[PASSED] International Patent Agreement

[Attempted Socialism]

If some inventor somewhere desires their name on a website for their contribution, that's fine, but that inventor cannot ask for or demand any licensing fee or exclusivity based on a 'patent'. Our interpretation of the cited clause enables that, which we are very happy about in case this proposal passes. Does the Ambassador agree with that interpretation?"

No. Such an interpretation would eviscerate the rights established in clause 2.

"But this denial then runs counter to clause 5c. Any and all patents will be in violation of Socialist law, because a patent is government-enforced private ownership of the means of production."

[Bears Armed]

"Any and all patents will be in violation of Socialist law, because a patent is government-enforced private ownership of the means of production."

"Where is it written that the governments of 'Socialist'-run nations can not pass laws giving those same governments ownership of the patents for any inventions made within their nations?"


Harro GreyBear,
Second Commercial Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission at the WA.

[Attempted Socialism]

"Any and all patents will be in violation of Socialist law, because a patent is government-enforced private ownership of the means of production."

"Where is it written that the governments of 'Socialist'-run nations can not pass laws giving those same governments ownership of the patents for any inventions made within their nations?"


Harro GreyBear,
Second Commercial Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission at the WA.

"A fair question. Two issues arise: First, this is not just enforced private ownership domestically, but also a forced recognition of foreign capitalists' ownership inside the Solidarity Movement. This had previously been abolished, but with the proposed resolution before us, foreign capitalists would again be able to exploit Socialist workers, this time with the government of the Solidarity Movement backing the capitalists!"
Ambassador West inhales angrily.
"Secondly, while having the state claim ownership over the means of production is better than the capitalists doing so, in a democratic state at least, it is still a form of exploitation of the workers. Having the state turn a profit on the backs of the populace, even if the populace can vote on the use of that profit, is dreadful and unacceptable. We are not willing to replace exploitation by the capital-owning bourgeoisie with the slightly lesser exploitation by state-running bureaucrats!"
West exhales, still agitated. Looking up from his prepared remarks, he seems to make a decision. "In essence, enforcing private ownership over the means of production, thrusting it upon socialist, communist and anarchist states everywhere, is akin to outlawing profiteering in capitalists countries! Currently, a massive majority is repealing a resolution that allows countries without private ownership over the means of production to stay that way, a repeal that expressly voices a desire to replace the resolution with one that bans entire swathes of ideologies from membership of the World Assembly! Are you certain that..."
An aide next to the Ambassador gently pulls his sleeve. The Ambassadors tone quickly finds a more appropriate level.
"... the Auralian delegation considered that consequence when they proposed this?"
The aide passes a note, Alex West quickly skims it, blushing, either from embarrasment over his outbursts or from raising his voice.
"Er, yes, I think that was the gist of our answer. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify our position. Workers of the World, Unite!"

[Auralia]

This is a bad analogy because Resolution 2 doesn't require the World Assembly to treat different species equally. It requires the World Assembly to treat different member states equally -- a cornerstone of Westphalian sovereignty.

I don't think GAR #2 prohibits justified discrimination between member states based on a bona fide purpose. This is not arbitrary discrimination on the basis of nationality; member states with the same level of technological or economic development will receive the same patent duration.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Araraukar]

This is not arbitrary discrimination on the basis of nationality; member states with the same level of technological or economic development will receive the same patent duration.

OOC: A hypothetical scenario for you then:

Nation A is what is called "Past Tech" nation, general tech equivalent of late 1800's.

Nation B is what is called "Modern Tech" nation, general tech equivalent of early 2000's.

Nation C is what is called "Future Tech" nation, general tech includes cold fusion and interstellar travel (RP equivalent of, let's say, Excidium Planetis).

Nation D is what is called either "Magic Tech" nation or a FT nation so advanced that their tech might as well be called magic, where basically if you can imagine it, it can be done.

Now, a group of scientists funded by a multibillionaire in Nation C discovers artificial gravity. They patent it first in their nation and then apply for the WA patent. They also want to sell either their invention or things using the invention in the other three nations.

Nation D never needed to have it patented, they also don't have a patent system.

Nation B might have a tentative theory of how such a thing might be achieved, but would realistically be centuries away from actually making it reality. They have a patent system where patents lapse after 10 years.

Nation A likely has theory of gravity, but not general relativity, and most likely would laugh at anyone suggesting artificial gravity. They also don't have a patent system.

