[PASSED] International Patent Agreement

[Mallorea and Riva]

This proposal establishes a international system for patent recognition. Inventors apply for patents issued by an international organization which all member states must recognize.

This system is similar to the system envisioned by this now-repealed resolution, but with a key distinction: there is no ability to opt-out. This is extremely important because 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. Participation in any international patent system must be mandatory for the system to work.

International Patent Agreement
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

Recognizing that many World Assembly member states use patents to encourage scientific and technological innovation,

Believing that the disclosure of an invention in exchange for temporary exclusive rights to the invention is a fair trade between inventors and the public,

Convinced that the international recognition of patents will incentivize the research and development of inventions throughout all member states while providing inventors with a fair reward for their labours,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines "invention", for the purposes of this resolution, as a machine, article of manufacture, composition of matter, process, or improvement thereof;
2. Further defines "patent", for the purposes of this resolution, as the set of exclusive rights granted to the creator of an invention, including the right to:
   
   1. prevent others from using, manufacturing, offering for sale, importing, or exporting the invention without permission,
   2. sell or license any of these rights to others,
   3. seek an injunction and fair damages against any entity that infringes upon these rights, and
   4. extinguish any of these rights;
3. Establishes the World Assembly Patent Office (WAPO), which is hereby directed to:
   
   1. receive and process WAPO patent applications exclusively from inventors who are citizens or legal permanent residents of member states at the time of filing,
   2. establish appropriate conditions for the patentability of an invention with the WAPO, including the requirement that the invention:
      
      1. is patentable subject matter, which is to be determined by the WAPO but excludes in particular sapient life,
      2. was not disclosed or made available to the public prior to the filing of a WAPO patent application for that invention,
      3. is not obvious, even to others skilled in the same field, and
      4. has some practical application,
   3. establish appropriate regulations for the structure and content of WAPO patent applications, including the requirement that the application provide sufficient description to allow a reasonable person in the same field to make and use the invention,
   4. grant patents for inventions described by valid WAPO patent applications on a first-to-file basis,
   5. set an appropriate term for each class of WAPO patent that ensures that inventors receive a fair reward for their labours,
   6. establish and maintain an archive of WAPO patent applications and patents accessible to the general population of all member states, and
   7. establish and maintain an appeals process for challenging WAPO decisions on the grounds that they violate international law or WAPO regulations;
4. Requires all member states to recognize WAPO patents for at least the term set by the WAPO, to the extent permitted by previously passed World Assembly resolutions;
5. Authorizes member states to create reasonable limitations and exceptions to WAPO patents when the patent holder uses the rights associated with the patent in a manner determined to have:
   
   1. effectively broadened the scope or lengthened the term of the patent,
   2. caused substantial anti-competitive effects, or
   3. unfairly blocked access to the invention in a member state;
6. Urges member states to pursue harmonization of patent law with other member states to the extent practicable;
7. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as prohibiting member states from recognizing patents granted independently of the WAPO.

[Separatist Peoples]

"If 3.d is going to render patents public for what I assume is the ultimate purpose of stimulating innovation, then there should be a requirement for patents managed at the international level to include sufficient description to enable use and construction of such a device. Without such a description, it would be incredibly difficult for prospective inventors to recreate an invention for innovative alterations."

[Auralia]

"If 3.d is going to render patents public for what I assume is the ultimate purpose of stimulating innovation, then there should be a requirement for patents managed at the international level to include sufficient description to enable use and construction of such a device. Without such a description, it would be incredibly difficult for prospective inventors to recreate an invention for innovative alterations."

That is indeed the intent. I'll add explicit language to make this clear.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

The Ambassador from The United Royal Islands of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:
We commend the work done here to craft responsible replacement legislation with the goal of reducing legal loopholes.
We do however suggest that the author can retain some of the same protections for diverse economic systems by adding a sub clause to article 4, or additional clause, That clarifies that it is not to be interpreted as imposing patents, or intellectual property within any nation so lacking those concepts, yet bars them from being able to gain access to the patented property until such time as it leaves the protections of WAPO. We further suggest the proposed WAPO being tasked with the responsibility of insuring patent-free trade zones do not interfere or infringe upon protected materials.
We also applaud the authors concern for the protection of smaller nations and the careful language used in establishing the exceptions for patents, as well as the mission of the WAPO. We hope for the success of this resolution following a successful repeal of existing resolutions in conflict with the wording of this.

