[DEFEATED] Foreign Patent Protection Act

[Wallenburg]

"It would seem that the majority of member states support the current repeal of my Foreign Patent Act. While I am sure the lemming effect has heavily contributed to its demise, I have drafted this proposal as a response to the concerns raised in the repeal."

Foreign Patent Protection Act

---

Category: Free Trade || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the need for international standards on intellectual property, particularly with regard to patents,

Aware of concerns that previous patent law has failed to properly address this difficult topic,

Believing that this Assembly should not punish member states on the basis of their economic ideologies,

Revering the principles of national sovereignty, and the right of nations to their own economic philosophies and ideologies,

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
   • "patent" as an official government statement granting an entity the legal right to exclude others from producing or generating profit with a particular invention,
   • "invention" as a process, good, device, or technology created by an entity,
2. Forbids member nations from granting or recognizing patents for illegal inventions, or for any form of sapient life, as it is not very nice to treat people as property,
   
   
3. Prohibits member states and inhabitants of member states from importing from or exporting to other member states goods produced in violation of any rights granted by a WAPS patent,
   
   
4. Restores the powers and duties of the World Assembly Patent Service (WAPS), among these being:
   • To consider claims by entities originating from one or more member states, and to grant patents accordingly,
   • To archive all patents granted by member states or itself, and to make the WAPS archives public to all member states and their citizens for future reference, or to get lost in aisle after aisle of paperwork,
   • To evaluate the unique characteristics of member states' economies, demographics, and societies in order to determine and set unbiased and appropriate expiration dates in each member nation on a case-by-case basis for patents granted by the WAPS, and
   • To hear challenges made by other entities in member states to patents issued by the WAPS, and to investigate and rule on them accordingly,
5. Specifies that the WAPS may only grant patents to entities from member states if:
   • The entity holds a valid patent granted by the member nation it originates from for the same invention the entity seeks to patent via the WAPS,
   • The WAPS has not already granted a patent on the invention the entity seeks to claim as its intellectual property,
   • The entity demonstrates full responsibility for the development of the invention, an inventive step in developing it beyond merely observing or analyzing an already existing invention, and reasonable novelty and uniqueness of the invention in the member nation from which the entity originates, and
   • The request meets any other basic formatting standards set by the WAPS in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the entity's patent request,
6. Mandates that all patent offices in member nations observe each patent granted by the WAPS as if it were its own, given that:
   • The patented invention is neither illegal, nor obsolete, nor in the public domain in that member nation at the time the inventive entity receives the patent,
   • The patented invention is of practical, commercial, or industrial use in that nation,
   • The patent holder has demonstrated intent to exercise its patent in that nation, and
   • Previously passed World Assembly resolutions do not permit that member nation not to recognize the patent.

Foreign Patent Protection Act

---

Category: Free Trade || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the need for international standards on intellectual property, particularly with regard to patents,

Aware of concerns that previous patent law has failed to properly address this difficult topic,

Believing that this Assembly should not punish member states on the basis of their economic ideologies,

Revering the principles of national sovereignty, and the right of nations to their own economic philosophies and ideologies,

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
   • "patent" as an official government statement granting an entity the legal right to exclude others from producing or generating profit with a particular invention,
   • "invention" as a process, good, device, or technology created by an entity,
2. Forbids member nations from granting or recognizing patents for illegal inventions, or for any form of sapient life, as it is not very nice to treat people as property,
   
   
3. Prohibits all member states and inhabitants of member states from asserting intellectual property beyond their own borders, and from trading goods produced with inventions patented under the WAPSimporting from or exporting to other member states goods produced in violation of any rights granted by a WAPS patent,
   
