[DEFEATED] Foreign Patent Protection Act

[Wallenburg]

"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.

"I hardly see how it is 'bullying' to apply the law equally to foreigners and native inhabitants alike. Why should foreigners be able to sell out in the open what citizens only can sell on the black market?"

[New Dukaine]

Woah, that lemming effect.

I am firmly against this, not just because of the lemming, just because this seems worse thank Foreign Patent Act.

[Wallenburg]

Woah, that lemming effect.

I am firmly against this, not just because of the lemming, just because this seems worse thank Foreign Patent Act.

"Oh, it most certainly is, Ambassador. But it is what the voters asked for."

[Skymoot]

"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.

"I hardly see how it is 'bullying' to apply the law equally to foreigners and native inhabitants alike. Why should foreigners be able to sell out in the open what citizens only can sell on the black market?"

Because the other nations patent laws say they can.

Going from your previous comments on the law, where nations must default to the patents of the native nation during 'confusion'... If the native nation offers a patent, that says they can sell anywhere, regardless of another nations laws/rights/etc. (say out of spite, or through some loophole in the WA's endless laws.) Then what's to stop that person from selling in the open, unless the other nation resorts to extreme measures to stop the patent?

The previous patent protections were abolished for the same reasons that this potential patent protection cannot succeed. It has ambiguity and allows for foreign nations to 'bully' other inventors away for little to no reason. Meaning that we repealed a law, to institute a law that has the same thing that we got rid of the old law for. You sir have made redundant what was once the status quo.

I really appreciate you vouching for the collective artistic and scientific world by offering patent protections against loopholes. It's a great cause and don't give up on it. But with this redundancy, Skymoot cannot vote for this proposal.

[Wallenburg]

"I hardly see how it is 'bullying' to apply the law equally to foreigners and native inhabitants alike. Why should foreigners be able to sell out in the open what citizens only can sell on the black market?"

Because the other nations patent laws say they can.

"That's not how patents work."

Going from your previous comments on the law, where nations must default to the patents of the native nation during 'confusion'... If the native nation offers a patent, that says they can sell anywhere, regardless of another nations laws/rights/etc. (say out of spite, or through some loophole in the WA's endless laws.) Then what's to stop that person from selling in the open, unless the other nation resorts to extreme measures to stop the patent?

"I don't understand what you are saying. The resolution does not say that native patents take precedence. And patents do not grant their holders the right to sell the patented invention."

The previous patent protections were abolished for the same reasons that this potential patent protection cannot succeed. It has ambiguity and allows for foreign nations to 'bully' other inventors away for little to no reason. Meaning that we repealed a law, to institute a law that has the same thing that we got rid of the old law for. You sir have made redundant what was once the status quo.

"You still haven't explained how equal treatment of native and foreign inventors under the law is bullying."

I really appreciate you vouching for the collective artistic and scientific world by offering patent protections against loopholes. It's a great cause and don't give up on it. But with this redundancy, Skymoot cannot vote for this proposal.

"Now your problem is that my clauses are redundant? I thought you said the problem was that they were ambiguous."

[Tinfect]

Because the other nations patent laws say they can.

Patent Laws are not equivalent to Free Trade laws.

[Skymoot]

Apologies here, I'm going to shorten the quotes so it isn't a wall of text for you.

"That's not how patents work. I don't understand what you are saying. The resolution does not say that native patents take precedence. And patents do not grant their holders the right to sell the patented invention. You still haven't explained how equal treatment of native and foreign inventors under the law is bullying. Now your problem is that my clauses are redundant? I thought you said the problem was that they were ambiguous."

I argue, with my previous statements, that the WA proposal allows the 'bullying' by passive means. I look to the first bulleted section of the fifth listed part of the WAPS service("Specifies that the WAPS may only grant patents to entities from member states if..."), under the proposed legislation:
"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"

This proposal does not tell the member nations what their national, not international , patents can or cannot do in relation to other nations. Without violating any WA regulation, a nation may define their national patents as "an official government statement granting an entity the legal right to exclude others from producing, generating profit, etc. and to allow the patent holder rights to produce the patented invention/creation/etc. regardless of geographical or international location." Now to logical and law abiding nations like ourselves, this sounds stupid. But to a nation that wishes to control another nations exports and imports of goods and services, this is easy to do and beneficial. One nation can give out many "patents" to many "inventors" of their "inventions", which could be anything from environmentally damaging machines to weapons of mass destruction.

But the WA proposal says that's wrong! ... not really. The WAPS can only accept patents that meet the criteria that this proposal sets out. Any other patent proposal is ignored. The WA can't tell individual nations, via this proposal, what should be defined as a patent in their home nations. It can only enforce patents that have met the criteria of the WAPS. Even the provided definition of "patent" can be ignored if this proposal is ignored/turned down. Quote from proposal: "Revering the principles of national sovereignty, and the right of nations to their own economic philosophies and ideologies."

