patent systems. Therefore, such nations are exempted from the mandates of this proposal. However, if a nation recognizes patents in any way, it is made to recognize foreign ones through the WAPS."

O'Donnel: "Disregarding for a moment, our opposition to the concept of having member states opt-out of the patent system: How are you going to get around the optionality issue? If I recall correctly, this assembly requires all proposals to be non-optional for member nations."

[Wallenburg]

"Yes and no. In order to respect nations' right to their own economic ideology, we must not attack the economies of nations without patent systems. Therefore, such nations are exempted from the mandates of this proposal. However, if a nation recognizes patents in any way, it is made to recognize foreign ones through the WAPS."

O'Donnel: "Disregarding for a moment, our opposition to the concept of having member states opt-out of the patent system: How are you going to get around the optionality issue? If I recall correctly, this assembly requires all proposals to be non-optional for member nations."

"This proposal's mandates are not optional. Just as 'Crime and Punishment''s mandates with regard to execution do not apply to member states that have abolished capital punishment, the mandates of this resolution with regard to patents do not apply to members without patent systems."

[States of Glory WA Office]

No questions or suggestions? How about threats of nuclear war if I submit this?

"I will throw a pie at you if you submit this. What is your favorite flavor?"

Fairburn: What is it with this Assembly and pie-throwing? Lord Colonel His Grace Cyril Parsons, 1st Duke of Geneva, 1st Earl Parsons of Eastminster, 8th Viscount Parsons of Eastminster, 1st Baron Markenshire of Concilium, Knight of the Garter, Grand Cross of St Michael and St George, Privy Councillor, Member of Parliament for Those-Across-the-Seas; Proconsul Decimus; Permanent Representative to the World Assembly's little brat already wreaked havoc. We don't need fully-grown men doing the same.

Also, I hereby threaten the Wallenburgers with nuclear war if they submit this. Fear me.

[United Irish Counties]

O'Donnel: "Disregarding for a moment, our opposition to the concept of having member states opt-out of the patent system: How are you going to get around the optionality issue? If I recall correctly, this assembly requires all proposals to be non-optional for member nations."

"This proposal's mandates are not optional. Just as 'Crime and Punishment''s mandates with regard to execution do not apply to member states that have abolished capital punishment, the mandates of this resolution with regard to patents do not apply to members without patent systems."

O'Donnel: "Chief Representative, 'Crime and Punishment' is not solely a resolution on execution. For example, clause 2 of that resolution applies to all member nations, regardless of their stance on execution. Your resolution only applies to member nations which recognise patents."

[Auralia]

I know the author and I have had our differences regarding international patent law, but I just wanted to note that we support the general structure of this proposal. The important thing is that member states are required to recognize the patent rights of foreign inventors, and both the approach taken in our delegation's now-repealed resolution as well as the approach taken here seem to fulfill that goal.

However, I do have one key concern. The following provision (emphasis added) would essentially permit nations to opt-out of the WAPS system. Is that the author's intent?

8. Mandates that every member nation that recognizes patents observe all patents granted by the WAPS given that:
a. The patented process, good, or technology is neither illegal, nor obsolete, nor in the public domain in that member nation,

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

"This proposal's mandates are not optional. Just as 'Crime and Punishment''s mandates with regard to execution do not apply to member states that have abolished capital punishment, the mandates of this resolution with regard to patents do not apply to members without patent systems."

O'Donnel: "Chief Representative, 'Crime and Punishment' is not solely a resolution on execution. For example, clause 2 of that resolution applies to all member nations, regardless of their stance on execution. Your resolution only applies to member nations which recognise patents."

"Sir, I'm afraid you did not hear me correctly. I was speaking about 'Crime and Punishment''s mandates with regard to execution, not the one about proportional punishment. Furthermore, this sort of situation appears in more resolutions than just 'Crime and Punishment'. We see nondemocratic states given permission to ignore the mandates of 'Disabled Voters Act'. The 'Law of the Seas' does not apply to seafaring nations, and 'To Prevent Dangerous Debris' has no affect on nations choosing not to send things into space."

[Wallenburg]

I know the author and I have had our differences regarding international patent law, but I just wanted to note that we support the general structure of this proposal. The important thing is that member states are required to recognize the patent rights of foreign inventors, and both the approach taken in our delegation's now-repealed resolution as well as the approach taken here seem to fulfill that goal.

However, I do have one key concern. The following provision (emphasis added) would essentially permit nations to opt-out of the WAPS system. Is that the author's intent?