   
4. Restores the powers and duties of the World Assembly Patent Service (WAPS), among these being:
   • To consider claims by entities originating from one or more member states, and to grant patents accordingly,
   • To archive all patents granted by member states or itself, and to make the WAPS archives public to all member states and their citizens for future reference, or to get lost in aisle after aisle of paperwork,
   • To evaluate the unique characteristics of member states' economies, demographics, and societies in order to determine and set unbiased and appropriate expiration dates in each member nation on a case-by-case basis for patents granted by the WAPS, and
   • To hear challenges made by other entities in member states to patents issued by the WAPS, and to investigate and rule on them accordingly,
5. Specifies that the WAPS may only grant patents to entities from member states if:
   • The entity holds a valid patent granted by the member nation it originates from for the same invention the entity seeks to patent via the WAPS,
   • The WAPS has not already granted a patent on the invention the entity seeks to claim as its intellectual property,
   • The entity demonstrates full responsibility for the development of the invention, an inventive step in developing it beyond merely observing or analyzing an already existing invention, and reasonable novelty and uniqueness of the invention in the member nation from which the entity originates, and
   • The request meets any other basic formatting standards set by the WAPS in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the entity's patent request,
6. Mandates that all patent offices in member nations observe each patent granted by the WAPS as if it were its own, given that:
   • The patented invention is neither illegal, nor obsolete, nor in the public domain in that member nation at the time the inventive entity receives the patent,
   • The patented invention is of practical, commercial, or industrial use in that nation,
   • The patent holder has demonstrated intent to exercise its patent in that nation, and
   • Previously passed World Assembly resolutions do not permit that member nation not to recognize the patent.

Foreign Patent Protection Act

---

Category: Free Trade || Strength: Mild || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the need for international standards on intellectual property, particularly with regard to patents,

Aware of concerns that previous patent law has failed to properly address this difficult topic,

Believing that this Assembly should not punish member states on the basis of their economic ideologies,

Revering the principles of national sovereignty, and the right of nations to their own economic philosophies and ideologies,

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
   • "patent" as an official government statement granting an entity the legal right to exclude others from producing or generating profit with a particular invention,
   • "invention" as a process, good, device, or technology created by an entity,
2. Forbids member nations from granting or recognizing patents for illegal inventions, or for any form of sapient life, as it is not very nice to treat people as property,
   
   
3. Prohibits all member states without patent systems from asserting intellectual property beyond their own borders, and from trading goods produced with inventions patented under the WAPS,
   
   
4. Restores the powers and duties of the World Assembly Patent Service (WAPS), among these being:
   • To consider claims by entities originating from one or more member states, and to grant patents accordingly,
   • To archive all patents granted by member states or itself, and to make the WAPS archives public to all member states and their citizens for future reference, or to get lost in aisle after aisle of paperwork,
   • To evaluate the unique characteristics of member states' economies, demographics, and societies in order to determine and set unbiased and appropriate expiration dates in each member nation on a case-by-case basis for patents granted by the WAPS, and
   • To hear counterclaimschallenges made by other entities in member states to patents issued by the WAPS, and to investigate them accordingly,
5. Specifies that the WAPS may only grant patents to entities from member states if:
   • The entity holds a valid patent granted by the member nation it originates from for the same invention the entity seeks to patent via the WAPS,
   • The WAPS has not already granted a patent on the invention the entity seeks to claim as its intellectual property,
   • The entity demonstrates full responsibility for the development of the invention, an inventive step in developing it beyond merely observing or analyzing an already existing invention, and reasonable novelty and uniqueness of the invention in the member nation from which the entity originates, and
   • The request meets any other basic formatting standards set by the WAPS in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the entity's patent request,
6. Mandates that all member states with patent systemspatent offices in member nations observe alleach patents granted by the WAPS if as if it were its own, given that:
   • The patented invention is neither illegal, nor obsolete, nor in the public domain in that member nation at the time the inventive entity receives the patent,
   • The patented invention is of practical, commercial, or industrial use in that nation,
   • The patent holder has demonstrated intent to exercise its patent in that nation, and
   • Previously passed World Assembly resolutions do not permit that member nation not to recognize the patent.

[Araraukar]

At a quick reading (OOC: sorry, busy day ahead) this would seem to not force nations with patenting systems to recognize WA patents on things that have already been patented within their nation, which is good. But it would also seem to force nations without patent systems to adopt one to be able to comply (process and enforce WA patents), which is less desirable. It is vastly preferable to the Auralian attempts, of course, but still not ideal. This topic would perhaps benefit from one of those resolutions that are called blockers, instead, leaving the majority of the issue in the hands of the individual member nations.

