NationStates

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:26 am**

Wallenburg wrote:
Auralia wrote: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."

Why not? A nation could selectively declare some patents to be in the public domain but not others.

Wallenburg wrote:
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."

Well, as written, the clause doesn't actually accomplish that goal. It does not say that member states are under no obligation to recognize a patent when there is a resolution that does not permit them to do so. It says that member states are under no obligation to recognize a patent unless there is a resolution that does not permit them to not do so; in other words, unless there is a resolution that requires them to do so. This creates a loophole similar to the public domain one described above.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:35 am**

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

Why not? A nation could selectively declare some patents to be in the public domain but not others.

"I imagine it will have difficulty guessing which inventions are in the process of being granted a WAPS patent with any level of reasonable success. If a member state is capable of doing so, I would be rather impressed."

Wallenburg wrote:"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."

Well, as written, the clause doesn't actually accomplish that goal. It does not say that member states are under no obligation to recognize a patent when there is a resolution that does not permit them to do so. It says that member states are under no obligation to recognize a patent unless there is a resolution that does not permit them to not do so; in other words, unless there is a resolution that requires them to do so. This creates a loophole similar to the public domain one described above.

"That is not a proper reading of the proposal. That clause refers to 'World Assembly resolutions' as a plural, not a singular. Therefore, it refers to the entire body of surviving WA legislation. A proper reading of the clause returns that, if at no point does World Assembly legislation permit member states to disregard patent protections, member states must recognize patents for the relevant inventions."

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:48 am**

Wallenburg wrote:"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."

You're probably thinking of GAR #41: 'Access to Life-Saving Drugs'.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:51 am**

Bears Armed wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"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."

You're probably thinking of GAR #41: 'Access to Life-Saving Drugs'.

There we go. Thank you.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:08 pm**

Auralia wrote:Why not? A nation could selectively declare some patents to be in the public domain but not others.

"That would be a massive civil rights violation in most nations, Ambassador, and goes completely against the purpose of patents, which is to protect the inventor from plagiarism. For their government to put it in the public domain, essentially invalidating it, would seem a betrayal to the inventor who applied for it. For this to be done only to foreign patents would be blatant noncompliance with the proposed legislation in question."

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:11 pm**

OOC:
So, now, hold on a minute, does this still allow Nations without patents to continue operating without them? Because I'm not really seeing anything that would allow for anything of the sort.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:19 pm**

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
So, now, hold on a minute, does this still allow Nations without patents to continue operating without them? Because I'm not really seeing anything that would allow for anything of the sort.

This proposal requires "all patent offices in member nations" to recognize each foreign patent "as if it were its own." The catch is that nothing in this proposal requires nations to establish patent offices. Also, there are no minimum standards for patents; consequently, recognizing a foreign patent as if it were a domestic patent could mean recognizing intellectual property rights for all of two minutes.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:36 am**

Wallenburg wrote:
Auralia wrote:Why not? A nation could selectively declare some patents to be in the public domain but not others.

"I imagine it will have difficulty guessing which inventions are in the process of being granted a WAPS patent with any level of reasonable success. If a member state is capable of doing so, I would be rather impressed."

That's not particularly difficult, given that in most jurisdictions patent applications are published when they are received before any patent is granted. The WAPS may follow similar procedures.

Wallenburg wrote:
Well, as written, the clause doesn't actually accomplish that goal. It does not say that member states are under no obligation to recognize a patent when there is a resolution that does not permit them to do so. It says that member states are under no obligation to recognize a patent unless there is a resolution that does not permit them to not do so; in other words, unless there is a resolution that requires them to do so. This creates a loophole similar to the public domain one described above.

"That is not a proper reading of the proposal. That clause refers to 'World Assembly resolutions' as a plural, not a singular. Therefore, it refers to the entire body of surviving WA legislation. A proper reading of the clause returns that, if at no point does World Assembly legislation permit member states to disregard patent protections, member states must recognize patents for the relevant inventions."

Yes, it is a proper reading. Whether the clause refers to World Assembly resolutions in the plural or the singular is irrelevant. Your clause clearly states that "all patent offices in member nations [must] observe each patent granted by the WAPS as if it were its own...given that previously passed World Assembly resolutions do not permit that member nation not to recognize the patent."