[Wallenburg]

The Ambassador from The United Royal Islands of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:
We commend the work done here to craft responsible replacement legislation with the goal of reducing legal loopholes.
We do however suggest that the author can retain some of the same protections for diverse economic systems by adding a sub clause to article 4, or additional clause, That clarifies that it is not to be interpreted as imposing patents, or intellectual property within any nation so lacking those concepts, yet bars them from being able to gain access to the patented property until such time as it leaves the protections of WAPO. We further suggest the proposed WAPO being tasked with the responsibility of insuring patent-free trade zones do not interfere or infringe upon protected materials.
We also applaud the authors concern for the protection of smaller nations and the careful language used in establishing the exceptions for patents, as well as the mission of the WAPO. We hope for the success of this resolution following a successful repeal of existing resolutions in conflict with the wording of this.

"I highly doubt that would happen, Ambassador. The entire idea of this draft is to deny member states basic ideological rights."

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

"I highly doubt that would happen, Ambassador. The entire idea of this draft is to deny member states basic ideological rights."

The Amabassador from The United Royal Isles of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:
We thank our esteemed colleague for his reply and for his work in this area. We acknowledge our disagreements over the target resolution and hope that we can continue work together to improve the protections provided by international laws and this esteemed body. We recognize the concerns of our collegue in insuring all member states are protected in crafting laws and further call upon the author of this bill to take steps to correct the bill in the hopes of improving the quality and effectiveness of WA law.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

This proposal establishes a international system for patent recognition. Inventors apply for patents issued by an international organization which all member states must recognize.

This system is similar to the system envisioned by this draft, but with a key distinction: there is no ability to opt-out.

Opposed.
There still has been no convincing argument as to why nations must conform with patent recognition if they're economic policies are such that international property rights would result in a considerable adverse effect on said policies.

[Bakhton]

Ambassador Lara Qzu, having no previous drafted message from the newly created Supreme Court of Bakhton is left to speculate,"We would likely tentatively support this. However you must realize in our economic system, everything is considered public domain. Our government sees inventions as the common heritage of all people. In short, we don't recognize patents. However, for countries that do, we recognize the importance of this resolution and applaud its thoroughness. We would recommend that there be included an opt out clause for socialist governments, or perhaps, as previously suggested by the honorable J. Everett of the United Royal Islands of Euramathania, the creation of patent-free trade zones."

[Wallenburg]

Ambassador Lara Qzu, having no previous drafted message from the newly created Supreme Court of Bakhton is left to speculate,"We would likely tentatively support this. However you must realize in our economic system, everything is considered public domain. Our government sees inventions as the common heritage of all people. In short, we don't recognize patents. However, for countries that do, we recognize the importance of this resolution and applaud its thoroughness. We would recommend that there be included an opt out clause for socialist governments, or perhaps, as previously suggested by the honorable J. Everett of the United Royal Islands of Euramathania, the creation of patent-free trade zones."

"I'm afraid that the purpose of this replacement is specifically to force states such as your own to recognize patents."

[Bakhton]

"I'm afraid that the purpose of this replacement is specifically to force states such as your own to recognize patents."

Lara Qzu having recently consulted with legal advisers states, "Yes, and if it remains so without an opt out clause, our nation will not support the resolution."

[Araraukar]

I normally avoid the projects of the Auralian delegation as they tend to slide too far into Legalese, but this one looks understandable enough to take a stab at. Literally. *pulls out the Proposal Scalpel^TM*

OOC: Ignoring the whole thing currently being one massive Contradiction and likely Auralia just not wanting anyone else to have their name on the existing patent resolution...

but with a key distinction: there is no ability to opt-out.

OOC: You're very considerate in providing repeal hooks.

Category: Free Trade

I have to ask, how the fuck is something that sets limitations on free trade of goods, "free trade"?

OOC: I do not consider "because it doesn't fit other categories" to be sufficient excuse.