Especially "The patent holder has demonstrated intent to exercise its patent in that nation" is troubling, since, to use the Imperium of Tinfect as an example of a nation that refuses to deal with foreign nations outside of diplomacy and military, someone seeking a patent may very well want to "exercise its patent" in a nation by, for example, manufacturing and selling their product, but not be allowed to, say, enter the nation with the goods to sell them. In such a case, must a nation still recognize the patent?

[Wallenburg]

At a quick reading (OOC: sorry, busy day ahead) this would seem to not force nations with patenting systems to recognize WA patents on things that have already been patented within their nation, which is good. But it would also seem to force nations without patent systems to adopt one to be able to comply (process and enforce WA patents), which is less desirable. It is vastly preferable to the Auralian attempts, of course, but still not ideal.

"Could you refer to the exact clause that concerns you? I cannot find any part of the text mandating that members without patent systems enforce WAPS patents."

This topic would perhaps benefit from one of those resolutions that are called blockers, instead, leaving the majority of the issue in the hands of the individual member nations.

"I'm afraid that would not work very well. Leaving nations to settle this question may lead to nations treating the intellectual property of foreigners as bargaining chips. While I'm sure many more aggressive states would appreciate that extra tool in their arsenal, I do not think it is appropriate or fair to the inventor."

Especially "The patent holder has demonstrated intent to exercise its patent in that nation" is troubling, since, to use the Imperium of Tinfect as an example of a nation that refuses to deal with foreign nations outside of diplomacy and military, someone seeking a patent may very well want to "exercise its patent" in a nation by, for example, manufacturing and selling their product, but not be allowed to, say, enter the nation with the goods to sell them. In such a case, must a nation still recognize the patent?

"In such a case, I would still desire that the member state recognize the patent. They have no problem with the concept of intellectual property, and are perfectly content to protect their own inventions with patents. That they refuse to trade with other nations is not sufficient excuse to commit patent infringement."

[Christian Democrats]

Mandates that all member states with patent systems observe all patents granted by the WAPS

How does this clause not violate the Optionality Rule?

Proposals, upon becoming resolutions are mandatory and binding on all nations, thus language used must reflect this. Any language permitting nations to engage in non-compliance or opt-out are disallowed.

[Wallenburg]

Mandates that all member states with patent systems observe all patents granted by the WAPS

How does this clause not violate the Optionality Rule?

Proposals, upon becoming resolutions are mandatory and binding on all nations, thus language used must reflect this. Any language permitting nations to engage in non-compliance or opt-out are disallowed.

Ogenbond opens a folder labeled "Foreign Patent Act" and flips through some transcripts. He finds the desired passage and reads it aloud.

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

Ogenbond continues, "As it is, there are several clauses that mandate certain behavior by nations without patent systems. They cannot by any stretch of the imagination 'opt-out' of those."

[Christian Democrats]

How does this clause not violate the Optionality Rule?

Proposals, upon becoming resolutions are mandatory and binding on all nations, thus language used must reflect this. Any language permitting nations to engage in non-compliance or opt-out are disallowed.

Ogenbond opens a folder labeled "Foreign Patent Act" and flips through some transcripts. He finds the desired passage and reads it aloud.

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

All of the operative clauses of Crime and Punishment are stated in general language -- applicable to all member states. Crime and Punishment sets a lower limit for criminal punishments, by which all nations must abide and below which no nations may fall.

As far as I can tell, this proposal would require only certain nations to respect intellectual property rights, allowing other nations with illiberal "economic philosophies and ideologies" to ignore its protections.

By analogy, let's imagine that a delegation authored a proposal requiring all nations without state churches to respect freedom of religion. Would such a proposal be "mandatory and binding on all nations," or would it be class legislation banned by the Optionality Rule?

[Wallenburg]

Ogenbond opens a folder labeled "Foreign Patent Act" and flips through some transcripts. He finds the desired passage and reads it aloud.

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

All of the operative clauses of Crime and Punishment are stated in general language -- applicable to all member states. Crime and Punishment sets a lower limit for criminal punishments, by which all nations must abide and below which no nations may fall.

As far as I can tell, this proposal would require only certain nations to respect intellectual property rights, allowing other nations with illiberal "economic philosophies and ideologies" to ignore its protections.

