[PASSED] Repeal "Foreign Patent Act"

[Auralia]

Repeal "Foreign Patent Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #388

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

Affirming 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,

Commending GAR #388, "Foreign Patent Act", for contributing to the harmonization of patent law throughout the World Assembly by establishing an international system for patent recognition,

Concerned, however, that the target resolution permits World Assembly member states to completely opt-out of the system it establishes,

Noting that research and development of new inventions requires a great investment of time, labour, and capital,

Emphasizing that if member states are free to refuse to recognize patents, they are also 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 on global markets,

Observing that this leaves inventors with substantial risks and few rewards, thus significantly reducing the incentive of inventors to innovate, as well as the incentive of investors to fund the research and development necessary for innovation, throughout the World Assembly,

Alarmed that the resolution also lacks any mechanism for inventors to appeal decisions of the authority responsible for international patent recognition,

Hoping that replacement legislation shall soon be passed,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #388, "Foreign Patent Act".

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Ambassador:
To my understanding, a member nation can only refrain from participation in this international patent system if that member nation has no patent system of its own.
To coerce member states to uphold a patent system, I believe, would constitute a restriction on ideology, as certain economic policies are likely to be incompatible with a patent system.
The target resolution attempts to loosen the requirements of following the patent system such that only member nations using a patent system are influenced.
To me, it only makes sense to permit member nations without a patent system to ignore the international system. If they have no need for their own national patent system, surely there's no need to subject them to an international one.

[Auralia]

To coerce member states to uphold a patent system, I believe, would constitute a restriction on ideology, as certain economic policies are likely to be incompatible with a patent system.

((OOC: Every World Assembly resolution that establishes some kind of mandate is bound to be incompatible with some ideology. The ideological ban rule has been very narrowly applied in the past in order to avoid restricting possibilities for World Assembly legislation, and I think the connection between "establishing a patent system" and "banning communism" is sufficiently remote so as to not pose a problem.))

To me, it only makes sense to permit member nations without a patent system to ignore the international system. If they have no need for their own national patent system, surely there's no need to subject them to an international one.

I've written a response to this argument here.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

"It seems that the principal argument of this proposal is that the World Assembly ought to ban certain ideologies. I encourage the good Ambassador to consider the probability of a successful legality challenge against whatever replacement he attempts to offer."

[Auralia]

"It seems that the principal argument of this proposal is that the World Assembly ought to ban certain ideologies. I encourage the good Ambassador to consider the probability of a successful legality challenge against whatever replacement he attempts to offer."

((OOC: I've already written a replacement, actually. You're free to file a challenge, but I'm certain that requiring nations to adopt a patent system is not an "ideological ban" any more than any other piece of World Assembly economic regulation is an ideological ban. Patents are certainly narrow enough to be a "specific practice" under the rule.))

[Wallenburg]

"It seems that the principal argument of this proposal is that the World Assembly ought to ban certain ideologies. I encourage the good Ambassador to consider the probability of a successful legality challenge against whatever replacement he attempts to offer."

((OOC: I've already written a replacement, actually. You're free to file a challenge, but I'm certain that requiring nations to adopt a patent system is not an "ideological ban" any more than any other piece of World Assembly economic regulation is an ideological ban. Patents are certainly narrow enough to be a "specific practice" under the rule.))

OOC: Respond to IC posts IC, please.

IC: Ogenbond frowns at the disembodied voice looking around the room for a source. "Really? That's the best you can come up with? 'It only bans communism, so it isn't really an ideological ban'? I'm rather confident that won't hold up before the Secretariat."

[Nilla Wayfarers]

To coerce member states to uphold a patent system, I believe, would constitute a restriction on ideology, as certain economic policies are likely to be incompatible with a patent system.

OOC: Every World Assembly resolution that establishes some kind of mandate is bound to be incompatible with some ideology. The ideological ban rule has been very narrowly applied in the past in order to avoid restricting possibilities for World Assembly legislation, and I think the connection between "establishing a patent system" and "banning communism" is sufficiently remote so as to not pose a problem.