Recognizing that many World Assembly member states use patents to encourage scientific and technological innovation,

This is another one I've never understood. If you place restrictions on what innovative people can or can't do, how exactly will that encourage them?

OOC: I suggest dropping the italicization of words, or IA is likely to stomp against you.

Believing that the complete public disclosure of an invention in exchange for temporary exclusive rights to the invention constitutes a fair trade between inventors and the public,

Convinced that the international recognition of patents will incentivize the creation of new inventions throughout all member states while providing inventors with a fair reward for their labours,

Only if the inventor intends to use their patented goods in any given member nation. And considering the good faith reading of that clause, I doubt a blanket "yeah I intend to spread this WA-wide" is going to cover it. Every other nations is free to rip off the invention, especially as the requirements for submission require detailed instructions on how-to-make-this. The "not currently being exploited" can be reasonably read both as "at the time this resolution passes" and as "at the time the patent is filed". So, again, I remain unconvinced that complete public disclosure is going to encourage anyone to publicly disclose detailed instructions of how to make what they just invented.

Defines "invention", for the purposes of this resolution, as a machine, article of manufacture, process, or composition of matter that is useful, novel and non-obvious, even to others skilled in the same field;

So, again, it entirely depends on the nation as to what it needs to define as an invention? How is that not an "opt out"? It may be entirely obvious how to manufacture an anti-matter particle beam weapon, for example^OOC, but not practical, given that nation's current tech level.

OOC: Technically we know in RL how to do this. Just not feasibly.

Further defines "patent", for the purposes of this resolution, as the set of exclusive rights granted to the creator of an invention, including the right:

1. to prevent others from using, manufacturing, offering for sale, importing or exporting the invention without permission,
2. to sell or license any of these rights to others,
3. to seek an injunction and fair damages against any entity that infringes upon these rights, and
4. to extinguish any of these rights;

a. Except in nations the patent holder is not intending to do anything with their inventions and which are not using it before the patent is filed (afterwards they can).
b. Wait, so the patent holder can licence right c. to anyone, whether or not they have anything to do with the actual patented thing? Don't think "patent holder hiring a law firm", think "patent holder selling the rights to sue people for money to a law firm in another nation, where the patent would not be in effect".
c. That doesn't actually force the member nations to do anything about it. Especially nations that don't have the same kind of legal system as yours apparently does.
d. Extinguish, not relinquish?

Establishes the World Assembly Patent Organization (WAPO) with the following mandate:

And what's wrong with using World Assembly Patent Service (WAPS) rather than creating yet another committee?

OOC: Not to mention that WAPO is very close to Vapo...

1. to receive and process patent applications exclusively from inventors in World Assembly member states,
2. to establish appropriate regulations for what constitutes patentable subject matter within the confines of World Assembly law,
3. to establish appropriate requirements for the structure and format of patent applications, including but not limited to the requirement that an application must include sufficient description to allow a reasonable person in the same field to construct and use the invention,
4. to grant patents for inventions described by valid patent applications on a first-to-file basis,
5. to set appropriate durations for patents in individual World Assembly member states, taking into account each state's current level of economic and technological development, and
6. to establish and maintain a publicly-accessible archive of all patent applications it receives;

a. Does that mean the inventors have to, at the time of filing the patent, be citizens of a WA nation, or just within the borders of one? (OOC: For an analogue think of people like green-carders in USA, versus USA citizens who happen to be out of country at the time.)
b. And using exactly what guidelines to make that entirely arbitrary and unappealable decision? In fact this whole thing probably should include some right by a member nation to appeal the decisions of the committee.
c. Oh yeay, a WA committee will randomly turn down your application if you happen to italicize or underline something. And I already addressed the issue of why the requirement for detailed how-to instructions is unlikely to win this clause any points.
d. Where are the applications sent and how? There's a considerable disparity between nations that can file things digitally and ones where the filing will have to be done by sending physical documents via mail. The first will undoubtedly arrive first, even if the latter was sent a week earlier.
e. Already addressed this one as well.
f. Would that be publicly accessible to non-member nations too? I can see a lot of industrial espionage in the future of many non-member done by the nations' tourists traveling in WA countries...