By analogy, let's imagine that a delegation authored a proposal requiring all nations without state churches to respect freedom of religion. Would such a proposal be "mandatory and binding on all nations," or would it be class legislation banned by the Optionality Rule?

"You fail to understand the exact nature of my analogy. Whether or not a nation has a state religion, it is still capable of respecting freedom of religion. However, a nation without capital punishment cannot regulate execution as Crime and Punishment is clearly meant to mandate. Similarly, a nation without a patent system cannot recognize patents by the nature of its government. Now, I'm sure I could tweak the wording so that it would be a non-issue, but I don't see an optionality issue with this, much more readable version. As another point, I really think you should read clauses two and three. You focus on one clause and act as if that single clause makes the entire proposal optional. It does not."

[Christian Democrats]

Whether or not a nation has a state religion, it is still capable of respecting freedom of religion.

I completely agree with this criterion: capability.

For example, a resolution that would require all elections to be free and fair would be logically applicable only to nations with elections.

However, a nation without capital punishment cannot regulate execution as Crime and Punishment is clearly meant to mandate.

I agree. A nation without capital punishment is not logically capable of making its executions humane.

Similarly, a nation without a patent system cannot recognize patents by the nature of its government.

I disagree. A nation that does not grant patents is still capable of recognizing patents granted by the World Assembly.

[Wallenburg]

Similarly, a nation without a patent system cannot recognize patents by the nature of its government.

I disagree. A nation that does not grant patents is still capable of recognizing patents granted by the World Assembly.

"You may as well say that a nation without electricity is capable of running televisions in every home. Nevertheless, I have changed the wording of this clause."

[Auralia]

Prohibits all member states without patent systems from asserting intellectual property beyond their own borders, and from trading goods produced with inventions patented under the WAPS,

A few questions about this clause:

• Are you trying to prohibit member states without patent systems from asserting any intellectual property beyond their borders, or just patents?
• Are you trying to prohibit entities within member states without patent systems from trading infringing goods, or just the member states themselves, or both?
• Are you trying to prohibit the trade of infringing goods, or goods produced using infringing goods, or both?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

Prohibits all member states without patent systems from asserting intellectual property beyond their own borders, and from trading goods produced with inventions patented under the WAPS,

A few questions about this clause:

• Are you trying to prohibit member states without patent systems from asserting any intellectual property beyond their borders, or just patents?

"Currently, any claims of intellectual property would be affected, but looking back at it, it would probably make sense to stay within the realm of patents."

• Are you trying to prohibit entities within member states without patent systems from trading infringing goods, or just the member states themselves, or both?

"Both. I'll fix that. Wording is a little difficult there."

• Are you trying to prohibit the trade of infringing goods, or goods produced using infringing goods, or both?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"Both."

[Christian Democrats]

Section 6 appears to be legal now, but I have similar concerns about Section 3. It applies only to "member states without patent systems."

[Wallenburg]

Section 6 appears to be legal now, but I have similar concerns about Section 3. It applies only to "member states without patent systems."

OOC: Curious. I thought I had already dealt with that. The wonders of being ill and trying to edit the replacement draft you only just dusted off.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

OOC; Not sure if it helps but I am willing to share with you the proposed language I was trying to get Auralia to add to their resolution. It might clear up the optionality of 3 & 6. Hopefully does functionally the same thing. You can replace WAPO with WAPS since I didn't take the time to edit it out. Also could include your conditions under 5 a as i-iv

(replacing 3&6)
5. Requires that WA member states;
(a) recognizing or issuing patents within their own jurisdictions, shall be admitted to the WAPS and must recognize the exclusive rights associated with WAPS patents for at least the duration of rights set by the WAPS so long as;
-(i)
(b) lacking patenting systems or concepts, shall be prohibited from gaining access to WAPO archives and facilities, or acquiring WAPS documents, prototypes, or other proofs of concept, for at least the duration or rights set by WAPS;
(c) abolishing their patent systems, must surrender their rights to WAPS patents prior to the abolishment, and thereafter be prohibited from making available the WAPS patents, materials, documents, and prototypes of other WAPS patent holders, for at least the duration of rights set by the WAPS;
[hr]
(After 5 )
6. Prohibits the import or export of patented goods in violation of an extant WAPS patent, into or from member states recognizing WAPS patents;
(After 6 )
7. Clarifies that no clause herein shall be read as to mandate a preference by the WA for or against any patent recognizing systems, or lack thereof, nor shall any WA mandate be undertaken to assume or institute the existence or lack thereof of a patent recognizing system within any member state.