Now please tell me how long Nation C's privately-funded group of scientists would be allowed to have and abuse their WA patent in the above nations. And would the nations still have to obey the WA patent if they didn't and didn't want to trade with Nation C or anyone from it?

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

This is not arbitrary discrimination on the basis of nationality; member states with the same level of technological or economic development will receive the same patent duration.

OOC: A hypothetical scenario for you then:

Nation A is what is called "Past Tech" nation, general tech equivalent of late 1800's.

Nation B is what is called "Modern Tech" nation, general tech equivalent of early 2000's.

Nation C is what is called "Future Tech" nation, general tech includes cold fusion and interstellar travel (RP equivalent of, let's say, Excidium Planetis).

Nation D is what is called either "Magic Tech" nation or a FT nation so advanced that their tech might as well be called magic, where basically if you can imagine it, it can be done.

Now, a group of scientists funded by a multibillionaire in Nation C discovers artificial gravity. They patent it first in their nation and then apply for the WA patent. They also want to sell either their invention or things using the invention in the other three nations.

Nation D never needed to have it patented, they also don't have a patent system.

Nation B might have a tentative theory of how such a thing might be achieved, but would realistically be centuries away from actually making it reality. They have a patent system where patents lapse after 10 years.

Nation A likely has theory of gravity, but not general relativity, and most likely would laugh at anyone suggesting artificial gravity. They also don't have a patent system.

Now please tell me how long Nation C's privately-funded group of scientists would be allowed to have and abuse their WA patent in the above nations. And would the nations still have to obey the WA patent if they didn't and didn't want to trade with Nation C or anyone from it?

This legislation is primary written for a strict MT-realism World Assembly, so I don't think this hypothetical is relevant. However, it did raise some interesting questions that have caused me to make some revisions to the proposal. For instance, I've changed the durations clause to make it clear what an "appropriate" duration is: one that ensures that inventors receive a fair reward for their labours. I've also expanded the exemption in clause 5(a) to address cases where an invention was in widespread use before the WAPO was established.

Accordingly:

• Nation D is exempt. The patented invention was invented domestically or was in widespread use before the WAPO was established.
• Nation B and Nation A should recognize the patent until several years after they can actually meaningfully use the patented technology, so as to ensure that the inventor can actually profit from the patent. In practice, this means that the patent will have a nominally longer duration in A than B, but the effective length will be the same from the point of view of inventor compensation.

[Wallenburg]

• Nation D is exempt. The patented invention was invented domestically or was in widespread use before the WAPO was established.
• Nation B and Nation A should recognize the patent until several years after they can actually meaningfully use the patented technology, so as to ensure that the inventor can actually profit from the patent. In practice, this means that the patent will have a nominally longer duration in A than B, but the effective length will be the same from the point of view of inventor compensation.

That's a rather strange way to go about it. Inventors are not entitled to a profit from their inventions, and they are certainly not entitled to exact a profit from all 26,606 member nations. In the real world, we do not extend the life of patents in different countries so that an inventor may profit from their patent rights decades or even centuries after the patent is granted and has expired in other countries.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

A Meridian: As the author of the resolution has clearly revealed their intention:

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this proposal does not provide for inventors to be compensated for the use of their intellectual labours in member states without patent systems. This can only be properly achieved by recognizing the patent.

We are not surprised that it has become obvious that this resolution is intended to force the idea of property into memberstates who do not recognize such ideas, and for the profit of their own buisiness interests. Not satisfied with being protected in markets which share their values, they insist upon being able to enforce such protection universally. This places member states lacking patent systems or property concepts in the role of favoring outside entities over their own inventors and contrary their values.

[Devernia]

[THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN RETCONNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF [REDACTED]]

OOC: Devernia now does have a patent system, but it's weak, and the government subsidizes a lot of scientific research anyway.

Also, my nation legalizes digital piracy. Is there a way to make that comply to WA laws?

[Auralia]

• Nation D is exempt. The patented invention was invented domestically or was in widespread use before the WAPO was established.
• Nation B and Nation A should recognize the patent until several years after they can actually meaningfully use the patented technology, so as to ensure that the inventor can actually profit from the patent. In practice, this means that the patent will have a nominally longer duration in A than B, but the effective length will be the same from the point of view of inventor compensation.

That's a rather strange way to go about it. Inventors are not entitled to a profit from their inventions, and they are certainly not entitled to exact a profit from all 26,606 member nations. In the real world, we do not extend the life of patents in different countries so that an inventor may profit from their patent rights decades or even centuries after the patent is granted and has expired in other countries.