Requires all member states to recognize the exclusive rights associated with WAPO patents for at least the duration set by the WAPO;

The exclusive rights in the patent definition that are rendered useless in the majority of member nations anyway, due to clause 5?

Authorizes member states to create reasonable limitations and exceptions to the exclusive rights associated with WAPO patents when:

1. the patented invention was invented domestically before the WAPO was established,
2. the patented invention 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,
3. the patented invention is in violation of regulations unrelated to patent law, such as health and safety standards for manufactured goods, or
4. such limitations and exceptions are necessary to enforce any additional reasonable and appropriate patent regulations created by that member state, including but not limited to regulations regarding the interpretation of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution, so long as such regulations remain consistent with the object and purpose of this resolution;

a. What kind of proof is the Vapo... I mean WAPO going to require of this?
b. Even if the invention would be "past tech" to a member nation but the patent holder still has plans to try and sell their product in that nation? Weird to clump these two in the same subclause. Also, this is what renders the resolution's restrictions irrelevant to the majority of WA nations, leaving them free to exploit the publicly available information on the patented thing.
c. About the only bit of the proposal I don't disagree with.
d. Is this bit saying that national patents are overridden by WAPO ones, if the domestic patent holder hasn't wanted to (or thought to) go through the process of applying for an international one? Or that if a nation's laws say that all patents expire within a year, they're not allowed to apply that to the WAPO patents? The Legalese is strong in this one.

Permits member states engaged in international intellectual property disputes, including disputes related to copyrights, trademarks, and patents, to make use of any mechanisms recognized in international law for the mediation and arbitration of international trade disputes;

And while the dispute is happening, do any of the things in this resolution apply or is the whole patent on hold?

Urges member states to pursue harmonization of patent law with other member states to the extent practicable;

Unnecessary fluff.

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as prohibiting member nations from recognizing patents granted independently of the WAPO.

Yeah, they can recognize other patents except when the WAPO patents override them, what with WA law being above national law. An example being something patented by someone from a non-WA nation.

[Auralia]

We do however suggest that the author can retain some of the same protections for diverse economic systems by adding a sub clause to article 4, or additional clause, That clarifies that it is not to be interpreted as imposing patents, or intellectual property within any nation so lacking those concepts, yet bars them from being able to gain access to the patented property until such time as it leaves the protections of WAPO.

Could you clarify what you mean by "bar[ring] them from being able to gain access"? Under your proposed modification, would nations still have to restrict individuals from violating the exclusive rights associated with a WAPO parent?

"I highly doubt that would happen, Ambassador. The entire idea of this draft is to deny member states basic ideological rights."

Throughout this debate, your primary argument against a mandatory World Assembly patent system has not been that patent systems are harmful to member states. Presumably this is because that claim isn't actually true -- I, along with numerous representatives from other member states, have conclusively demonstrated that they are necessary for innovation in the modern economy. ((OOC: It's also a difficult argument to make in light of the fact that the whole world in real life has adopted patent systems!))

Rather, your primary argument has been an appeal to member states' "ideological rights". Well, let me be absolutely clear about this: member states don't have "ideological rights". They do not exist. As I've said before, 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. ((OOC: That's why a "Free Trade" category exists.)) If a member state opposes World Assembly policy in this regard, they're free to convince member states to vote to adopt a different policy or leave the World Assembly.

There still has been no convincing argument as to why nations must conform with patent recognition if they're economic policies are such that international property rights would result in a considerable adverse effect on said policies.

The only reason why an international patent system would have an adverse effect on a nation's economic policies would be if those policies consisting of stealing other nations' inventions and manufacturing them at a reduced cost in an attempt to undercut the original inventor. Such policies create a chilling effect on innovation and harm the World Assembly economy as a whole. They deserve to fail.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

OOC: Ignoring the whole thing currently being one massive Contradiction and likely Auralia just not wanting anyone else to have their name on the existing patent resolution...

((OOC: I hope that's a joke and not a serious claim. I do think the current resolution is deficient, which is why I'm trying to repeal and replace it.))

I have to ask, how the fuck is something that sets limitations on free trade of goods, "free trade"?