[Wallenburg]

Edits have been made to clause 3.

[Aclion]

I will give this a more through read later but I'm glad to see a draft that both protects nations with patents from infringing imports from other WA nations while still leaving room for nations that do not have patents.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

Edits have been made to clause 3.

A Meridian: We are concerned that this draft also seeks to place on member states, even those lacking regintion of intellectual property, the responsibility to enforce those protections -- if only at the border. We are thankful the author is taking steps to resolve the issues with the original draft and look forward to continuing to see such improvements.

[Auralia]

There are still numerous problems with this proposal:

• Member states without patent systems are still free to export infringing goods to non-member states. This will make it more difficult for the original inventor to market his invention outside the World Assembly. This also allows member states without patent systems to use non-member states as a relay to export infringing goods to member states.
• This proposal essentially declares that, in member states without patent systems, an extraordinarily large class of goods is legal to produce but illegal to export. I find it difficult to believe that border security in these member states will actually be able to stop the flood of attempted illegal exports of lawfully manufactured goods that will ensue, especially given that it would be in their economic interest not to do so. It would be much easier and safer to simply cut off production of infringing goods at the source by actually recognizing the patent.
• To the extent that member states without patent systems do make an effort to prevent the illegal export of patented goods, they will incur a significant burden on border security for little benefit. In essence, they experience the disadvantages associated with patent recognition without any of the advantages. Why would any member state opt for such an approach? Wouldn't it make more sense at this point simply to recognize the patent?
• 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.

In summary, the arguments we made in our repeal of the author's previous patent resolution apply equally strongly to this proposal. This proposal still uses an opt-out system for patent recognition, and it still enables intellectual property theft. Unsurprisingly, we oppose it in favour of our own.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

[*]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.[/list]

A Meridian: Why should they be compensated in jurisdictions where no such other compensation exists for native inventors? This is a colonist argument and highly biased toward your states view of property. Further it places the GA in the place of favoring the large established multinational entities over these property-lacking states and their citizens. It is clear that Auralian government position on such issues may be bought to enable their benefactors to run roughshod over such nations. As I asked in the debate of your resolution: is it not enough for your inventors to be able to compete fairly in markets recognizing such protection, that you seek to have some universal claim to the right? Or do they get some thrill with being in the position of imposing the idea of property into other nations?

[Wallenburg]

There are still numerous problems with this proposal:

• Member states without patent systems are still free to export infringing goods to non-member states. This will make it more difficult for the original inventor to market his invention outside the World Assembly.

"And? WAPS patents do not apply to non-member states. If non-member states have an issue with nations without patent systems, they can deal with it themselves. If member states have an issue with other member states trading with non-members, they can deal with it themselves."

This also allows member states without patent systems to use non-member states as a relay to export infringing goods to member states.

"This can be amended."

• This proposal essentially declares that, in member states without patent systems, an extraordinarily large class of goods is legal to produce but illegal to export. I find it difficult to believe that border security in these member states will actually be able to stop the flood of attempted illegal exports of lawfully manufactured goods that will ensue, especially given that it would be in their economic interest not to do so. It would be much easier and safer to simply cut off production of infringing goods at the source by actually recognizing the patent.

"This proposal is built specifically to separate the right of member states to have or not have patent systems from the question of international patent law. If you want to deny member states their economic ideology, you can do that yourself in your own separate proposal by forcing patent systems on all member nations. I am not going to use this proposal to carry out your policy goals."

• To the extent that member states without patent systems do make an effort to prevent the illegal export of patented goods, they will incur a significant burden on border security for little benefit. In essence, they experience the disadvantages associated with patent recognition without any of the advantages. Why would any member state opt for such an approach? Wouldn't it make more sense at this point simply to recognize the patent?

"By your logic, then, there is no issue, because any reasonable nation would have a patent system."

• 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.