To clarify, it would actually be mostly laissez-faire capitalist and other economically liberal ideologies that would be hindered by a patent system - not so much the case with socialist or communist nations, which most likely already have thorough patent regulation under the state.
But I suppose the restriction on ideology extends only as far as one thinks a patent system would seriously harm nations relying on an economy without said system. That's something where I think the effect is too great to ignore.

To me, it only makes sense to permit member nations without a patent system to ignore the international system. If they have no need for their own national patent system, surely there's no need to subject them to an international one.

I've written a response to this argument:

You seem to be under the impression that any harm associated with your proposal will be limited to those member states who choose not to recognize patents. That's not the case. These states will be free to steal patented intellectual property, manufacture the associated inventions, and undercut the original inventor on the global market. It's the economies of member states which do recognize patents that will be harmed as a result, which is precisely why patent law harmonization is such an important international issue.

Any nation following such an anarchist system as this is unlikely to possess such a sizeable production force as would be necessary to disrupt the production and distribution of a commodity protected by an international patent system.
Besides, a nation following this economic strategy would probably engage in the piracy and production of patented products anyway; trying to restrict them by subjecting them to an international patent system would be so incompatible with their economic policies that either their economy would collapse, or they would have to ignore the legislation.
And that, of course, is not an option.

[Bananaistan]

"The misplaced antagonism of some our socialist brethren against international recognition of patents is mind boggling. The People's Republic of Bananaistan remains committed to the establishment of true communism and equality of all workers in all countries and the eventual withering away of all states and coercive authorities, and as always we will strive towards this aim in all our actions. However, we are clearly not there yet. In the interim, we sell our excess produce internationally as our people must be fed and must be capable of enjoying the fruits of their labours and we cannot support the internationally sponsored theft of their creative endeavours embodied by the target resolution. The target resolution is an imperio-fascist document which would allow the cabal of globalised capitalists steal all the worthwhile achievements of the workers. We heartily support this repeal."

- Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth

[Auralia]

OOC: Respond to IC posts IC, please.

IC: Ogenbond frowns at the disembodied voice looking around the room for a source. "Really? That's the best you can come up with? 'It only bans communism, so it isn't really an ideological ban'? I'm rather confident that won't hold up before the Secretariat."

((OOC: I responded OOC because, if I remember correctly, the rules technically don't exist IC. However, if you prefer, I can pretend they do -- to the extent that it's possible -- and respond IC in future.))

I never said that establishing a mandatory international patent system (like the one envisioned by the linked proposal) would "ban communism", as it obviously would not. Member states would remain free to maintain collective ownership of property, including the patent rights granted to domestic inventors granted by the proposal.

They would simply have to recognize the ownership of patents by foreign investors, which is a relatively small category of property. Such a mandate cannot possibly be construed as a ban of communism.

Moreover, the ideological ban rule states:

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

Note how the rule makes clear exceptions for "specific practices" related to a particular ideology. Patents certainly qualify for this exception if slavery does.

((OOC: Incidentally, I think the ideological ban rule is ridiculous. Why isn't slavery considered an "economic ideology"? The rule doesn't specify any principled criteria as to what distinguishes an "ideology" from a "specific practice" of that ideology. It seems like the mods wanted to ban certain kinds of proposals but couldn't articulate exactly why they were against the rules, and this was the result.))

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

But I suppose the restriction on ideology extends only as far as one thinks a patent system would seriously harm nations relying on an economy without said system. That's something where I think the effect is too great to ignore.

I'm not sure why you believe the standard for violating the ideological ban rule is "serious harm". That term isn't used anywhere in the text of the rule. The rule does, however, explicitly exempt "specific practices" related to an ideology; I think patents certainly qualify.

Any nation following such an anarchist system as this is unlikely to possess such a sizeable production force as would be necessary to disrupt the production and distribution of a commodity protected by an international patent system.

Why do you assume that a nation without a patent system is necessarily anarchist?

Besides, a nation following this economic strategy would probably engage in the piracy and production of patented products anyway; trying to restrict them by subjecting them to an international patent system would be so incompatible with their economic policies that either their economy would collapse...