In practice I doubt that will happen. The WAPO archive is essentially a massive technological repository that all member states will have access to. Any remaining technological differences between member states will quickly disappear.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

The Ausitorian delegation entered the room with a bang of billowing smoke from their velvet cloaks. High time to return to the festering snakepit in style, and what better than over a discussion on innovation?

The leading ambassador, who looked like a walrus, spoke.

"If harmonization is seriously desired, first inventor to file, please; everyone knows small inventors and scientists are usually not very good at keeping secrets and anyway need to raise money to get patents - there are many celebrated cases where inventors have taken advantage of grace periods in those jurisdictions clever enough to understand these points. A grace period of six months would likely be standard.

As for the question of obviousness, should we take it member nations will be free to settle the question by their own interpretation under 5b on the grounds that obvious patents are clearly prejudicial to competition? As the draft is currently written, such non-uniform interpretation of inventive step could severely limit the utility of a unified international patent system.

As for renewal fees, can member patent offices get their share, or charge at up to the rate for their own patents?

As for the duration of patents, what of suplementary protection certificates by area, e.g. Biopharma, based on the time required to acquire market authorization after substantial testing?

Why is it proposed and permitted in 3e that some countries could be unfairly penalized by the WA into, for instance, accepting foreign patents for an extended period of time? Why not have a single standard, e.g. 20 years?

Why is it not specified that in exchange for the grant of a patent monopoly, the disclosure is made available for all WA members to see?

Can WAPO conduct searches and examinations separately?

Can WAPO examiners use a classification scheme for searching their patents?

And finally and perhaps most importantly, why is there no statement of the grounds WAPO will use to actually grant patent applications? Why does WAPO not use the novelty test of 5a? Why is that left up to member states to apply? Will WAPO accept priority dates from earlier national or regional patents and discount the disclosure in those earlier patents?"

[Auralia]

"If harmonization is seriously desired, first inventor to file, please; everyone knows small inventors and scientists are usually not very good at keeping secrets and anyway need to raise money to get patents - there are many celebrated cases where inventors have taken advantage of grace periods in those jurisdictions clever enough to understand these points. A grace period of six months would likely be standard.

The proposal already states that WAPO patents are granted on a first-to-file basis. Whether a grace period for disclosures exists or not is a matter for WAPO regulation.

As for the question of obviousness, should we take it member nations will be free to settle the question by their own interpretation under 5b on the grounds that obvious patents are clearly prejudicial to competition? As the draft is currently written, such non-uniform interpretation of inventive step could severely limit the utility of a unified international patent system.

We maintain that it is important for an international patent system to have certain safety valves, including an anti-trust exception. We expect member states to apply this exception in good faith.

Incidentally, I plan to remove clause 5(d) for providing too broad an exception. Perhaps it made more sense to have it under the decentralized patent system in Foreign Patent Recognition, but it is unnecessary given the existence of an international body responsible for patents.

As for renewal fees, can member patent offices get their share, or charge at up to the rate for their own patents?

Inventors apply directly to the WAPO for a WAPO patent. Whether WAPO chooses to share fees associated with applications to national patent offices -- or charge fees at all, for that matter -- is a matter for WAPO regulation.

As for the duration of patents, what of suplementary protection certificates by area, e.g. Biopharma, based on the time required to acquire market authorization after substantial testing?

The proposal requires the WAPO to set durations that provide the inventor a fair reward for his labours. As such, the WAPO may choose to extend durations of pharmaceutical patents. These details are a matter for WAPO regulation.

Why is it proposed and permitted in 3e that some countries could be unfairly penalized by the WA into, for instance, accepting foreign patents for an extended period of time? Why not have a single standard, e.g. 20 years?

There seems to be significant opposition to different patent terms in different member states. Accordingly, we will revise this clause to permit different patent terms between types of patents but not between member states.

Why is it not specified that in exchange for the grant of a patent monopoly, the disclosure is made available for all WA members to see?

The proposal already states that the WAPO must maintain a publicly accessible archive of all patent applications it receives.

Can WAPO conduct searches and examinations separately? Can WAPO examiners use a classification scheme for searching their patents?

These are matters for WAPO regulation.

And finally and perhaps most importantly, why is there no statement of the grounds WAPO will use to actually grant patent applications? Why does WAPO not use the novelty test of 5a? Why is that left up to member states to apply?

WAPO must use the definition of invention as described in clause 1: "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". This includes a novelty test, as you can see. It is not left up to member states.

Will WAPO accept priority dates from earlier national or regional patents and discount the disclosure in those earlier patents?"

That is a matter for WAPO regulation. In general, however, the exemption in 5(a) means that the WAPO system is primarily for inventions created after the establishment of the WAPO.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Excidium Planetis]

Two issues arise: First, this is not just enforced private ownership domestically, but also a forced recognition of foreign capitalists' ownership inside the Solidarity Movement. This had previously been abolished, but with the proposed resolution before us, foreign capitalists would again be able to exploit Socialist workers, this time with the government of the Solidarity Movement backing the capitalists!"

"Foreign Copyright Recognition already forces your nation to accept the intellectual property of foreign capitalists, so that they can exploit socialist workers." Blackbourne explains. "You already lost your ideological battle quite some time ago, I'm afraid."

[Auralia]

Are there any further comments before I submit?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Separatist Peoples]

"Godspeed, ambassador."

[Malashaan Colony]

Quick comments, I'm in a rush but I told you I'd comment, so this is what I saw on a first pass:

Section 1

Add "or improvement thereof"? Under the current language, member states could easily argue that almost nothing is patentable. E.g., I invent an improved gearing system that makes car engines more efficient. One could argue that the "invention" I am trying to claim is an improved car, and cars are not novel, so I am not entitled to a patent. Adding "or improvement thereof" clarifies that improvements to existing things are patentable as well as brand new things.

Section 3c

"make and use" might be better than "construct and use." Not all patentable objects are necessarily constructed. For example, a composition of matter is likely made with a chemical reaction, which doesn't fit the usual definition of construct. Similarly, articles of manufacture might be forged, molded, pressed, etc., all of which are definitely "making" but may not be "constructing."

Section 5a

Does this serve a function? If the "invention" was in widespread use before WAPO was established, it wouldn't be novel and nonobvious.

This highlights a broader issue with the current draft. It doesn't specify when novelty and nonobviousness needs to be established. The traditional US approach was at the time of invention, with various ways in which inventors were penalized for waiting to file (e.g., your own use in business, even if it didn't reveal the patented invention to the public directly, could generally be used against you). The more popular approach internationally, which the US is now moving towards, is at the time of filing.

In view of the rest of this proposal, I would recommend the latter approach, and then include a definition of what it has to be novel and nonobvious over. Something like "the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention" (taken straight from current US law). US law also has a second provision that makes earlier filed patent applications count against you once they have become published. As this proposal essentially assumes applications become published as soon as they are filed, I think it would be reasonable to add "described in a co-pending patent application" to the list of things that can make an invention non-novel or obvious.

Section 5b

I'm not sure how any of the enuerated rights could be used to extend the term of the patent, what does that portion of 5b achieve?

I can see one could argue asserting it against non-infringers could be seen as broadening the scope, but that seems risky. It sets up member states to make a rule that says if an inventor ever asserts a patent and the court determines there is no infringement, even if its a really close case, the patent can be taken away.

For the blocking portion, the purpose of a patent is to (partially) block access. If the intent is to say preventing use entirely, maybe "completely prevent use of the invention in that member state"?

Section 5c

This seems somewhat backwards. The general right of the patent is to exclude others from using the invention. 5c allows member states to overrule this if the invention violates regulations. In other words, the inventor can no longer prevent someone from using the invention because it violates regulations, which in turn makes it easier for others to use the violating invention. Given that regulations change over time, I don't see any reason to not just allow the patent, and if use becomes legal, let the inventor profit. This clause could be particularly problematic in heavily regulated fields like medicine, where use of every invention will violate regulations until regulator approval is obtained, which typically occurs long after the patent is applied for.

[Auralia]

Thank you very much for commenting! Here's my feedback on your suggestions:

Section 1
snip

Section 3c
snip

These are good ideas! I'll add the suggested language.

Section 5a
snip

In general, I agree with you that the novelty test needs to be clarified in the context of the first-to-file system. I think I can use simpler language, though; something like "an invention that has been disclosed or made available to the public prior to the filing of a WAPO patent application for that invention shall not be considered novel". I think this language implies the other cases you describe.

Section 5b
snip

The purpose of that exception is to prevent patent misuse. Examples given by Wikipedia include "forcing customers to agree to pay royalties on unpatented products or to pay royalties on an expired patent".

Regarding the blocking issue, I'd rather not use "completely" since it is possible to unfairly limit access to an invention in a member state while not "completely" blocking access. What about simply "unfairly blocked access to the invention in that member state"?

Section 5c
snip

I concur with this reasoning. The language is a holdover from an older resolution that defined patents as the right to use, manufacture, offer for sale, etc. the invention, as opposed to merely the right to exclude others from doing so. This definition is, of course, incorrect.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Skymoot]

HI there! Skymoot here. Small comment, all of this is OOC (I'm still too new to NS to have any real RP character or some kind.) Just to show the difference between the two.

Right, that now tucked away. I remember having a big argument with Wallenburg, over his proposed patent law. I won't repeat everything, I'll let you all see it unedited here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=403493&start=50

My biggest worry, to summarize the argument, was nations abusing the patents to 'bully' other nations into doing things they didn't want to do. I have more confidence with this proposal over the other one, because it reads like it will be harder for nations to sneak in loopholes with patents. From what I read and understood between the two proposals, Wallenburg wanted individual nations handle their patents and have a WA patent office that acted as a records keeper of the individual patents, while this proposal (again, opinion and highly suspect to being wrong) reads like there will be a WA authority on international (I.N.) patents, and only those I.N. patents are legal patents. Between the two patent proposals, I like this one better because of the centralized and unbiased control that the WA has over patents.

I do have another concern though, a smaller one. Would there be an opt-out for nations, regarding patents? Not an opt-out that allows the nation to manufacture the invention and bypass international law, but one that allows the nation to not acknowledge the patent on grounds of ideological, cultural, religious, etc. due to fears that the invention or patent could be used to alter their ideology or their affect their sovereignty? Again, not allowing the nation to bypass the patent and make their own invention, but to safeguard the nations sovereignty and ideologies. I remember Wallenburg mentioning that concern before, and in the interest of being fair I think I need to ask that question to.

Respond when you can, there is no rush. Being a young nation in NS, it's exciting to be involved in debates and WA laws like this. I only hope that I don't sound too stupid around the professionals. I know I'll sound stupid sooner or later, just not too stupid. To whoever reads this, I hope you have a good day, and a great weekend.

[Tinfect]

I do have another concern though, a smaller one. Would there be an opt-out for nations, regarding patents? Not an opt-out that allows the nation to manufacture the invention and bypass international law, but one that allows the nation to not acknowledge the patent on grounds of ideological, cultural, religious, etc. due to fears that the invention or patent could be used to alter their ideology or their affect their sovereignty? Again, not allowing the nation to bypass the patent and make their own invention, but to safeguard the nations sovereignty and ideologies. I remember Wallenburg mentioning that concern before, and in the interest of being fair I think I need to ask that question to.

OOC:
No of course not. I think you're rather missing the point of this legislation; that is exactly what he wants to be able to do. To build up a Technological Monopoly that gives him/similarly powerful capitalist states economic control over foreign states.

[Bakhton]

"We don't think any form of patent reform will be currently popular enough to pass, given recent events. As well, this interferes in our economic system. That's to say, Bakhton's Court is unlikely to vote in favor of this."

[Skymoot]

I do have another concern though, a smaller one. Would there be an opt-out for nations, regarding patents? Not an opt-out that allows the nation to manufacture the invention and bypass international law, but one that allows the nation to not acknowledge the patent on grounds of ideological, cultural, religious, etc. due to fears that the invention or patent could be used to alter their ideology or their affect their sovereignty? Again, not allowing the nation to bypass the patent and make their own invention, but to safeguard the nations sovereignty and ideologies. I remember Wallenburg mentioning that concern before, and in the interest of being fair I think I need to ask that question to.

OOC:
No of course not. I think you're rather missing the point of this legislation; that is exactly what he wants to be able to do. To build up a Technological Monopoly that gives him/similarly powerful capitalist states economic control over foreign states.

Knew I wasn't seeing the whole picture. To be clear on the "he" pronoun, are you saying that Aurelia is making the monopoly or Wallenberg is the one (trying) to make that monopoly? Either way, from this revelation, I think I might just reject both proposals. Wait till a less controversial nation writes a proposal on the issue, since it feels too much like a "Hatfield V. Macoy" kind of environment.

[Auralia]

I do have another concern though, a smaller one. Would there be an opt-out for nations, regarding patents? Not an opt-out that allows the nation to manufacture the invention and bypass international law, but one that allows the nation to not acknowledge the patent on grounds of ideological, cultural, religious, etc. due to fears that the invention or patent could be used to alter their ideology or their affect their sovereignty? Again, not allowing the nation to bypass the patent and make their own invention, but to safeguard the nations sovereignty and ideologies. I remember Wallenburg mentioning that concern before, and in the interest of being fair I think I need to ask that question to.