"And? Why would I have inventors compensated for use of their ideas in nations that do not recognize those ideas as private property? Why would I give foreign inventors highly preferential treatment to native inventors?"

In summary, the arguments we made in our repeal of the author's previous patent resolution apply equally strongly to this proposal. This proposal still uses an opt-out system for patent recognition, and it still enables intellectual property theft. Unsurprisingly, we oppose it in favour of our own.

"Ambassador, that is bullshit and you know it. There is no opt-out system in here whatsoever. All member states must comply in full with the mandates of all clauses. The law applies equally and no member state is allowed preferential treatment, or a way to 'opt out' of any of their responsibilities. Furthermore, I hardly see how restricting the flow of goods in violation of internationally recognized patents, and demanding compliance with international patents from all national patent offices 'enables intellectual property theft'. Either you have severely misinterpreted this proposal, or you consider any legislation on this subject that does not conform perfectly to your preferences to 'enable intellectual property theft'.

"Either way, I very clearly have addressed the concerns of the repeal, removing even what little could be interpreted as some sort of opt-out system, removing the clause recognizing nations' right to their economic ideology, and providing a system by which litigators may make claims against WAPS patents. If this does not satisfy you, nothing will."

[Araraukar]

OOC: For fairness's sake going to make you answer this hypothetical situation as well:

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 things like 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?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: For fairness's sake going to make you answer this hypothetical situation as well:

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 things like 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?

OOC: This question appears to revolve mostly around clause six. Let me attempt to answer this as clearly as possible.

For nation A, the patent would not be observed for several reasons. First, it has no patent system, so there are no patent offices to recognize the patent. Second, the patent is probably not "of practical, commercial, or industrial use" in nation A. Third, I doubt that the patent holder would have any interest in using a patent for artificial gravity in a nation that doesn't even know what that means.

For nation B, the patent probably would be observed. While the patent holder might not desire to exercise its patent in nation B, nation B has at least one patent office, and most likely would find artificial gravity of great use in many ways. The patent would expire in nation B after 10 years, considering that is how long domestically granted patents last.

For nation D, the patent would not be observed. First, there are no patent offices to observe the patent. Second, either they are a "magic tech" nation, and therefore probably have some form of levitation or whatever you want that allows for control of gravity beyond mechanical means, or they are an extremely advanced FT nation, and so artificial gravity technology may very well be in the public domain or even obsolete.

[Auralia]

Mandates that all patent offices in member nations observe each patent granted by the WAPS as if it were its own, given that:

• The patented invention is neither illegal, nor obsolete, nor in the public domain in that member nation at the time the inventive entity receives the patent,
• The patented invention is of practical, commercial, or industrial use in that nation,
• The patent holder has demonstrated intent to exercise its patent in that nation, and
• Previously passed World Assembly resolutions do not permit that member nation not to recognize the patent.

Couple of additional questions:

• What's preventing a member state from simply declaring all patents it doesn't want to recognize to be in the "public domain"?
• Member states are only required to recognize WAPS patents if a "previously passed World Assembly resolution[] [does] not permit that member nation not to recognize the patent"? What does that mean?

Martin Russell
Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

OOC: Also, rather quick to submit, aren't we? I know you probably wanted to beat me to the punch, but I'm not so sure you've worked out all the kinks in your draft yet...

[Wallenburg]

Couple of additional questions:

• What's preventing a member state from simply declaring all patents it doesn't want to recognize to be in the "public domain"?

"Among other things, the considerable outrage it would cause domestically, as inhabitants would not be able to protect their intellectual property either."

• Member states are only required to recognize WAPS patents if a "previously passed World Assembly resolution[] [does] not permit that member nation not to recognize the patent"? What does that mean?

"There is a resolution whose name escapes me at the moment that permits member states to disregard patents for life-saving medications under extreme circumstances. This subclause makes sure that the proposal is not illegal for contradiction."

OOC: Also, rather quick to submit, aren't we? I know you probably wanted to beat me to the punch, but I'm not so sure you've worked out all the kinks in your draft yet...

OOC: This is how I work with all my proposals. You would also be surprised at how long this has been in the works. Foreign Patent Act won by only a slim margin, so I knew it was going to be repealed sooner or later.