The qualifier "previously passed World Assembly resolutions do not permit that member nation not to recognize the patent" uses an ugly double negative, but it ultimately translates to "previously passed World Assembly resolutions require that member nation to recognize the patent." In other words, the clause only requires a member nation to observe WAPS patents if previously passed World Assembly resolutions require that member nation to recognize the patent. There are no previously passed (active) resolutions requiring member states to recognize patents, so the clause requires nothing of member states.

I understand that this is not what you meant, but it's what you wrote. It's a simple drafting mistake which could have been caught had you not been so quick to submit.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:58 am**

OOC: As this is now at vote, I have voted FOR on my nation with WA membership.
I also see that IA and the raider delegate of Illuminati have provided a stomp for AGAINST.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:33 am**

Lord Dominator wrote:OOC: As this is now at vote, I have voted FOR on my nation with WA membership.
I also see that IA and the raider delegate of Illuminati have provided a stomp for AGAINST.

And Europeia's delegate.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:36 am**

Voted for.

Well, there goes the lemming effect.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:39 am**

I can understand part of this proposition (the part about patents), but what exactly does this mean for each individual nation? Does it mean that we have to keep up with every patent the 200,000+ WA nations give? I mean, I want it protect the individual right of the inventors, but each nation giving a patent makes less sense than if the WAPS issued patents.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:50 am**

Auralia wrote:Yes, it is a proper reading. Whether the clause refers to World Assembly resolutions in the plural or the singular is irrelevant. Your clause clearly states that "all patent offices in member nations [must] observe each patent granted by the WAPS as if it were its own...given that previously passed World Assembly resolutions do not permit that member nation not to recognize the patent."

"If you are going to argue semantics, you're going to have to go all the way. You can't pick and choose which details to look at."

The qualifier "previously passed World Assembly resolutions do not permit that member nation not to recognize the patent" uses an ugly double negative, but it ultimately translates to "previously passed World Assembly resolutions require that member nation to recognize the patent." In other words, the clause only requires a member nation to observe WAPS patents if previously passed World Assembly resolutions require that member nation to recognize the patent. There are no previously passed (active) resolutions requiring member states to recognize patents, so the clause requires nothing of member states.

I understand that this is not what you meant, but it's what you wrote. It's a simple drafting mistake which could have been caught had you not been so quick to submit.

"I am sorry that you cannot read this clause correctly. I really am. Perhaps the universal translators are not properly translating the Wallenburgian copy into your language?"

"Oh, and this is now at vote."

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:54 am**

"Forbids member nations from granting or recognizing patents for illegal inventions"

Without a clear definition of illegal inventions, Elwher cannot vote for this resolution.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:04 pm**

Elwher wrote:"Forbids member nations from granting or recognizing patents for illegal inventions"

Without a clear definition of illegal inventions, Elwher cannot vote for this resolution.

"Illegal means illegal. Against the law. In contravention of national and international legislation."

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:27 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:
Elwher wrote:"Forbids member nations from granting or recognizing patents for illegal inventions"

Without a clear definition of illegal inventions, Elwher cannot vote for this resolution.

"Illegal means illegal. Against the law. In contravention of national and international legislation."

I believe the point is that what defines an invention as illegal is ambiguous. There should be a clear outline of what inventions/types of invention would be considered illegal. At this point, it is far too open to interpretation in my opinion.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:32 pm**

Omicron Persei v111 wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"Illegal means illegal. Against the law. In contravention of national and international legislation."

I believe the point is that what defines an invention as illegal is ambiguous. There should be a clear outline of what inventions/types of invention would be considered illegal. At this point, it is far too open to interpretation in my opinion.

"The whole point of that clause is to prohibit patents at the national level on that which is illegal according to World Assembly resolutions, or national laws. It is not meant to be specific, it is meant to be common sense. Illegal things ought not to be protected through patents."

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:07 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:
Omicron Persei v111 wrote:
I believe the point is that what defines an invention as illegal is ambiguous. There should be a clear outline of what inventions/types of invention would be considered illegal. At this point, it is far too open to interpretation in my opinion.

"The whole point of that clause is to prohibit patents at the national level on that which is illegal according to World Assembly resolutions, or national laws. It is not meant to be specific, it is meant to be common sense. Illegal things ought not to be protected through patents."

IF one nation finds something illegal but not another, what happens? Then every nation would have to take into account every other nations laws. Otherwise, the patent idea is arbitrary.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:35 pm**

New Jaedonstan wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"The whole point of that clause is to prohibit patents at the national level on that which is illegal according to World Assembly resolutions, or national laws. It is not meant to be specific, it is meant to be common sense. Illegal things ought not to be protected through patents."