I'm not really sure what you're asking. "Allow[ing] the nation to not acknowledge the patent" and "allow[ing] the nation to manufacture the invention and bypass international law" are the same thing. The purpose of a patent is to exclude others from manufacturing an invention (among other things) without permission.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission the World Assembly

[Tinfect]

OOC:
No of course not. I think you're rather missing the point of this legislation; that is exactly what he wants to be able to do. To build up a Technological Monopoly that gives him/similarly powerful capitalist states economic control over foreign states.

Knew I wasn't seeing the whole picture. To be clear on the "he" pronoun, are you saying that Aurelia is making the monopoly or Wallenberg is the one (trying) to make that monopoly? Either way, from this revelation, I think I might just reject both proposals. Wait till a less controversial nation writes a proposal on the issue, since it feels too much like a "Hatfield V. Macoy" kind of environment.

I think Auralia's response here demonstrates that he's the one I was talking about. He's more or less stated his intent to create an ideological echo chamber out of the GA, complete with mandatory Free Trade, and the effective prohibition of non-capitalist states.

[Wallenburg]

I concur with this reasoning. The language is a holdover from an older resolution that defined patents as the right to use, manufacture, offer for sale, etc. the invention, as opposed to merely the right to exclude others from doing so. This definition is, of course, incorrect.

"Actually, you are incorrect, Ambassador. My sources hold that 'the right conferred by the patent grant is the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention. What is granted is not'--not, if I may emphasize--'the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention.'"

OOC: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-s ... #heading-2

[Skymoot]

I do have another concern though, a smaller one. Would there be an opt-out for nations, regarding patents? Not an opt-out that allows the nation to manufacture the invention and bypass international law, but one that allows the nation to not acknowledge the patent on grounds of ideological, cultural, religious, etc. due to fears that the invention or patent could be used to alter their ideology or their affect their sovereignty? Again, not allowing the nation to bypass the patent and make their own invention, but to safeguard the nations sovereignty and ideologies. I remember Wallenburg mentioning that concern before, and in the interest of being fair I think I need to ask that question to.

I'm not really sure what you're asking. "Allow[ing] the nation to not acknowledge the patent" and "allow[ing] the nation to manufacture the invention and bypass international law" are the same thing. The purpose of a patent is to exclude others from manufacturing an invention (among other things) without permission.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission the World Assembly

I feel like you're confusing the two things here Mr.Russell. It is odd that you didn't notice the "Not an opt-out that allows..." bit before the "the nation to manufacture the invention and bypass international law" part. These two are not the same things when you show the original quote as it was. In honesty, I'm asking if this will allow people to ignore patents that are being abused for more malicious intents aside from the original inventors ideas or the patents limits. Such as the snuffling of non-agreeing ideologies, the shunning of opposite people for the sole reasoning of "they don't like my economy policies? Fine.", or (as I am told by other nations) the strategic monopolizing of inventions and creations for the explicit use of bypassing others ideologies and to snuff them out as one would see fit.

If I need to clarify, please let me know. I hold nothing against anyone for pointing out my unclear comments, unless it devolves into name calling... which by that point I try to end conversations. Also, while I am here, and I realize my own errors...

I concur with this reasoning. The language is a holdover from an older resolution that defined patents as the right to use, manufacture, offer for sale, etc. the invention, as opposed to merely the right to exclude others from doing so. This definition is, of course, incorrect.

"Actually, you are incorrect, Ambassador. My sources hold that 'the right conferred by the patent grant is the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention. What is granted is not'--not, if I may emphasize--'the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention.'"

OOC: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-s ... #heading-2

I'd like to take the time to formally apologize for my unexscuseable behavior to Wallenburg, back on the previous posts I've made in the voting forum for his proposal. I realize now that I wasn't understanding the situation. I thought unfairly of you due to the talks, and now that I can see the issue in this proposal, I realize... well honestly? How much of a jerk I was being. I hope all can be forgiven, and I formally take back any and all insults I lobbed over at you. Besides, it's clear to me that Wallenburg has invested a lot of time into this issue. I shouldn't have been so harsh about critizing his proposal.

Come to think of it... I'm almost at the point where I just want nations individually to handle it. Forget this WA patent office thing and be done with it, leaving it to individual nations. But that's a different debate for another forum.