8. Mandates that every member nation that recognizes patents observe all patents granted by the WAPS given that:
a. The patented process, good, or technology is neither illegal, nor obsolete, nor in the public domain in that member nation,

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"Ambassador, I imagine that some rather stubborn nations might declare all things to be in the public domain in order to avoid the mandates of this resolution by the mandates of this resolution, but those nations would be harming their own people as much as foreign patent holders--if not more so--and would have eliminated their own patent system in the process."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I know the author and I have had our differences regarding international patent law, but I just wanted to note that we support the general structure of this proposal. The important thing is that member states are required to recognize the patent rights of foreign inventors, and both the approach taken in our delegation's now-repealed resolution as well as the approach taken here seem to fulfill that goal.

However, I do have one key concern. The following provision (emphasis added) would essentially permit nations to opt-out of the WAPS system. Is that the author's intent?

8. Mandates that every member nation that recognizes patents observe all patents granted by the WAPS given that:
a. The patented process, good, or technology is neither illegal, nor obsolete, nor in the public domain in that member nation,

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"Ambassador, I imagine that some rather stubborn nations might declare all things to be in the public domain in order to avoid the mandates of this resolution by the mandates of this resolution, but those nations would be harming their own people as much as foreign patent holders--if not more so--and would have eliminated their own patent system in the process."

"I'd guess Ambassador Russell is asking about a hazier situation. With the repeal of FPR, the Lyrical Parliament reinstated Section 3(a)(2) of the Info Liberation Act, meaning computer technology patents automatically enter the public domain five years after filing. Meanwhile other types of patents have retained the minimum ten-year term mandated by FPR, or the industrially targeted longer terms in some cases. The resulting growth of our tech sector, while other industries remained stable, shows this was a wise move. Would the WAPS mandate yanking these patents back out of the public domain based on existing registered foreign patents (since the committee has the right to set the term, and the patent might not be in the public domain in its originating country)? Or is a patent safe from reissue once it's passed into the public domain?"

"Further, does the stipulated national sovereignty over general patent enforcement extend to a legitimate national maximum patent term, or must we throw the baby out with the bathwater if we decide the average WAPS term is too long to live with?"

[Wallenburg]

"I'd guess Ambassador Russell is asking about a hazier situation. With the repeal of FPR, the Lyrical Parliament reinstated Section 3(a)(2) of the Info Liberation Act, meaning computer technology patents automatically enter the public domain five years after filing. Meanwhile other types of patents have retained the minimum ten-year term mandated by FPR, or the industrially targeted longer terms in some cases. The resulting growth of our tech sector, while other industries remained stable, shows this was a wise move. Would the WAPS mandate yanking these patents back out of the public domain based on existing registered foreign patents (since the committee has the right to set the term, and the patent might not be in the public domain in its originating country)? Or is a patent safe from reissue once it's passed into the public domain?"

"The nature of public domain has always been that nobody can patent anything in the public domain. I see no reason why technologies or other things that have entered the public domain in the last year would be any less immune to foreign patents than technologies that entered the public domain a decade ago or a hundred years ago."

"Further, does the stipulated national sovereignty over general patent enforcement extend to a legitimate national maximum patent term, or must we throw the baby out with the bathwater if we decide the average WAPS term is too long to live with?"

"As unlikely as such a situation is, if you find WAPS-granted patents to last too long, your nation will have to live with it, and recognize those patent rights until the relevant patents expire. Of course, I'm sure your government could make a compelling case to the WAPS before it grants a patent, and demonstrate what kind of patent terms your nation is used to. After all, the committee is designed to set expiration dates with attention to the nature of each individual nation's economy."

[Auralia]

Actually, my concern is simply that nations might be tempted to give preferential treatment to domestic inventions by declaring foreign inventions to be in the public domain, even though they were not discovered in that nation. This would deprive the foreign inventor of his rightful compensation. I'd appreciate it if clause 8 were reworded to exclude this possibility.

I also just noticed that the clause 8 seems to permit member states to refrain from recognizing patents altogether, including WAPS patents, which would again defeat the purpose of establishing an international patent system. Is this the author's intent? If so, I'm afraid I'll have to withdraw my support.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

Actually, my concern is simply that nations might be tempted to give preferential treatment to domestic inventions by declaring foreign inventions to be in the public domain, even though they were not discovered in that nation. This would deprive the foreign inventor of his rightful compensation. I'd appreciate it if clause 8 were reworded to exclude this possibility.

"How would you suggest clause eight be reworked?"

I also just noticed that the clause 8 seems to permit member states to refrain from recognizing patents altogether, including WAPS patents, which would again defeat the purpose of establishing an international patent system. Is this the author's intent? If so, I'm afraid I'll have to withdraw my support.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"My resolution does, indeed, recognize member nations' right to their own economic ideology, even when that ideology does not involve patents."

[Auralia]

"How would you suggest clause eight be reworked?"

Well, first of all, I would require all member states to recognize WAPS patents. You and I appear to disagree on this point.

I think it would be fair to replace the "public domain" language with an exemption only when the patented process, good, or technology was invented domestically before the WAPS system was instituted. For a process, good, or technology invented in a foreign country before the WAPS system was instituted, the WAPS should determine the extent of protection received. Of course, after the WAPS system is instituted, the WAPS determines who gets the patent for any particular and the extent of the protection it receives in all member states.

Finally, the "obsolete" language in the clause 8(a) is redundant; its meaning is adequately covered by clause 8(b).

Overall, I think the clause should look something like this:

8. Mandates that every member nation recognize all patents granted by the WAPS except where:
a. The patented process, good, or technology is illegal in that member nation,
b. The patented process, good, or technology was invented domestically prior to the passage of this resolution,
c. The patented process, good, or technology is not of practical, commercial, or industrial use in that nation,
d. The patent holder has not demonstrated intention to exercise its patent rights in that nation, or
e. Previously passed World Assembly resolutions permit that member nation to refrain from recognizing the patent.

"My resolution does, indeed, recognize member nations' right to their own economic ideology, even when that ideology does not involve patents."

I don't think complete sovereignty over economic ideology should be allowed when it has a chilling effect on innovation throughout the World Assembly. Research and development of new inventions requires a great deal of time, effort and money. If member states are free to refuse to recognize patents, they are free to mass produce and sell inventions at a fraction of the cost required to develop them and so will inevitably undercut the original inventor.

Basically, the approach you support sticks inventors with all of the risks and none of the rewards. Who would bother to innovate under these circumstances?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[United Irish Counties]

O'Donnel: "Chief Representative, 'Crime and Punishment' is not solely a resolution on execution. For example, clause 2 of that resolution applies to all member nations, regardless of their stance on execution. Your resolution only applies to member nations which recognise patents."

"Sir, I'm afraid you did not hear me correctly. I was speaking about 'Crime and Punishment''s mandates with regard to execution, not the one about proportional punishment. Furthermore, this sort of situation appears in more resolutions than just 'Crime and Punishment'. We see nondemocratic states given permission to ignore the mandates of 'Disabled Voters Act'. The 'Law of the Seas' does not apply to seafaring nations, and 'To Prevent Dangerous Debris' has no affect on nations choosing not to send things into space."

O'Donnel: "In that case, your example had nothing to do with the point I was making. The rule is that a resolution may not be completely optional. While the mandates with regards to execution of 'Crime and Punishment' may be optional, clause 2 is not, hence the proposal is legal. The Disabled Votes Act also does not explicitly exempt nations. It simply states that "that no person who is otherwise qualified to vote shall be denied the right to vote in a public election on account of " disability. Yes, there are nations that don't hold elections. However, the law still applies there. But since nobody is qualified to vote there, it is moot. Likewise with 'Law of the Seas' - of course it applies to non-seafaring nations. It's just moot, because they are non-seafaring. Likewise, "To prevent dangerous debris" applies to all WA member nations. Only it doesn't matter as long as they don't launch stuff into space.

However, what you're doing in your proposal is giving nations explicit permission to ignore all the provisions of the resolution. None of the examples you presented do that, and for good reason: It is not in accordance with the rules of this assembly. Furthermore, not executing a nation's criminals has minimal to none influence on other countries. Not being a seafaring nation does not harm you neighbors. Not launching stuff into space has zero influence on another nation's economy. However, not respecting the patents of a foreign nation within your own jurisdiction can have real and measurable consequences on the economy of that foreign nation once your nation's companies start to copy everything and sell cheaper because they did not have to shoulder the research and development costs involved. Thus, even if your proposal was legal, we would still vote against in the interest of our economy."

[Auralia]

One other point -- I strongly encourage the author to include a definition of "patent" in the resolution text. You can borrow the one from Foreign Patent Recognition if you like.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the WorldA Assembly

[Wallenburg]

O'Donnel: "In that case, your example had nothing to do with the point I was making. The rule is that a resolution may not be completely optional. While the mandates with regards to execution of 'Crime and Punishment' may be optional, clause 2 is not, hence the proposal is legal. The Disabled Votes Act also does not explicitly exempt nations. It simply states that "that no person who is otherwise qualified to vote shall be denied the right to vote in a public election on account of " disability. Yes, there are nations that don't hold elections. However, the law still applies there. But since nobody is qualified to vote there, it is moot. Likewise with 'Law of the Seas' - of course it applies to non-seafaring nations. It's just moot, because they are non-seafaring. Likewise, "To prevent dangerous debris" applies to all WA member nations. Only it doesn't matter as long as they don't launch stuff into space.

"I think I see what you are getting at, Ambassador O'Donnel. I'll look into rectifying this possible illegality."

One other point -- I strongly encourage the author to include a definition of "patent" in the resolution text. You can borrow the one from Foreign Patent Recognition if you like.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the WorldA Assembly

"Could you explain why this is necessary? I believe that the standard definition is more than sufficient to meet the needs of this resolution."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Much more a quibble than a deal-breaker at this point, Mr. Ogenbond, but... defining the proper objects of a patent would mean you can replace the fifty-three occurrences of the phrase 'process, good, or technology' with 'object' or 'patentable object.' And also foreclose any gobbledygook about 'Oh, but this isn't one of those things, it's actually something else so we're not gonna honor it.'"

[Wallenburg]

"The proposal has been edited to address stated concerns, and to cut out unnecessary repetition."

[Wallenburg]

The sound of creaking and splitting wood sounds in the dark debate chamber. A large crack snaps in the air and the doors open. Representative Ogenbond walks in, crowbar in one hand and his official proposal in the other.

"Looks like I forgot the keys to this room, and someone left the door locked in the last month. The proposal has been submitted."

He scans the room, observing the cobwebs in the corners of the room and the generous coats of dust settled on the desks. "Wow, I've been gone for a while."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Typical. If the Wallenburgers had any sense, they would have realised that no-one has given any comments in over a month and that they should therefore have waited patiently instead of submitting hastily.

Neville: To be fair, I have no objections to the proposal.

Fairburn: It's about the principle, Neville, and I am a man of principle.

[Wallenburg]

Fairburn: Typical. If the Wallenburgers had any sense, they would have realised that no-one has given any comments in over a month and that they should therefore have waited patiently instead of submitting hastily.

Neville: To be fair, I have no objections to the proposal.

Fairburn: It's about the principle, Neville, and I am a man of principle.

"Ambassador Fairburn, that nobody has commented on this for so long is a symptom of me being too patient, and waiting too long. I don't see how waiting forever for commentary and answers to my questions is a hasty decision."

A Wallenburgian aide leans over and whispers to Ogenbond. "Patience? Haven't you only waited so long because you have been too busy with moving everything to the new office?"

"Don't change the subject," Ogenbond whispers back.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Typical. If the Wallenburgers had any sense, they would have realised that no-one has given any comments in over a month and that they should therefore have waited patiently instead of submitting hastily.

Neville: To be fair, I have no objections to the proposal.

Fairburn: It's about the principle, Neville, and I am a man of principle.

"Ambassador Fairburn, that nobody has commented on this for so long is a symptom of me being too patient, and waiting too long. I don't see how waiting forever for commentary and answers to my questions is a hasty decision."

Fairburn: Just ask Ambassador Lockwood how that logic turned out for him.

[Wallenburg]

This resolution is now at vote.

[Bananaistan]

"It would appear that Ted, Mrs Doe, John Smith and Eleanor have all pissed off home so it's left to me to represent the views of Bananaistan.

"How is this thing not completely optional? Just what barriers to free trade and commerce does it reduce?"

- Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth

[Auralia]

"How is this thing not completely optional? Just what barriers to free trade and commerce does it reduce?"

It's not completely optional; nations must operate within the system established by this proposal if they want to have a patent system at all. As such, I don't think there's a category issue. However, the fact that nations are allowed to simply opt-out of having a patent system is still a problem for the reasons I stated earlier in the thread:

I don't think complete sovereignty over economic ideology should be allowed when it has a chilling effect on innovation throughout the World Assembly. Research and development of new inventions requires a great deal of time, effort and money. If member states are free to refuse to recognize patents, they are free to mass produce and sell inventions at a fraction of the cost required to develop them and so will inevitably undercut the original inventor.

Basically, the approach you support sticks inventors with all of the risks and none of the rewards. Who would bother to innovate under these circumstances?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

"How is this thing not completely optional? Just what barriers to free trade and commerce does it reduce?"

It's not completely optional; nations must operate within the system established by this proposal if they want to have a patent system at all. As such, I don't think there's a category issue. However, the fact that nations are allowed to simply opt-out of having a patent system is still a problem for the reasons I stated earlier in the thread:

I don't think complete sovereignty over economic ideology should be allowed when it has a chilling effect on innovation throughout the World Assembly. Research and development of new inventions requires a great deal of time, effort and money. If member states are free to refuse to recognize patents, they are free to mass produce and sell inventions at a fraction of the cost required to develop them and so will inevitably undercut the original inventor.

Basically, the approach you support sticks inventors with all of the risks and none of the rewards. Who would bother to innovate under these circumstances?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"If the lack of a patent system so inherently stifles innovation, I'm sure we will see the extinction of economic philosophies that do not allow for them."