IF one nation finds something illegal but not another, what happens? Then every nation would have to take into account every other nations laws. Otherwise, the patent idea is arbitrary.

"If national law differs, then patents may be granted to those entities that patent inventions legal in their native nations. Other nations must comply with those patents, but may still criminalize ownership, production, and/or use of such inventions within their borders."

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:38 pm**

We need to come together at the world assembly to talk about dossiers.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:07 pm**

This is EXACTLY the scenario the delegate from Crito warned you fools about!

Now we have severed the previous law that, at the very least, gave us guidelines for dealing with international patent protection, and now the replacement is going down in flames because, it its supreme arrogance, the World Assembly once again strikes at national sovereignty!

Now we will be in, and will persist in, a situation where NO agreement exists and absolute anarchy and pandemonium ensues over patent protections. Good for my little nation, perhaps, but terrible for the World economy at large.

You can't say I didn't tell you so.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:16 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:
New Jaedonstan wrote:IF one nation finds something illegal but not another, what happens? Then every nation would have to take into account every other nations laws. Otherwise, the patent idea is arbitrary.

"If national law differs, then patents may be granted to those entities that patent inventions legal in their native nations. Other nations must comply with those patents, but may still criminalize ownership, production, and/or use of such inventions within their borders."

Then why not let the nations figure their own differences about patents instead of requiring them for all WA nations. I mean, I get the idea, but why make a bunch of rules and regs if you can simply say figure it out yourselves?

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:26 pm**

from the desk of Premier Maxime de Vos

"To the most esteemed World Assembly congregation:

"In the interest of the people, the People's Federated Commonwealth of Ankuran has decided to vote AGAINST the Foreign Patent Protection Act, for reasons including but not limited to the increased incentive for intellectual and corporate espionage; the enabling of international oligopolies and/or monopolies; and the potential for increased control over foreign nations through both state and private industries.

"By making illegal the trade of goods with nations in violation of WAPS patents, the FPPA attempts to force member nations to adopt an international patent system regardless of national sovereignty. The FPPA then continues to reward member nations for swift invention with the right to control portions--possibly unreasonably large portions, at that--of foreign economies through the leveraging of World Assembly authority, which seems likely to facilitate a great increase in corporate espionage and intellectual theft in order to accomplish these goals. Ultimately, the FPPA, while no doubt brought before this congregation with the purest intentions, appears to do little more than combine the evils of a patent system with the evils of a market devoid of oversight--not necessarily a free market, mind, as an economy can be nominally under control of government forces but lack any drive or ability to properly oversee that market--to allow the wealthiest, most ruthless of member nations to gain an unfair advantage over less fortunate or competing nations.

"In the interest of the people, Ankuran stands AGAINST this resolution."

M. de Vos
Premier of the People's Federated Commonwealth of Ankuran

dictated but not read

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:44 pm**

WA Ambassador Powell saunters in.

"So, why are so many nations against this proposal? I abstained for now. And did I hear somebody call somebody a fool?"

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:53 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:
New Jaedonstan wrote:IF one nation finds something illegal but not another, what happens? Then every nation would have to take into account every other nations laws. Otherwise, the patent idea is arbitrary.

"If national law differs, then patents may be granted to those entities that patent inventions legal in their native nations. Other nations must comply with those patents, but may still criminalize ownership, production, and/or use of such inventions within their borders."

That response is hard to understand. "... patents may be granted to those entities that patent inventions legal in their native nations." ... What?

I imagine that you are trying to say, simply: "... patents may be granted to those entities, whose inventions are patented legally in their native nations." So working from that...

That second part of the rule, is redundant. "Other nations must comply with those patents." Ok, I understand. But why would I want to when I can, and I quote. "... criminalize ownership, production, and/or use of such inventions within [my] borders". Right. So in this statement, I now have the power to tell a foreign patent holder: "Don't worry, I can't take away your patient. But if you try anything with your invention/creation/etc. within my nation, then I can make your life a living hell." The idea of this world assembly proposal was to protect the creator from patent abuse from foreign nations right? So why allow nations to bully foreign creators from ever making their creations? I really want to vote for the "patent protection act", but with the ambiguity I can't agree to this.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Foreign Patent Protection Act

Better idea/ confusion

dossiers

I was right!