It's the position of our delegation that the recognition of intellectual property, including patents, is almost invariably beneficial to all nations, regardless of what economic system they use.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

"The misplaced antagonism of some our socialist brethren against international recognition of patents is mind boggling. The People's Republic of Bananaistan remains committed to the establishment of true communism and equality of all workers in all countries and the eventual withering away of all states and coercive authorities, and as always we will strive towards this aim in all our actions. However, we are clearly not there yet. In the interim, we sell our excess produce internationally as our people must be fed and must be capable of enjoying the fruits of their labours and we cannot support the internationally sponsored theft of their creative endeavours embodied by the target resolution. The target resolution is an imperio-fascist document which would allow the cabal of globalised capitalists steal all the worthwhile achievements of the workers. We heartily support this repeal."

- Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth

"Selling lemonade at roadside stands is fascism."

[Nilla Wayfarers]

But I suppose the restriction on ideology extends only as far as one thinks a patent system would seriously harm nations relying on an economy without said system. That's something where I think the effect is too great to ignore.

I'm not sure why you believe the standard for violating the ideological ban rule is "serious harm". That term isn't used anywhere in the text of the rule. The rule does, however, explicitly exempt "specific practices" related to an ideology; I think patents certainly qualify.

I concede.

Any nation following such an anarchist system as this is unlikely to possess such a sizeable production force as would be necessary to disrupt the production and distribution of a commodity protected by an international patent system.

Why do you assume that a nation without a patent system is necessarily anarchist?

Let me refer you to your argument:

You seem to be under the impression that any harm associated with your proposal will be limited to those member states who choose not to recognize patents. That's not the case. These states will be free to steal patented intellectual property, manufacture the associated inventions, and undercut the original inventor on the global market. It's the economies of member states which do recognize patents that will be harmed as a result, which is precisely why patent law harmonization is such an important international issue.

I consider a nation whose economy relies on pirating other nations to be substantially anarchist.

Besides, a nation following this economic strategy would probably engage in the piracy and production of patented products anyway; trying to restrict them by subjecting them to an international patent system would be so incompatible with their economic policies that either their economy would collapse...

It's the position of our delegation that the recognition of intellectual property, including patents, is almost invariably beneficial to all nations, regardless of what economic system they use.

Very well then.

[Auralia]

I consider a nation whose economy relies on pirating other nations to be substantially anarchist.

((OOC: I really don't think that's true. Many developing countries in real-life aren't anarchist and yet don't have strong patent enforcement mechanisms, largely for the reasons I've stated above.))

[States of Glory WA Office]

Emphasizing that if member states are free to refuse to recognize patents, they are also 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 on global markets,

Fairburn: Have you even read Clause Eight of the target?

8. Requires all member states without patent systems to refrain from asserting intellectual property beyond their own borders.

It is impossible for a nation without a patent system to compete with a nation with a patent system on the global market without violating this clause. Yes, they can still compete domestically, but a member state's internal IP laws are none of the WA's business.

OOC: I'm more than happy to file a Legality Challenge for violation of the 'Honest Mistake' rule if this clause is kept in.

[Auralia]

Emphasizing that if member states are free to refuse to recognize patents, they are also 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 on global markets,

Fairburn: Have you even read Clause Eight of the target?

8. Requires all member states without patent systems to refrain from asserting intellectual property beyond their own borders.

It is impossible for a nation without a patent system to compete with a nation with a patent system on the global market without violating this clause. Yes, they can still compete domestically, but a member state's internal IP laws are none of the WA's business.

OOC: I'm more than happy to file a Legality Challenge for violation of the 'Honest Mistake' rule if this clause is kept in.

I don't understand your argument. A nation without a patent system can still manufacture patented inventions and export them. That's not "asserting intellectual property beyond their own borders" since they're not claiming the exclusive right to the invention -- quite the opposite, actually.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Have you even read Clause Eight of the target?


It is impossible for a nation without a patent system to compete with a nation with a patent system on the global market without violating this clause. Yes, they can still compete domestically, but a member state's internal IP laws are none of the WA's business.

OOC: I'm more than happy to file a Legality Challenge for violation of the 'Honest Mistake' rule if this clause is kept in.

I don't understand your argument. A nation without a patent system can still manufacture patented inventions and export them. That's not "asserting intellectual property beyond their own borders" since they're not claiming the exclusive right to the invention -- quite the opposite, actually.