So by this logic, the WA turns a blind eye to making a nations proposal into a WA approved patent. Meaning that the patent then defaults to the earlier statement, that two nations will default to the native nations patent. AND... since that native patent states that a owner of the patent can produce their product/service/etc. in any territory or geo-political location, then that's incentive to counteract another nations laws, regulations, and sovereignty. To counter this, the other nation needs to 'bully' the patent holder away via "raising hell", as I repeat my stated opinion.

This is why the proposal is ambiguous. What will the WA proposal, this proposal only and any WA passed laws prior to this, do to prevent this from occurring? From what I'm clearly able to show, they (the WA) can't do anything to stop this from occurring unless they "adopt" the patent that the nation sent, which only solidifies the patent that infringes on the economics and laws of other nations.

That's why I can't vote for it, and I can't endorse this proposal.

[Skymoot]

Because the other nations patent laws say they can.

Patent Laws are not equivalent to Free Trade laws.

They are not equivalent to Free Trade Laws normally. I worry that another nation can sneak in regulations, laws, statements, etc. that can override the laws of other places. I made this massive statement earlier in the forum, and you can read it if you want (I'm not gonna repeat it here, because good God that was long lol. )

[The Atlae Isles]

Patent Laws are not equivalent to Free Trade laws.

They are not equivalent to Free Trade Laws normally. I worry that another nation can sneak in regulations, laws, statements, etc. that can override the laws of other places. I made this massive statement earlier in the forum, and you can read it if you want (I'm not gonna repeat it here, because good God that was long lol. )

Trade agreements between nations are not normally touched upon by the WA.

[Bakhton]

"The Supreme Court of Bakhton does not believe 'this issue is necessary or warranted by any other interests than those wishing to financially benefit from the passage of the resolution, herein referenced, nor think it proper to legislate in a manner as to override innumerable international trade treaties on intellectual property.' Justice Gitsbe continues, 'such limits mandated on developing countries can in essence slow economic progress and innovation, limiting the means of production of nations, and the ability to improve upon such inventions not in their direct ownership, as would be economically advantageous for all parties involved, save those exclusively interested in profiteering off of an invention.' We apologize to the respectful ambassador of Wallenburg and their staff, who have taken their time to craft a well written and thoughtful proposal, yet we cannot in good faith move in favor for."

[Qualvista]

The Royal World Estate votes against this resolution, due to fears that it does not adequately protect intellectual property from theft in member nations without patent systems. Qualvista believes the WA should mandate that all member-states respect all international patents, whether or not their nation has a national patent system. While Article 3 does "Prohibit(s) 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", Qualvista feels it should also prohibit member states and inhabitants from materially benefiting in any way from goods produced in violation of any rights granted by a WAPS patent.

[Aclion]

"The Supreme Court of Bakhton does not believe 'this issue is necessary or warranted by any other interests than those wishing to financially benefit from the passage of the resolution, herein referenced, nor think it proper to legislate in a manner as to override innumerable international trade treaties on intellectual property.' Justice Gitsbe continues, 'such limits mandated on developing countries can in essence slow economic progress and innovation, limiting the means of production of nations, and the ability to improve upon such inventions not in their direct ownership, as would be economically advantageous for all parties involved, save those exclusively interested in profiteering off of an invention.' We apologize to the respectful ambassador of Wallenburg and their staff, who have taken their time to craft a well written and thoughtful proposal, yet we cannot in good faith move in favor for."

I have to ask: how many new trade treaties have been signed since the Foreign Patent Act" was repealed?

[Skymoot]

"... this seems worse thank Foreign Patent Act."

"Oh, it most certainly is, Ambassador. ..."

I'd just like to ask something. If the country that wrote the proposal agrees that the proposal is worse than the old, repealed law. Then mabye we shouldn't vote for it? Just an open, and admitedly sarcastic, opinion on the issue.

[Lord Dominator]

"Oh, it most certainly is, Ambassador. ..."

I'd just like to ask something. If the country that wrote the proposal agrees that the proposal is worse than the old, repealed law. Then mabye we shouldn't vote for it? Just an open, and admitedly sarcastic, opinion on the issue.

OOC: The repealed resolution was also written by Wallenburg here, who assumedly felt that the now-repealed repealed resolution was good. It was repealed for some reasons, and Wallenburg wrote this one as a replacement that attempted to address some of the so-called-flaws in the old one, but apparently likes it less than the old one, but likely more than the other main alternative, namely Auralia's proposal which can also be found in the GA forum.

Edit: Obviously, I'm summarizing what I've seen. Might not be entirely accurate.

[Bakhton]

"The Supreme Court of Bakhton does not believe 'this issue is necessary or warranted by any other interests than those wishing to financially benefit from the passage of the resolution, herein referenced, nor think it proper to legislate in a manner as to override innumerable international trade treaties on intellectual property.' Justice Gitsbe continues, 'such limits mandated on developing countries can in essence slow economic progress and innovation, limiting the means of production of nations, and the ability to improve upon such inventions not in their direct ownership, as would be economically advantageous for all parties involved, save those exclusively interested in profiteering off of an invention.' We apologize to the respectful ambassador of Wallenburg and their staff, who have taken their time to craft a well written and thoughtful proposal, yet we cannot in good faith move in favor for."

I have to ask: how many new trade treaties have been signed since the Foreign Patent Act" was repealed?

"If I were to guess quite a few. Nations like to take advantage of economic opportunities."

[Wallenburg]

"Oh, it most certainly is, Ambassador. ..."

I'd just like to ask something. If the country that wrote the proposal agrees that the proposal is worse than the old, repealed law. Then mabye we shouldn't vote for it? Just an open, and admitedly sarcastic, opinion on the issue.

"If you voted against the repeal, then perhaps you should vote against this. However, if you voted for the repeal because you agreed with its several points, then you should most certainly vote in favor, as this resolution very effectively addresses all of those points."

I'd just like to ask something. If the country that wrote the proposal agrees that the proposal is worse than the old, repealed law. Then mabye we shouldn't vote for it? Just an open, and admitedly sarcastic, opinion on the issue.

OOC: The repealed resolution was also written by Wallenburg here, who assumedly felt that the now-repealed repealed resolution was good. It was repealed for some reasons, and Wallenburg wrote this one as a replacement that attempted to address some of the so-called-flaws in the old one, but apparently likes it less than the old one, but likely more than the other main alternative, namely Auralia's proposal which can also be found in the GA forum.

Edit: Obviously, I'm summarizing what I've seen. Might not be entirely accurate.

OOC: This is quite accurate. Foreign Patent Act was a happy compromise, and an excellent resolution. However, the voters said quite clearly that they did not like it anymore, and so I wrote this adaptation of it to satisfy the concerns raised in the repeal. It is entirely out of my control that so many member nations are hypocrites.

[Skymoot]

I'd just like to ask something. If the country that wrote the proposal agrees that the proposal is worse than the old, repealed law. Then mabye we shouldn't vote for it? Just an open, and admitedly sarcastic, opinion on the issue.

"If you voted against the repeal, then perhaps you should vote against this. However, if you voted for the repeal because you agreed with its several points, then you should most certainly vote in favor, as this resolution very effectively addresses all of those points."

OOC: The repealed resolution was also written by Wallenburg here, who assumedly felt that the now-repealed repealed resolution was good. It was repealed for some reasons, and Wallenburg wrote this one as a replacement that attempted to address some of the so-called-flaws in the old one, but apparently likes it less than the old one, but likely more than the other main alternative, namely Auralia's proposal which can also be found in the GA forum.

Edit: Obviously, I'm summarizing what I've seen. Might not be entirely accurate.

OOC: This is quite accurate. Foreign Patent Act was a happy compromise, and an excellent resolution. However, the voters said quite clearly that they did not like it anymore, and so I wrote this adaptation of it to satisfy the concerns raised in the repeal. It is entirely out of my control that so many member nations are hypocrites.

"... if you voted for the repeal because you agreed with its several points, then you should most certainly vote in favor, as this resolution very effectively addresses all of those points."

I voted to remove the old patent law to focus on closing loopholes. That was my issue with the old system. I'm not gonna come around full circle in a bureaucratic marry-go-round by passing a patent law that leaves open loopholes when I voted to remove the old ones because of loopholes. It's impolite to assume others opinions are uniformly hypocritical in nature, isn't it?

Looking at the current voting climate though, I don't think our nit-picking is going to help or harm the outcome. It looks like, by a commanding majority, that this proposal is going to be struck down. I can understand, from Lord Dominator's insight, that this proposal might be the better of two evils when it comes to a replacement. But it's still an evil, you know? Maybe this proposal should be sent back to drafting some more, so more people can agree on it prior to it being sent to voting.

I feel like I must stress again, that I would like to see a WA patent proposal pass through the WA that does not contain potential loopholes. I feel though that this proposal was a little rushed, given the back-to-back scenario that this proposal was written in. Let's get a patent law through that is a water tight law, like wood or steel. And not something that's got more loopholes than swiss cheese ok?

P.S. Out of sport, not of spite... you didn't respond to my earlier arguments. Given how you pointed out my short sightedness in not answering your points before, and dutifully going back and answering them, should I not be owed the same courtesy? Silence in this case is an answer, but silence will speak a lot more than any objective argument made. All in the name of sport and fairness, no spite or malicious intent.

[Wallenburg]

"If you voted against the repeal, then perhaps you should vote against this. However, if you voted for the repeal because you agreed with its several points, then you should most certainly vote in favor, as this resolution very effectively addresses all of those points."

OOC: This is quite accurate. Foreign Patent Act was a happy compromise, and an excellent resolution. However, the voters said quite clearly that they did not like it anymore, and so I wrote this adaptation of it to satisfy the concerns raised in the repeal. It is entirely out of my control that so many member nations are hypocrites.

"... if you voted for the repeal because you agreed with its several points, then you should most certainly vote in favor, as this resolution very effectively addresses all of those points."

I voted to remove the old patent law to focus on closing loopholes. That was my issue with the old system. I'm not gonna come around full circle in a bureaucratic marry-go-round by passing a patent law that leaves open loopholes when I voted to remove the old ones because of loopholes.

All OOC: That would be all well and good, if there were actually loopholes in this resolution.

It's impolite to assume others opinions are uniformly hypocritical in nature, isn't it?

I never said everyone voting against this is a hypocrite. How about you read what I wrote again?

Looking at the current voting climate though, I don't think our nit-picking is going to help or harm the outcome. It looks like, by a commanding majority, that this proposal is going to be struck down. I can understand, from Lord Dominator's insight, that this proposal might be the better of two evils when it comes to a replacement. But it's still an evil, you know?

That's not much of an argument. So what this resolution is doomed? I didn't see you or anyone else here reluctant to argue about this resolution earlier, when it was still doomed.

Maybe this proposal should be sent back to drafting some more, so more people can agree on it prior to it being sent to voting.

I'm not quite sure about that. Judging from how the superdelegates are voting, it increasingly appears that they believe Auralia has an exclusive right to write patent law. I may be wrong, but that's how their behavior looks without any supplementary context.

I feel like I must stress again, that I would like to see a WA patent proposal pass through the WA that does not contain potential loopholes. I feel though that this proposal was a little rushed, given the back-to-back scenario that this proposal was written in. Let's get a patent law through that is a water tight law, like wood or steel. And not something that's got more loopholes than swiss cheese ok?

Good thing this resolution is rather watertight. It's a shame that you cannot see that.

P.S. Out of sport, not of spite... you didn't respond to my earlier arguments. Given how you pointed out my short sightedness in not answering your points before, and dutifully going back and answering them, should I not be owed the same courtesy? Silence in this case is an answer, but silence will speak a lot more than any objective argument made. All in the name of sport and fairness, no spite or malicious intent.

1) I can't find anywhere where I "pointed out your shortsightedness in not answering my posts". Could you direct me to that?
2) You are not entitled to my prompt response, or even any response from me at all. I have a life outside of NS, one that demands a lot of time for all sorts of things. Up until the end of March, it will probably be even busier than it usually is. I simply don't have the time to answer everyone who replies to me in less than 16 hours. I have to study, to attend classes, to work, to rehearse, to eat, to socialize, to sleep. This all cuts into how much time I can spend on NS. On top of that, I want to relax, and to enjoy other games, or to watch television or read the news. At the end of the day, I don't even have time to do everything I want to with regard to NS, let alone to respond to everyone who talks to me. I do not owe you or anyone else any sort of courtesy that requires me to stay up until 3 or 4 in the morning on a regular basis to make sure everything I do that involves NS gets done. Patience is a virtue, please learn it.

[New Jaedonstan]

"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.

Exactly. It would make more sense just to issue national patents so that if an inventor wanted to sell a product in a foreign country, he could just make a patent with that nation.

[New Dukaine]

Woah, that lemming effect.

I am firmly against this, not just because of the lemming, just because this seems worse thank Foreign Patent Act.

"Oh, it most certainly is, Ambassador. But it is what the voters asked for."

"So Ambassador, what you are saying is you made this worse on...purpose?

I highly doubt your legitimacy as an actual Ambassador. He can't be."

[Wallenburg]

"That's not how patents work. I don't understand what you are saying. The resolution does not say that native patents take precedence. And patents do not grant their holders the right to sell the patented invention. You still haven't explained how equal treatment of native and foreign inventors under the law is bullying. Now your problem is that my clauses are redundant? I thought you said the problem was that they were ambiguous."

I argue, with my previous statements, that the WA proposal allows the 'bullying' by passive means. I look to the first bulleted section of the fifth listed part of the WAPS service("Specifies that the WAPS may only grant patents to entities from member states if..."), under the proposed legislation:
"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"

"Bullying is, by its nature, not a passive act. It relies on active intimidation to have any potential effect. If you meant something else by your use of passive, please let me know."

This proposal does not tell the member nations what their national, not international , patents can or cannot do in relation to other nations. Without violating any WA regulation, a nation may define their national patents as "an official government statement granting an entity the legal right to exclude others from producing, generating profit, etc. and to allow the patent holder rights to produce the patented invention/creation/etc. regardless of geographical or international location." Now to logical and law abiding nations like ourselves, this sounds stupid. But to a nation that wishes to control another nations exports and imports of goods and services, this is easy to do and beneficial. One nation can give out many "patents" to many "inventors" of their "inventions", which could be anything from environmentally damaging machines to weapons of mass destruction.

"Oh, member nations can most certainly define a patent that way. They would only run into one small problem: member states do not have to recognize national patents from other nations at all. They are only required to recognize WAPS patents. Therefore, member states cannot abuse the definition in this resolution, even in a noncompliant, bad faith manner, in order to impose any patent they wish upon other member states."

But the WA proposal says that's wrong! ... not really. The WAPS can only accept patents that meet the criteria that this proposal sets out. Any other patent proposal is ignored. The WA can't tell individual nations, via this proposal, what should be defined as a patent in their home nations. It can only enforce patents that have met the criteria of the WAPS.

"That's the idea. Patent requests that do not meet WAPS standards are rejected, and others are accepted. Those entities granted patents by the WAPS may exercise those patents in other member states, per the limitations set in the resolution."

Even the provided definition of "patent" can be ignored if this proposal is ignored/turned down. Quote from proposal: "Revering the principles of national sovereignty, and the right of nations to their own economic philosophies and ideologies."

"I am not sure what you are getting at. Preambulatory clauses carry no legal power, and respecting a level of national sovereignty does not mean that nations can do whatever they want."

So by this logic, the WA turns a blind eye to making a nations proposal into a WA approved patent. Meaning that the patent then defaults to the earlier statement, that two nations will default to the native nations patent. AND... since that native patent states that a owner of the patent can produce their product/service/etc. in any territory or geo-political location, then that's incentive to counteract another nations laws, regulations, and sovereignty.

"This so-called 'logic' makes no sense. How does the World Assembly 'turn a blind eye' to the WAPS? It is the WAPS. The WAPS is staffed with World Assembly gnomes, or at least was, back when things were running smoothly. And why would a nation agree to be stripped of its sovereignty by another nation? Your 'logic' relies on a misunderstanding "

To counter this, the other nation needs to 'bully' the patent holder away via "raising hell", as I repeat my stated opinion.

"You argue that nations can actually get patent holders to not exercise their rights simply by complaining to the patent holder? From my own experience, complaining only encourages the patent holder to threaten the state with a lawsuit."

This is why the proposal is ambiguous. What will the WA proposal, this proposal only and any WA passed laws prior to this, do to prevent this from occurring?

"The very foundation of this resolution makes your fears entirely unfounded. The use of a WAPS, rather than national actors, to determine international patent holders means that member states are incapable of 'bullying' others into accepting their patents. At the very least, this resolution does not enable member nations to bully others any more than they could without any World Assembly legislation on patents."

From what I'm clearly able to show, they (the WA) can't do anything to stop this from occurring unless they "adopt" the patent that the nation sent, which only solidifies the patent that infringes on the economics and laws of other nations.

"Are you saying that there is no way for the World Assembly to properly address patents, and that no matter what everyone except a select few nations is screwed?"

[Ghostopolis]

A light bulb in the chamber glows brightly before burning out. A thin wisp of smoke is emitted, which begins to snake out and gradually grow larger until it forms into the guise of Ambassador Geist, at which point he strides to the nearest pulpit.

"Respectfully, I disagree with the author's assertion that this resolution addresses the flaws inherent in the original. The same flaws that I identified and with which most voting members in my region agreed appear to remain intact. I am delighted at the insight into the author's method here, and if nothing else, at least the resolution can be said to be proving some kind of a point. Since it has been some time since I have actively engaged in this assembly, I have not yet found such antics to be stale or groan-inducing. Give it time I say, because this is the second vote I have come here to cast since resuming this duty, and it is the exact same vote I just cast a few days ago. In any case, you have my thanks for making the decision rather easy for me and The Versutian Federation this go around. I look forward to seeing how this issue develops, though I would just as easily look forward to never again seeing this subject come before this assembly. Good evening."

With a tip of his hat, the ambassador is whisked away in a puff of smoke.

[Skymoot]

First off, before I begin tearing apart "facts" here, I just want to say my opinion that Ghostopolis has an awesome ambassador. What an entrance and exit haha.
Right so... onto the constant reactive comments from Wallenburg... Oh boy...

You are not entitled to my prompt response, or even any response from me at all. I have a life outside of NS, one that demands a lot of time for all sorts of things. Up until the end of March, it will probably be even busier than it usually is. I simply don't have the time to answer everyone who replies to me in less than 16 hours. I have to study, to attend classes, to work, to rehearse, to eat, to socialize, to sleep. This all cuts into how much time I can spend on NS. On top of that, I want to relax, and to enjoy other games, or to watch television or read the news. At the end of the day, I don't even have time to do everything I want to with regard to NS, let alone to respond to everyone who talks to me. I do not owe you or anyone else any sort of courtesy that requires me to stay up until 3 or 4 in the morning on a regular basis to make sure
everything I do that involves NS gets done. Patience is a virtue, please learn it.

Well, that's why it's a courtesy and not a requirement. I know we all have lives. If we didn't we'd be dead and under the ground. We're all busy in our own ways, and that's ok. But for someone to claim that their life is extremely busy, and yet can find the time to hammer out a proposal for the world assembly, seems contradictory. If you invested so much of your life into this proposal, then why not defend it to the last breath? It makes no sense to me to make a proposal, to submit it, and then to shout at someone who is asking for a response over their concerns with the proposal. If you got enough free time in your life to make a proposal, to submit a proposal, and to discuss it. Then you got enough time to respond to it.

Oh, but it seems we agreed to that after all. After a day of waiting, and after you said that you did not owe me a response at all... I guess I got what I asked for, and you went against yourself to give that to me, which I consider an honor.

"Bullying is, by its nature, not a passive act. It relies on active intimidation to have any potential effect. If you meant something else by your use of passive, please let me know."

Yes, I realize that my example was unclear. The nation does the active bullying to keep the invasive patent holder away, but only because of the passive actions of the WA with this proposal. The WA can't do anything against the invasive patent holder, so it just shrugs it off. It bounces it to the nations individually, which leads to the individual nations bullying away the invasive patent holders. I apologies, for I assume this was not clear before. You reinforce this situation by the following comments:

"Oh, member nations can most certainly define a patent that way. They would only run into one small problem: member states do not have to recognize national patents from other nations at all. They are only required to recognize WAPS patents.

Since the WAPS was removed with the repealing of the old system, there is no "WAPS" right now to reference to, unless you mean from this proposal which is not legal unless it gets a majority vote. "Even the provided definition of "patent" can be ignored if this proposal is ignored/turned down." By this I mean, you define what a "patent" is with this proposal. The old laws defined a patent as well. The old laws were repealed, and this proposal defines it. But there is currently no legal international definition of a patent. Nations can define a patent as what ever they want until the WA makes that definition. GAR #41: 'Access to Life-Saving Drugs' only allows the WA to ignore patents under extreme conditions. It, also, does not define what a patent is.

Now, I ask outside nations from this argument to search through the GAR's again, incase I am mistaken. But I believe, currently, that there is no international definition of a patent in place. Which would allow for this 'bullying' effect that I am afraid of.

After debating this for days with you, and getting no where with this, I don't think I will continue. I looked into other forums, your responses with other people, and the attitude that you have with this proposal. Every argument someone has made, you replay with a reactionary tone, not a progressive one. You tell another nation that this proposal is the less of two evils. You mention that the proposal is worse than the old laws, and suggest that the people want it anyway. And you lie to yourself by suggesting that this proposal has no flaws and is water tight. You contradict yourself on your own proposal. This proposal is not good, and before you say that it is, tell that to the 11,000+ votes against your proposal and your own contradicting statements about this proposal.

Honestly, I'm going to stop because you are punching yourself in the face with your statements. The only real argument that I'm getting from you is "This is my proposal. It's good. I don't understand you. You're wrong. You're insane. Back away from me." That's not debating anymore, that's childish arguing. We got lives outside of NS, as you say, and I think I want to spend my time more constructively than spending it in this argument.

I really appreciate you responding to me, even though you said that I was not entitled or obligated to get a response from a debate on your own proposal which NEEDS debating, but honestly... if were just going to shout at each other and not convince each other of the others side, then were not getting anything constructive out of this.

I wish you a good day, a good weekend, and a BETTER proposal. Hopefully.

Skymoot

[Tzorsland]

Since this resolution is going down in flames, can I make a minor nit pick that so annoyed the hell out of me I searched the internet to look it up and then when accidentally closing the editing window went back and started this post a second time.

"The WASPS ..."

Final Source

If the acronym is pronounced as a word, don’t use the.

You need to use the before acronyms when the letters are pronounced individually, not as a word.

Since "WASPS" is a "word" (I'm assuming people are not pronouncing W A S P S individually) it shouldn't have "The" in front of it.

[Wallenburg]

All OOC:

You are not entitled to my prompt response, or even any response from me at all. I have a life outside of NS, one that demands a lot of time for all sorts of things. Up until the end of March, it will probably be even busier than it usually is. I simply don't have the time to answer everyone who replies to me in less than 16 hours. I have to study, to attend classes, to work, to rehearse, to eat, to socialize, to sleep. This all cuts into how much time I can spend on NS. On top of that, I want to relax, and to enjoy other games, or to watch television or read the news. At the end of the day, I don't even have time to do everything I want to with regard to NS, let alone to respond to everyone who talks to me. I do not owe you or anyone else any sort of courtesy that requires me to stay up until 3 or 4 in the morning on a regular basis to make sure
everything I do that involves NS gets done. Patience is a virtue, please learn it.

Well, that's why it's a courtesy and not a requirement. I know we all have lives. If we didn't we'd be dead and under the ground. We're all busy in our own ways, and that's ok.

Yet you seem to believe that I owe you a response. To owe someone implies some sort of debt, and thereby a level of requirement that I fulfill some sort of obligation to you. I owe you nothing.

But for someone to claim that their life is extremely busy, and yet can find the time to hammer out a proposal for the world assembly, seems contradictory. If you invested so much of your life into this proposal, then why not defend it to the last breath?

If you had read earlier posts in this thread, you would have noticed this post:

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.

I have had a rather long time to work on improving this resolution. When it became clear that the repeal was going to pass, I simply made changes based on the repeal arguments, hammered out some issues presented during drafting, and sent it to the queue. So, I have actually had a lot more time than, say, 15-16 hours to write this replacement, and with how much this resolution borrows from the language of its predecessor, I would say that getting all of the details worked out between the introduction of the repeal and submitting this to the proposal queue really isn't quite that difficult at all.

It makes no sense to me to make a proposal, to submit it, and then to shout at someone who is asking for a response over their concerns with the proposal. If you got enough free time in your life to make a proposal, to submit a proposal, and to discuss it. Then you got enough time to respond to it.

You clearly don't know shit about my personal life, even though you think you do. Monday morning was a good time for me to submit a proposal. Tuesday evening was a rehearsal night, and was rather busy. I don't understand how me having time on Monday morning must mean that I also have time on Tuesday evening, or whenever else you happen to post on this thread.

Oh, but it seems we agreed to that after all. After a day of waiting, and after you said that you did not owe me a response at all... I guess I got what I asked for, and you went against yourself to give that to me, which I consider an honor.

I said I did not owe you a response, that you are not entitled to it. Specifically:

You are not entitled to my prompt response, or even any response from me at all.

What I did not say was that I wasn't going to respond to you. Wednesday night was better than Tuesday night, and so I managed to get a post out.

"Bullying is, by its nature, not a passive act. It relies on active intimidation to have any potential effect. If you meant something else by your use of passive, please let me know."

Yes, I realize that my example was unclear. The nation does the active bullying to keep the invasive patent holder away, but only because of the passive actions of the WA with this proposal. The WA can't do anything against the invasive patent holder, so it just shrugs it off. It bounces it to the nations individually, which leads to the individual nations bullying away the invasive patent holders. I apologies, for I assume this was not clear before. You reinforce this situation by the following comments:

Why should the World Assembly act against legitimate WAPS patent holders? Why should it keep patent holders from exercising patents that it has granted to them? That would make an international patent system rather pointless, would it not?

"Oh, member nations can most certainly define a patent that way. They would only run into one small problem: member states do not have to recognize national patents from other nations at all. They are only required to recognize WAPS patents.

Since the WAPS was removed with the repealing of the old system, there is no "WAPS" right now to reference to, unless you mean from this proposal which is not legal unless it gets a majority vote. "Even the provided definition of "patent" can be ignored if this proposal is ignored/turned down." By this I mean, you define what a "patent" is with this proposal. The old laws defined a patent as well. The old laws were repealed, and this proposal defines it. But there is currently no legal international definition of a patent. Nations can define a patent as what ever they want until the WA makes that definition. GAR #41: 'Access to Life-Saving Drugs' only allows the WA to ignore patents under extreme conditions. It, also, does not define what a patent is.

Well, I can't really do anything about that. I didn't ask for Foreign Patent Act to be repealed. I'm simply dealing with the mess left behind. I am not responsible for whatever chaos a lack of international patent law might cause. I merely want to replace the recently killed resolution so that we have something reasonable to work with, and so that member states no longer get to do whatever they want with regard to patents.

Now, I ask outside nations from this argument to search through the GAR's again, incase I am mistaken. But I believe, currently, that there is no international definition of a patent in place. Which would allow for this 'bullying' effect that I am afraid of.

If your concern with international bullying is centered around a lack of a World Assembly definition of a patent, why are you against this resolution? It very clearly offers a definition of "patent". You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

After debating this for days with you, and getting no where with this, I don't think I will continue. I looked into other forums, your responses with other people, and the attitude that you have with this proposal. Every argument someone has made, you replay with a reactionary tone, not a progressive one.

That's not very accurate. Some of my posts have had a reactionary tone, but hardly all of them have. Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "progressive tone".

You tell another nation that this proposal is the less of two evils. You mention that the proposal is worse than the old laws, and suggest that the people want it anyway.

That's because it is. This is by far and away preferable to the monstrosity that is Patent Recognition TreatyInternational Patent Agreement. This resolution is also inferior to Foreign Patent Act, as it concedes to the arguments of that resolution's repeal. The repeal got a majority vote, so I interpreted that as people agreeing with the concerns expressed in the repeal, and asking for those concerns to be reflected in a replacement. If people didn't agree with the repeal, they should not have voted for it.

And you lie to yourself by suggesting that this proposal has no flaws and is water tight.

Oh, bullshit. Show me where I say this resolution is flawless. On the second note there, it is indeed watertight. I can't find any loopholes in it, at least.

You contradict yourself on your own proposal.

Where?

This proposal is not good, and before you say that it is, tell that to the 11,000+ votes against your proposal and your own contradicting statements about this proposal.

1) What contradicting statements?
2) I blame the vote stomp on this resolution on the superdelegates, and their use of the lemming effect. They simply don't want me writing patent law, as far as I can tell, regardless of what that patent law actually is.

Honestly, I'm going to stop because you are punching yourself in the face with your statements. The only real argument that I'm getting from you is "This is my proposal. It's good. I don't understand you. You're wrong. You're insane. Back away from me." That's not debating anymore, that's childish arguing. We got lives outside of NS, as you say, and I think I want to spend my time more constructively than spending it in this argument.

If that's all you are seeing from my arguments, I'd bet you are reading somebody else's posts. That, or you haven't actually bothered reading mine, at least with any interest in understanding what they mean.

I really appreciate you responding to me, even though you said that I was not entitled or obligated to get a response from a debate on your own proposal which NEEDS debating, but honestly... if were just going to shout at each other and not convince each other of the others side, then were not getting anything constructive out of this.

I wish you a good day, a good weekend, and a BETTER proposal. Hopefully.

The most shouting I see here is your rather liberal use of boldface, particularly in the post before this one. My choice to be frank with you about how much time I can spend on NS may have been "shouting", but it was rather restrained to be honest. I don't care for people demanding that I take time out of my life--sizable amounts of time from a busy schedule, one that doesn't work easily to accommodate additional responsibilities--just to satisfy their desire for attention on an internet forum.

---

*Inhales*

Since this resolution is going down in flames, can I make a minor nit pick that so annoyed the hell out of me I searched the internet to look it up and then when accidentally closing the editing window went back and started this post a second time.

"The WASPS ..."

*WAPS

Final Source

If the acronym is pronounced as a word, don’t use the.

You need to use the before acronyms when the letters are pronounced individually, not as a word.

If you could find a better source than an ESL teacher's personal blog/online "classroom", that would be great.

Since "WASPS"

*WAPS

is a "word" (I'm assuming people are not pronouncing W A S P S

* W A P S. And yes, I would expect it to be pronounced letter-by-letter. Pronouncing "WAPS" like "waps" doesn't exactly flow well. It sounds like a wet fish getting slapped against a plastic sheet.

individually) it shouldn't have "The" in front of it.

"The" not only works with some acronyms, but is required for many to fit naturally into a sentence. You don't hear people say "The heads of state of US and UK have reached an agreement," or "Republicans are looking to repeal ACA," or "The new head of EPA is taking heat for his preferred policies," or "Agents from DEA will arrive to conduct an investigation," or "US uses FBI, CIA, and NSA as intelligence-gathering agencies," or "Under Stalin, USSR saw many oppressive policies implemented." These acronyms get articles for a good reason. It only makes sense for them to have articles, it even flows better.

I'm also a little concerned about your ability to correctly spell "WAPS". This acronym has been in 2 resolutions now. If you are so concerned about the article I put in front of "WAPS", I'd hope you would at least take the time to read the acronym itself.