((OOC: Because it promotes the legitimate trade of goods by removing non-governmental barriers to trade, like the theft of intellectual property. Almost every Free Trade resolution on the books creates new economic regulations, including many of the ones I've passed. Maybe that's not what Max intended when he created the category, but that's certainly what it's become.))

This is another one I've never understood. If you place restrictions on what innovative people can or can't do, how exactly will that encourage them?

It costs a great deal of time, money, labour and other resources to research and develop a new invention. Once invented, the inventor has to sell the invention at a significant markup relative to the cost of production in order to recoup the R&D costs. But without patents, there's nothing preventing someone else from selling a copy of the invention at or close to cost, undercutting the inventor. They effectively benefit from the inventor's efforts for free. Nobody's going to bother trying to innovate under those circumstances because there's no incentive to do so.

It's true that, like you suggested, patents can inhibit innovation of derivative inventions. But this is mitigated by the fact that patents are only valid for a limited time, and that before then you can still get a patent license from the original inventor. It's a minor disadvantage compared to the problem described above.

OOC: I suggest dropping the italicization of words, or IA is likely to stomp against you.

Honestly, I'm starting to agree with IA regarding formatting in resolutions. The less, the better.

Only if the inventor intends to use their patented goods in any given member nation. And considering the good faith reading of that clause, I doubt a blanket "yeah I intend to spread this WA-wide" is going to cover it. Every other nations is free to rip off the invention, especially as the requirements for submission require detailed instructions on how-to-make-this. The "not currently being exploited" can be reasonably read both as "at the time this resolution passes" and as "at the time the patent is filed". So, again, I remain unconvinced that complete public disclosure is going to encourage anyone to publicly disclose detailed instructions of how to make what they just invented.

Actually, the most reasonable reading of "not currently being exploited" is "at the time that the nation in question is trying to create an exception to the enforcement the patent under this clause". Really, though, the idea behind that clause is that an inventor shouldn't be allowed to simply refuse to allow an invention to be used in a member state. I think I'm going to broaden it to cover all forms of patent misuse, though, which will hopefully make it clearer and prevent the situations you described.

So, again, it entirely depends on the nation as to what it needs to define as an invention? How is that not an "opt out"? It may be entirely obvious how to manufacture an anti-matter particle beam weapon, for example^OOC, but not practical, given that nation's current tech level.

It's neither obvious nor practical for nations MT or below, actually. Reasonable nation theory applies.

OOC: Technically we know in RL how to do this. Just not feasibly.

((OOC: Well, that's kind of the whole point, isn't it? It's one thing to imagine an anti-matter particle beam weapon, while it's quite another to actually build one. Patents seek to protect the invention, not the idea.))

a. Except in nations the patent holder is not intending to do anything with their inventions and which are not using it before the patent is filed (afterwards they can).

Sorry, could you clarify what you mean here?

b. Wait, so the patent holder can licence right c. to anyone, whether or not they have anything to do with the actual patented thing? Don't think "patent holder hiring a law firm", think "patent holder selling the rights to sue people for money to a law firm in another nation, where the patent would not be in effect".

I don't understand this argument. If the patent isn't recognized in a state, then why would the right to sue for infringement for that patent exist?

c. That doesn't actually force the member nations to do anything about it. Especially nations that don't have the same kind of legal system as yours apparently does.

Why not? The resolution states that member states have to recognize the right of the patent holder to seek an injunction and damages. The member state has to carry that out.

d. Extinguish, not relinquish?

The rights are destroyed, not transferred.

And what's wrong with using World Assembly Patent Service (WAPS) rather than creating yet another committee?

It won't exist after Foreign Patent Act is repealed.

a. Does that mean the inventors have to, at the time of filing the patent, be citizens of a WA nation, or just within the borders of one?

Let's say citizens and permanent residents at the time of filing. I'll make an appropriate change.

b. And using exactly what guidelines to make that entirely arbitrary and unappealable decision? In fact this whole thing probably should include some right by a member nation to appeal the decisions of the committee.

Guidelines based on their own internal procedures and international law. I'll add an appeals process.

c. Oh yeay, a WA committee will randomly turn down your application if you happen to italicize or underline something. And I already addressed the issue of why the requirement for detailed how-to instructions is unlikely to win this clause any points.

I believe reasonable committee(?) theory applies here. Public disclosure isn't a problem so long as the patent is actually enforced for the stated time.

d. Where are the applications sent and how? There's a considerable disparity between nations that can file things digitally and ones where the filing will have to be done by sending physical documents via mail. The first will undoubtedly arrive first, even if the latter was sent a week earlier.

It's the responsibility of the inventor to use the quickest method to file.

f. Would that be publicly accessible to non-member nations too?

Yes. It probably shouldn't be. I'll make an appropriate change.

The exclusive rights in the patent definition that are rendered useless in the majority of member nations anyway, due to clause 5?

I don't know what you're talking about. Clause 5 doesn't render them "useless".

a. What kind of proof is the Vapo... I mean WAPO going to require of this?

None. Member states make these decisions.

b. Even if the invention would be "past tech" to a member nation but the patent holder still has plans to try and sell their product in that nation? Weird to clump these two in the same subclause. Also, this is what renders the resolution's restrictions irrelevant to the majority of WA nations, leaving them free to exploit the publicly available information on the patented thing.

This clause has been re-worded as described above.

d. Is this bit saying that national patents are overridden by WAPO ones, if the domestic patent holder hasn't wanted to (or thought to) go through the process of applying for an international one? Or that if a nation's laws say that all patents expire within a year, they're not allowed to apply that to the WAPO patents? The Legalese is strong in this one.

All it says is that member states can create exceptions to patents if they deem it appropriate, but they can't use this mechanism to simply opt-out of the international patent system. Again, reasonable nation theory applies.

And while the dispute is happening, do any of the things in this resolution apply or is the whole patent on hold?

I don't think Resolving WA Trade Disputes makes provision for stays or anything like that.

Unnecessary fluff.

...which might be necessary to prevent this proposal for being dinged for a "just a committee" violation.

Yeah, they can recognize other patents except when the WAPO patents override them, what with WA law being above national law. An example being something patented by someone from a non-WA nation.

Yes, that's correct.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

Throughout this debate, your primary argument against a mandatory World Assembly patent system has not been that patent systems are harmful to member states.

"Why would I argue that? That is irrelevant to me. The institution of slavery is not necessarily harmful to member states, but it damn sure ought to be prohibited. World Assembly legislation should not be limited to addressing issues that inherently harm member states."

Presumably this is because that claim isn't actually true -- I, along with numerous representatives from other member states, have conclusively demonstrated that they are necessary for innovation in the modern economy.

"If they are necessary for innovation, what is the issue with my standing resolution? No economy can survive solely on the production of knock-off items for domestic sale. Presumably, by your logic, any modern society with a sense of self-preservation would have already built a patent system willingly."

Rather, your primary argument has been an appeal to member states' "ideological rights". Well, let me be absolutely clear about this: member states don't have "ideological rights". They do not exist.

Ogenbond rolls his eyes and reaches under his desk. He pulls out a large volume and opens it. Flipping a few pages, he lands on the desired passage and reads:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

He then grabs the back cover and flips the book almost to the very last page. He reads another excerpt:

Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery.

"I see that you have not done your reading, Ambassador. Member states have the right to exercise their own political and economic ideologies, as enumerated in these set rules and resolutions. This is why it would be illegal for me to submit a resolution compelling your nation to adopt a secular democracy, even when it is in your 'best interest'."

As I've said before, 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.

"Only to the extent that the established rules and standing resolutions allow. This proposal goes beyond those limitations."

If a member state opposes World Assembly policy in this regard, they're free to convince member states to vote to adopt a different policy or leave the World Assembly.

"If General Assembly rules do not exist, then everything is permitted."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Throughout this debate, your primary argument against a mandatory World Assembly patent system has not been that patent systems are harmful to member states. Presumably this is because that claim isn't actually true -- I, along with numerous representatives from other member states, have conclusively demonstrated that they are necessary for innovation in the modern economy. ((OOC: It's also a difficult argument to make in light of the fact that the whole world in real life has adopted patent systems!))

Steph chuckles as she stands to address the chamber.

"Don't get cocky, Ambassador Russell - we've known for quite some time the old myths of intellectual property are grossly exaggerated. Whatever kernels of truth they contain can't be advanced by the gross cudgel of WA legislation. The current law is way more than plenty, and even it may well be as harmful as it is helpful. I'd have to check but this version seems to have less in the way of reasonable restrictions on patent-holders' power to charge purposeless rent, than did the old one (which got repealed and replaced with the current law). We supported that version, but we likely have to oppose this one."

(OOC: For example [PDF] )

[NewLakotah]

Ambassador Russell,

How would this apply retroactively in the case of competing and contradictory patent claims? For example, if two (or more) states had existing patents individually for the same (basic) invention? How is this resolved and wouldn't this adversely affect the nations economic ability should they lose the patent right to another, which therefore would lose their own national right to manufacture their invention at their own costs, rather than at the competing rate?

[Cheyenne and Arapaho Systems]

Ambassador Russell,

How would this apply retroactively in the case of competing and contradictory patent claims? For example, if two (or more) states had existing patents individually for the same (basic) invention? How is this resolved and wouldn't this adversely affect the nations economic ability should they lose the patent right to another, which therefore would lose their own national right to manufacture their invention at their own costs, rather than at the competing rate?

Ambassador Standing Feather leans over to the NewLakotahn ambassador. "Simple. Equitable division of property interest. The white man's King Solomon approach."

[Imperium Anglorum]

How would this apply retroactively in the case of competing and contradictory patent claims? For example, if two (or more) states had existing patents individually for the same (basic) invention? How is this resolved and wouldn't this adversely affect the nations economic ability should they lose the patent right to another, which therefore would lose their own national right to manufacture their invention at their own costs, rather than at the competing rate?

NORTH: Do they not have courts where you live?

[NewLakotah]

How would this apply retroactively in the case of competing and contradictory patent claims? For example, if two (or more) states had existing patents individually for the same (basic) invention? How is this resolved and wouldn't this adversely affect the nations economic ability should they lose the patent right to another, which therefore would lose their own national right to manufacture their invention at their own costs, rather than at the competing rate?

NORTH: Do they not have courts where you live?

Quite, but not my issue. My issue is not a national issue but how would that be resolved from an international one, where two different patents from different nations already exist. Who gets the rights and how is that determined? I mean if its a court issue alone, then that is practically unfair if a large nationalized company faces against a small inventor from a smaller nation.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: Instead of infringing on the ideological rights of member states, would it not be more just and practical to forbid the international trade of goods that violate patent law?

[Wallenburg]

Barbera: Instead of infringing on the ideological rights of member states, would it not be more just and practical to forbid the international trade of goods that violate patent law?

"Which, luckily enough, my 'Foreign Patent Act' already does."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: Instead of infringing on the ideological rights of member states, would it not be more just and practical to forbid the international trade of goods that violate patent law?

"Which, luckily enough, my 'Foreign Patent Act' already does."

Barbera: Refer to the clause in question.

Harold: Besides, your resolution makes no provisions for the employment of barristers!

[Wallenburg]

"Which, luckily enough, my 'Foreign Patent Act' already does."

Barbera: Refer to the clause in question.

"The eighth clause of the Foreign Patent Act clearly 'requires all member states without patent systems to refrain from asserting intellectual property beyond their own borders'. Now, perhaps that may not achieve the same result as a total ban on international trade of goods patented in other countries, but according to our good Ambassador Russel, patent systems are so obviously beneficial that any modern economy would have one anyway, so I doubt there would be any significant difference."

Harold: Besides, your resolution makes no provisions for the employment of barristers!

"Alas, I cannot deny this. My resolution leaves a great many barristers still scraping at the bottom of the civil court barrels for decent cases."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Alas, I cannot deny this. My resolution leaves a great many barristers still scraping at the bottom of the civil court barrels for decent cases."

OOC: HEY! Us civil law guys resemble that remark.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Alas, I cannot deny this. My resolution leaves a great many barristers still scraping at the bottom of the civil court barrels for decent cases."

OOC: HEY! Us civil law guys resemble that remark.

OOC: I think that either you mean: [1] US (i.e. American) civil law guys resemble that remark or [2] We civil law guys resemble that remark.