Fairburn: Yes, they can export them - and get themselves sued for patent infringement if the nation they're exporting to has a patent system.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Silver Zephyr responds to this repeal:

"No! Why do you hate this act?"

[Auralia]

I don't understand your argument. A nation without a patent system can still manufacture patented inventions and export them. That's not "asserting intellectual property beyond their own borders" since they're not claiming the exclusive right to the invention -- quite the opposite, actually.

Fairburn: Yes, they can export them - and get themselves sued for patent infringement if the nation they're exporting to has a patent system.

It's really not that simple. Yes, they're technically illegal, but no, that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be imported. Illegal goods get through customs all the time. To solve the problem you have to prevent their manufacture in the first place, which the target resolution expressly prohibits.

Moreover, I'm not sure why you think nations should be permitted to steal patented technology even if they only use it domestically. That's still unfair to the inventor, who isn't being compensated for his work.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Tinfect]

Member states would remain free to maintain collective ownership of property,
They would simply have to recognize the ownership of patents by foreign investors,
Such a mandate cannot possibly be construed as a ban of communism.

Markhov quietly attempts to hide a copy of The Imperialist's Guide to Ideological Socialism under a yet-unfiled stack of paper,
"Ambassador, I am not entirely certain whether you are aware of the meaning of Communist ideology, or if you are merely being intentionally absurd in an attempt to dupe less-read delegations. Regardless of your intent or ignorance, these statements are entirely incompatible; a State which rejects the concepts of Private property necessarily cannot be expected to enforce Patent-Laws that are not its own. Such is the utter violation of ideological systems, and the enforcement of measures deemed oppressive and destructive upon its people at the behest of a foreign power.
You ask that Capitalist Member-States be allowed to wage Economic Warfare against Communist States. Tantamount to if the World-Assembly mandated that all productive industry within a Member-State become collectivized."

Note how the rule makes clear exceptions for "specific practices" related to a particular ideology. Patents certainly qualify for this exception if slavery does.

"Certainly not, Ambassador. Collectivization is as core to Communist ideals as a Fusion-Reactor is the a Triarius Battleship; once you begin tearing out critical components, it stops working, often violently. The mandate that Communist states bow to Capitalist states often deemed oppressors, that you seek, is tantamount to the World-Assembly prohibiting Democratic Member-States from recognizing votes cast by citizens with blue eyes."

It's really not that simple. Yes, they're technically illegal, but no, that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be imported. Illegal goods get through customs all the time. To solve the problem you have to prevent their manufacture in the first place, which the target resolution expressly prohibits.

"Not at all, Ambassador. The correct solution, that is to say, the one that does not involve imposing your will upon another state to their detriment, is to repair your clearly pathetic system of border control."

Why isn't slavery considered an "economic ideology"?

OOC:
Name one Ideology which lists Slavery as a central tenet.

[Western Evilly]

Note how the rule makes clear exceptions for "specific practices" related to a particular ideology. Patents certainly qualify for this exception if slavery does.

"Certainly not, Ambassador. Collectivization is as core to Communist ideals as a Fusion-Reactor is the a Triarius Battleship;

Except collectivization was rarely practiced in communist states. I think you are conflating communism with utopia.

It's really not that simple. Yes, they're technically illegal, but no, that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be imported. Illegal goods get through customs all the time. To solve the problem you have to prevent their manufacture in the first place, which the target resolution expressly prohibits.

"Not at all, Ambassador. The correct solution, that is to say, the one that does not involve imposing your will upon another state to their detriment, is to repair your clearly pathetic system of border control."

So I assume you search every ship and person with a fine tooth comb before they are permitted to cross your borders? Not even one single pill can make it through? Good god, I can imagine that wait times at your border crossings?

Why isn't slavery considered an "economic ideology"?

OOC:
Name one Ideology which lists Slavery as a central tenet.

Nazism, Stalinism.

Overall I would support, but it seems this may not actually be necessary,

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

"We will support this if it proves necessary, but we do wearily long for the days when this debate might be settled. Is there absolutely no chance of a reasonable accommodation between the two sides?"

~ Katinka von Ausserkundszell
Second Deputy Under-Secretary to the Foreign and Colonial Office

[Tinfect]

Except collectivization was rarely practiced in communist states. I think you are conflating communism with utopia.

"And which States would thouse be, Ambassador? Our predecessor in the Union certainly practiced such with several industries, and I am certain that a number of Member-States have taken similar or greater measures. I believe you are conflating handful of failed states with an ideology."

So I assume you search every ship and person with a fine tooth comb before they are permitted to cross your borders? Not even one single pill can make it through? Good god, I can imagine that wait times at your border crossings?

"Should the Imperium allow foreign vessels to enter our borders, I expect we will take exactly such measures, Ambassador. That your government is unwilling to take appropriate measures to enforce its laws, is your own failure. Utilizing the World Assembly to enforce national law across all Member-States to the detriment of many, is not an acceptable solution."

Nazism, Stalinism.

OOC:
The reduction of undersirables to "sub-human" classes, while reprehensible, is not considering them to be property. Neither is blatant disregard for human life and suffering. Do try again.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Yes, they can export them - and get themselves sued for patent infringement if the nation they're exporting to has a patent system.

It's really not that simple. Yes, they're technically illegal, but no, that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be imported.

Fairburn: Genocide is technically illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it won't occur. Honestly, with this logic, why bother banning anything?

To solve the problem you have to prevent their manufacture in the first place, which the target resolution expressly prohibits.

Fairburn: To solve murder, you have to prevent the murderers from being born. Clearly, we should implement involuntary euthanasia and sterilisation. It's the only logical solution.

OOC: Are the practices of forced euthanasia and sterilisation actually banned by the WA?

Moreover, I'm not sure why you think nations should be permitted to steal patented technology even if they only use it domestically. That's still unfair to the inventor, who isn't being compensated for his work.

Fairburn: If you're referring to counterfeit then in nations which have no patent system, the inventor can always sell their product alongside the counterfeiter. If you're referring to larceny then I'd question what reasonable nation would allow the sale of stolen goods.

[Separatist Peoples]

It's really not that simple. Yes, they're technically illegal, but no, that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be imported.

Fairburn: Genocide is technically illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it won't occur. Honestly, with this logic, why bother banning anything?

"There is a long way between attempting to prevent fueling a black market and throwing our hands up in despair in reference to genocide."

OOC: Are the practices of forced euthanasia and sterilisation actually banned by the WA?

OOC: Yes.

Fairburn: If you're referring to counterfeit then in nations which have no patent system, the inventor can always sell their product alongside the counterfeiter. If you're referring to larceny then I'd question what reasonable nation would allow the sale of stolen goods.

"Because it benefits them to sell stolen work and get away with it! That is perfectly reasonable. It sounds like you're trying to refer to the Reasonable Nation Theory, which only says that an author need not worry about nations acting unreasonably if an absurd interpretation is not actually beneficial to them. It doesn't say that all nations are going to play by traditional notions of fair play. If an inventor has to face unfair competition, then he or she will lose money, and the competitor will be unjustly enriched. Tolerating theft by appealing to competition isn't actually fair, its telling the victim of a crime to "just deal with it", which is appalling."

[Auralia]

Fairburn: Genocide is technically illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it won't occur. Honestly, with this logic, why bother banning anything?

The whole point of this repeal is that the target resolution allows patent theft to be legal in certain member states.

Fairburn: To solve murder, you have to prevent the murderers from being born. Clearly, we should implement involuntary euthanasia and sterilisation. It's the only logical solution.

I'm not even going to bother responding to such an absurd comparison. It should be evident to anyone with a conscience that human beings have more rights than manufactured goods resulting from patent theft.

Fairburn: If you're referring to counterfeit then in nations which have no patent system, the inventor can always sell their product alongside the counterfeiter. If you're referring to larceny then I'd question what reasonable nation would allow the sale of stolen goods.

Patent theft is not quite the same thing as counterfeiting, though it is similar. As Ambassador Bell has said, it's simply not fair to ask a victim of theft to "compete" with the criminal who stole his goods. The same applies to patent theft.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly