[PASSED] International Patent Agreement

[Araraukar]

*snip everyone saying photosynthesis is public information*

OOC: How? Just knowing how something works isn't enough, according to various debates on this subject: you need to actually be able to make things using the process. Otherwise you could claim everything ever invented by any science fiction writer makes things like cold fusion or artificial gravity "public knowledge".

[Auralia]

*snip everyone saying photosynthesis is public information*

OOC: How? Just knowing how something works isn't enough, according to various debates on this subject: you need to actually be able to make things using the process. Otherwise you could claim everything ever invented by any science fiction writer makes things like cold fusion or artificial gravity "public knowledge".

((OOC: It's pretty easy to "make" something using photosynthesis -- just grow a plant. The problem is that photosynthesis already exists in nature, so it cannot be considered novel. Moreover, because it exists in nature, nobody can plausibly claim to have "created" photosynthesis either.))

[Excidium Planetis]

*snip everyone saying photosynthesis is public information*

OOC: How? Just knowing how something works isn't enough, according to various debates on this subject: you need to actually be able to make things using the process. Otherwise you could claim everything ever invented by any science fiction writer makes things like cold fusion or artificial gravity "public knowledge".

Photosynthesis is already in use in products and thousands of genetically engineered organisms utilizing photosynthesis are already publicly available. Thousands of farms already knowingly use photosynthesis, as do research labs, and many other industries besides.

If we want to go with RP, EP (and likely many, many other nations) has already isolated the genes for photosynthesis and integrated them into other organisms which do not naturally possess photosynthesis. EP actively uses photosynthesis to produce food. It is public. You can't patent it, except possibly in your own little RP world where PPU is somehow the only nation that ever used photosynthesis knowingly, that no other reasonable player would accept as being factual.

The difference between your earlier example and photosynthesis is that your example used independent invention of something after it was already patented. Photosynthesis is not being independently invented after a patent, it already exists. It was already discovered and used as a process.

[Auralia]

The resolution's definition of an invention, "a machine, article of manufacture, composition of matter, process, or improvement thereof", does not compare well to what an invention actually is. This definition includes almost anything that exists, since any existing object qualifies as a "composition of matter". This, of course, includes naturally occurring material and living organisms. The entirety of the resolution may shield member states and their inhabitants from the potentially cataclysmic consequences of labeling everything in existence an invention, but it remains apparent that this resolution struggles to adhere to standard definitions.

The purpose of that definition was not to exhaustively establish the criteria for what makes something eligible for a patent. It was to establish the class of things that an inventor could plausibly claim to have invented. Obviously not every "composition of matter" should be a patentable invention, and -- as you yourself admit -- other parts of the resolution establish additional criteria for patentability that exclude, for example, naturally occurring materials and other things which are not novel. But some "composition[s] of matter" should be patentable inventions, which is why they are included in that definition.

Moreover, this definition is already an international norm as it is used by numerous national patent systems ((OOC: including the United States, for example)).

Finally, if you really do believe that the broad definition of invention used by this resolution could cause serious problems, why didn't you list some specific examples rather than simply referring to vague "potentially cataclysmic consequences"? I suspect it was because you can't, as the additional criteria for patentability established by this resolution prevent such problems from occurring.

The third clause establishes a World Assembly Patent Organization, with powers and duties strongly reflecting those of the now non-operational World Assembly Patent Service. Rather than making use of a relevant existing committee, the author has obstinately created an entirely new committee to serve the same functions that the World Assembly Patent Service easily could. While use of appropriate dormant committees for new resolutions is hardly a requirement, it irks me that this resolution would engage in such pointless inefficiency. This issue compares strongly with the resolution's general structure.

The WAPS is not an "existing committee". Committees are completely shut down when the last (or only) resolution to reference them is repealed. Whether I happened to give the new committee established by this resolution the name "World Assembly Patent Service" or "World Assembly Patent Office" is irrelevant from the point of view of World Assembly efficiency. I happen to prefer the term "patent office" to the term "patent service", as the former term is already in wide use to describe an authority responsible for issuing patents, while the latter is not.

Despite having less clear and specific clauses than "Foreign Patent Protection Act", this resolution manages to pack on a substantially greater length of text, suggesting an inefficiency in writing style and format.

Actually, this resolution is a clear improvement on yours in that it requires member states to actually recognize patents:

This resolution is somewhat improved from Wallenburg's just-repealed Foreign Patent Act, in that it prohibits member states from exporting goods in violation of international patents and contains an appeals mechanism.

However, there are still numerous fundamental problems with the approach taken by this resolution:

• 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 or her 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 simply 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 addition, the resolution contains a number of unintended loopholes:

• Clause 6 permits member states to selectively recognize some patents but not others by simply declaring all inventions associated with patents it doesn't want to recognize to be in the public domain. While this must be done before the international patent is issued, this isn't particularly difficult. In most jurisdictions, patent applications are published when they are received before any patent is granted. The organization responsible for issuing international patents may follow similar procedures.
• In the same clause, 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. This creates a loophole similar to the public domain one described above.

It is also worth noting that the resolution contains several jokes that are inappropriate for international legislation. Examples include the statement that "it is not very nice to treat people as property" and references to "get[ting] lost in aisle after aisle of paperwork".

In summary, the core argument we made in our repeal of the author's previous patent resolution applies equally strongly to this proposal. This proposal still uses an opt-out system for patent recognition, and it still enables large scale patent infringement.

Moreover, this resolution provides clearer definitions of important terms like "novel". It also does a better job of clarifying important procedural issues, such as the process for determining who receives a patent when two patent applications are filed for the same invention.

I suspect these issues may have more to with our resolution's increased length compared to yours rather than an "inefficiency in writing style and format".

The requirement that all inventions must be patentable to be patentable by the World Assembly Patent Organization is infinitely recursive, and fails to actually establish any meaningful standard for acceptance by the World Assembly Patent Organization.

Presumably you are referring to clause 3(b)(i). The purpose of this clause is to permit the WAPO to categorically exclude certain classes of items from the class of patentable subject matter. Common examples would be natural processes, scientific theorems, and sapient life.

This definition is obviously not recursive, as "patentable subject matter" and "patentable invention" are not synonymous. An invention can be "patentable subject matter" (not a member of a restricted class) and yet still not be patentable for other reasons (not novel, obvious, no practical application). Similarly, an invention can meet the novelty, obviousness, and utility requirements but still not be patentable because it is not "patentable subject matter".

The exclusion of all inventions revealed in any way to the public from the World Assembly Patent Organization's recognition severely restricts the ability of inventors to seek out investors or to accurately measure public interest in or need for their inventions. This also forbids inventors from seeking patents at a national level for their inventions, and thus results in a rather backwards situation that an entity may seek an international patent without even demonstrating at a national level that their work merits a patent.

It is possible to measure public interest in or need for a widget without publishing how to construct and build said widget. Obviously only the latter would constitute public disclosure of an invention.

There is nothing in this resolution that prevents an inventor from obtaining a national patent after filing for an international patent. It's not clear why the inventor would want an national patent, though, given that an international patent would presumably provide the same protection as a national patent in that member state while also providing protection in all others as well.

You seem to be assuming that an inventor should first have to convince national patent examiners that a patent should be granted for an invention before being permitted to apply for an international patent for the same invention. This is an arbitrary barrier to international patent protection, and you haven't established why it should exist. I believe your proposed replacement suffered from this flaw as well.

The requirement that an invention must be "not obvious" creates a rather nebulous--or, more appropriately, "not obvious"--standard, as the obviousness of any concept may be more apparent to one person than to another, and to a significant extent.

Fortunately, an international organization called the World Assembly Patent Organization has been established that will be responsible for establishing more detailed criteria for what constitutes an invention that is "not obvious, even to others skilled in the same field". Many national patent systems operate in much the same way: primary legislation establishes general criteria for patentability that are interpreted and clarified by administrative bodies like patent offices.

World Assembly Patent Organization patents are set to expire at a date that "ensures that inventors receive a fair reward for their labours". The highly subjective nature of the word "fair" calls into question how the World Assembly Patent Organization will interpret this, especially once displeased entities begin to litigate against patents whose expiration dates they consider to be unfair.

The notion of a "fair" reward will be interpreted in light of the object and purpose of the resolution, which includes the "encourage[ent of] scientific and technological innovation" and the "incentiviz[ation of]...research and development of inventions throughout all member states" as well as "ensur[ing] that inventors receive a fair reward for their labours". We are confident that the WAPO will be able to appropriately balance these interests.

Incidentally, your proposed replacement gave the World Assembly Patent Service almost no direction at all for how to set patent terms.

The fifth clause leaves much room for interpretation, permitting member states not to recognize any patent that "unfairly blocks access to the invention in a member state". Once again, "unfair" is a highly subjective term, and in this clause the interpretation of this word is left entirely to the individual member states. Members may interpret "unfair" to as broad a degree as maintains at least a veneer of rationality, even to the extent that the fifth clause operates as an opt-out mechanism for states unwilling to recognize World Assembly Patent Organization patents. This strikes me as remarkably ironic, considering that the Auralian delegation has spent much time painting "Foreign Patent Act" and "Foreign Patent Protection Act" as optional pieces of legislation, simply because I refuse to force patent systems on member states. Despite their great concern that member states without patent systems may simply ignore international patents under my legislation, they have left a wide loophole here for any member state to justify ignoring nearly all World Assembly Patent Organization patents.

As we've already stated, any nation who uses the limited exceptions in this resolution as an excuse to refuse to recognize most or all international patents will no longer be interpreting this resolution in good faith or in light of its object and purpose. They will be engaged in effective non-compliance with a core component of World Assembly trade law and other member states will respond accordingly.

At the very least, my resolution only allowed member states without patent systems to ignore international patents--and even then, limited the ability for such nations to exploit this right beyond their own borders.

Not really -- see our argument against your proposed replacement above.

In summary, these arguments are really nothing more than an attempt to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about this resolution. Your core argument is and has always been the absurd notion that a properly functioning international patent system is a violation of a member state's "ideological rights". Fortunately, the World Assembly does not seem to have been convinced -- it voted to repeal the Foreign Patent Act, voted down the Foreign Patent Protection Act, and voted for the International Patent Agreement by overwhelming majorities (84%, 83%, and 77% respectively).

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

The resolution's definition of an invention, "a machine, article of manufacture, composition of matter, process, or improvement thereof", does not compare well to what an invention actually is. This definition includes almost anything that exists, since any existing object qualifies as a "composition of matter". This, of course, includes naturally occurring material and living organisms. The entirety of the resolution may shield member states and their inhabitants from the potentially cataclysmic consequences of labeling everything in existence an invention, but it remains apparent that this resolution struggles to adhere to standard definitions.

The purpose of that definition was not to exhaustively establish the criteria for what makes something eligible for a patent. It was to establish the class of things that an inventor could plausibly claim to have invented. Obviously not every "composition of matter" should be a patentable invention, and -- as you yourself admit -- other parts of the resolution establish additional criteria for patentability that exclude, for example, naturally occurring materials and other things which are not novel. But some "composition[s] of matter" should be patentable inventions, which is why they are included in that definition.

"It would seem that you do not entirely understand what I wrote in my opinion. My concern with the definition is not that it allows, say, grass or rocks or human skulls to be patented, but that it simply is not an accurate definition of "invention". It includes many things that are clearly not inventions. That those "inventions" are not necessarily patentable under this resolution is no excuse for a bad definition."

Moreover, this definition is already an international norm as it is used by numerous national patent systems ((OOC: including the United States, for example)).

OOC: If you had actually bothered to read that link, you would have realized that is not a definition of "invention". That section describes what may be patented, subject to further limitations. Nowhere in that section is "invention" even mentioned. Again, you would have been better off just using an accurate definition of "invention", as did "Foreign Patent Act".

Finally, if you really do believe that the broad definition of invention used by this resolution could cause serious problems, why didn't you list some specific examples rather than simply referring to vague "potentially cataclysmic consequences"? I suspect it was because you can't, as the additional criteria for patentability established by this resolution prevent such problems from occurring.

"Did you bother reading this bullet of my opinion at all? Nowhere did I say that this definition causes serious--let alone cataclysmic--problems. I specifically said that further clauses detailing patentability protect against extreme abuse of this definition. Dear Notch, address what I wrote, not the arguments you pretend I made."

The third clause establishes a World Assembly Patent Organization, with powers and duties strongly reflecting those of the now non-operational World Assembly Patent Service. Rather than making use of a relevant existing committee, the author has obstinately created an entirely new committee to serve the same functions that the World Assembly Patent Service easily could. While use of appropriate dormant committees for new resolutions is hardly a requirement, it irks me that this resolution would engage in such pointless inefficiency. This issue compares strongly with the resolution's general structure.

The WAPS is not an "existing committee". Committees are completely shut down when the last (or only) resolution to reference them is repealed. Whether I happened to give the new committee established by this resolution the name "World Assembly Patent Service" or "World Assembly Patent Office" is irrelevant from the point of view of World Assembly efficiency. I happen to prefer the term "patent office" to the term "patent service", as the former term is already in wide use to describe an authority responsible for issuing patents, while the latter is not.

"The World Assembly Patent Service is most certainly an existing committee. This has been well established. If multiple resolutions make use of a single committee, repealing the resolution that created that committee does not erase the committee. I see no reason for committees to function differently when they are used in only one resolution."

Despite having less clear and specific clauses than "Foreign Patent Protection Act", this resolution manages to pack on a substantially greater length of text, suggesting an inefficiency in writing style and format.

Actually, this resolution is a clear improvement on yours in that it requires member states to actually recognize patents:

"There are two issues here. First, we have very different ideas as to what constitutes an improvement upon 'Foreign Patent Protection Act'. I see this resolution as quite clearly a step back from 'Foreign Patent Protection Act' for multiple reasons. As you have different goals in mind for international patent recognition, your opinion most certainly differs from mine. That is quite well-reflected in your rather interesting opinion on 'Foreign Patent Protection Act'. Second, your resolution only requires nations to recognize patents in theory. In practice, as I have detailed further into my opinion, that is not really the case. Of course, I'll leave that for later."

Moreover, this resolution provides clearer definitions of important terms like "novel".

"That is horseshit, ambassador, and you know it. This resolution does not even contain the word 'novel'."

It also does a better job of clarifying important procedural issues, such as the process for determining who receives a patent when two patent applications are filed for the same invention.

"Hah! The mechanism for dealing with such a situation is nearly identical between our resolutions. Your resolution tasks the World Assembly Patent Office with granting patents on a 'first-to-file basis'. My resolution 'specifies that the WAPS may only grant patents to entities from member states if the WAPS has not already granted a patent on the invention the entity seeks to claim as its intellectual property'. We can argue the meticulous details of exactly how this operates once the gnomes put their guidelines to work, but you must admit that there is little difference between how our resolutions function on this front."

I suspect these issues may have more to with our resolution's increased length compared to yours rather than an "inefficiency in writing style and format".

"I have no problem with lengthy legislation. I simply have a problem with writing a lengthy resolution when it has been demonstrated that the same topic can be better addressed in fewer words."

The requirement that all inventions must be patentable to be patentable by the World Assembly Patent Organization is infinitely recursive, and fails to actually establish any meaningful standard for acceptance by the World Assembly Patent Organization.

Presumably you are referring to clause 3(b)(i). The purpose of this clause is to permit the WAPO to categorically exclude certain classes of items from the class of patentable subject matter. Common examples would be natural processes, scientific theorems, and sapient life.

This definition is obviously not recursive, as "patentable subject matter" and "patentable invention" are not synonymous. An invention can be "patentable subject matter" (not a member of a restricted class) and yet still not be patentable for other reasons (not novel, obvious, no practical application).

"At no point do you define 'patentable subject matter' or set guidelines as to what that entails. You simply say that the World Assembly Patent Office will deal with it later. As far as I am concerned, that means jack squat to me, and so 'subject matter' becomes synonymous with 'invention' for those purposes."

Similarly, an invention can meet the novelty, obviousness, and utility requirements but still not be patentable because it is not "patentable subject matter".

"What requirements are these? I certainly do not see them."

The exclusion of all inventions revealed in any way to the public from the World Assembly Patent Office's recognition severely restricts the ability of inventors to seek out investors or to accurately measure public interest in or need for their inventions. This also forbids inventors from seeking patents at a national level for their inventions, and thus results in a rather backwards situation that an entity may seek an international patent without even demonstrating at a national level that their work merits a patent.

It is possible to measure public interest in or need for a widget without publishing how to construct and build said widget. Obviously only the latter would constitute public disclosure of an invention.

"This is in no way obvious. You have not defined 'public disclosure' in such a manner. It stands to reason that the gnomes might interpret 'public disclosure' to refer to any act that reveals the existence of the invention in question to public parties."

There is nothing in this resolution that prevents an inventor from obtaining a national patent after filing for an international patent. It's not clear why the inventor would want an national patent, though, given that an international patent would presumably provide the same protection as a national patent in that member state while also providing protection in all others as well.

You seem to be assuming that an inventor should first have to convince national patent examiners that a patent should be granted for an invention before being permitted to apply for an international patent for the same invention. This is an arbitrary barrier to international patent protection, and you haven't established why it should exist. I believe your proposed replacement suffered from this flaw as well.

"It only makes sense that inventors ought to have to receive national patents for their inventions before approaching the World Assembly Patent Office. It greatly reduces the demand on the Patent Office's time and resources, leaving member states to sort out the clearly invalid claims. It is hardly arbitrary to use the World Assembly's resources efficiently."

The requirement that an invention must be "not obvious" creates a rather nebulous--or, more appropriately, "not obvious"--standard, as the obviousness of any concept may be more apparent to one person than to another, and to a significant extent.

Fortunately, an international organization called the World Assembly Patent Organization has been established that will be responsible for establishing more detailed criteria for what constitutes an invention that is "not obvious, even to others skilled in the same field". Many national patent systems operate in much the same way: primary legislation establishes general criteria for patentability that are interpreted and clarified by administrative bodies like patent offices.

"This response does not satisfy me. National patent offices can be far more easily corrected in how they handle patents. Once a World Assembly committee is given powers, the only way to fix undesired behavior or improper interpretation of its vague guidelines is to repeal the resolution that gave it those powers."

World Assembly Patent Organization patents are set to expire at a date that "ensures that inventors receive a fair reward for their labours". The highly subjective nature of the word "fair" calls into question how the World Assembly Patent Organization will interpret this, especially once displeased entities begin to litigate against patents whose expiration dates they consider to be unfair.

The notion of a "fair" reward will be interpreted in light of the object and purpose of the resolution, which includes the "encourage[ent of] scientific and technological innovation" and the "incentiviz[ation of]...research and development of inventions throughout all member states" as well as "ensur[ing] that inventors receive a fair reward for their labours". We are confident that the WAPO will be able to appropriately balance these interests.

"It would seem that the more you describe the exact nature of the World Assembly Patent Office's guidelines, the more a distinct theme comes into focus: the Office writes its own rules, rules that the voters had no say in and no control over. Guidelines that many delegations can only guess at."

OOC: Leaving such important standards for the WAPO to define itself is little more than an invitation for people to RP those guidelines in any way they see fit, in any way that suits their interests.

Incidentally, your proposed replacement gave the World Assembly Patent Service almost no direction at all for how to set patent terms.

"Really? Charging the World Assembly Patent Service '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' gives it almost no direction? And what, somehow the vague as hell directive for the World Assembly Patent Office to 'set an appropriate term for each class of WAPO patent that ensures that inventors receive a fair reward for their labours' is better? Whatever you are high on, Ambassador, I'd like to try some of it. It must be some real good stuff."

The fifth clause leaves much room for interpretation, permitting member states not to recognize any patent that "unfairly blocks access to the invention in a member state". Once again, "unfair" is a highly subjective term, and in this clause the interpretation of this word is left entirely to the individual member states. Members may interpret "unfair" to as broad a degree as maintains at least a veneer of rationality, even to the extent that the fifth clause operates as an opt-out mechanism for states unwilling to recognize World Assembly Patent Organization patents. This strikes me as remarkably ironic, considering that the Auralian delegation has spent much time painting "Foreign Patent Act" and "Foreign Patent Protection Act" as optional pieces of legislation, simply because I refuse to force patent systems on member states. Despite their great concern that member states without patent systems may simply ignore international patents under my legislation, they have left a wide loophole here for any member state to justify ignoring nearly all World Assembly Patent Organization patents.

As we've already stated, any nation who uses the limited exceptions in this resolution as an excuse to refuse to recognize most or all international patents will no longer be interpreting this resolution in good faith or in light of its object and purpose. They will be engaged in effective non-compliance with a core component of World Assembly trade law and other member states will respond accordingly.

"That's your opinion, Ambassador. It's too bad that the law does what the law says, and that it doesn't just do whatever you want it to do. You won't get far calling any interpretation of this resolution that differs from your goals noncompliant."

At the very least, my resolution only allowed member states without patent systems to ignore international patents--and even then, limited the ability for such nations to exploit this right beyond their own borders.

Not really -- see our argument against your proposed replacement above.

"I've seen it. Unfortunately for you, it is wrong. Putting next to everything in the public domain is not an option for any normal nation. Most nations would be better off simply negotiating with patent holders."

In summary, these arguments are really nothing more than an attempt to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about this resolution.

"Just because you disagree with me does not make my arguments insincere, and hardly makes my arguments a disinformation campaign."

Your core argument is and has always been the absurd notion that a properly functioning international patent system is a violation of a member state's "ideological rights".

"Your core argument is and has always been the absurd notion that a properly functioning international patent system is total legalization and legitimization of 'intellectual property theft'."

Fortunately, the World Assembly does not seem to have been convinced -- it voted to repeal the Foreign Patent Act, voted down the Foreign Patent Protection Act, and voted for the International Patent Agreement by overwhelming majorities (84%, 83%, and 77% respectively).

"And you know exactly why, Ambassador. You are more well established in the international community. You have close ties to superdelegates, and so are essentially guaranteed several thousand votes on the spot. From there, it is simply a question of how well the lemming effect works for you. I, on the other hand, still have yet to gain such a level of access and attention."

[Devernia]

OOC: Is it possible for a government to automatically gain rights to a patent when someone applies for it?

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: Is it possible for a government to automatically gain rights to a patent when someone applies for it?

OOC: Only if a government's legislation allows for it, or alternatively doesn't prohibit it in some cases.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

A. Meridian: I provide this document to the WA, in recognition of the necessity of compliance with pending resolutions, and at the request of the Eternal Monarch. We believe such a solution recognizes your international patents as we are obligated to under this resolution.

"Ambassador Meridian, I must recommend you immediately request that your government review General Assembly Resolution number Two-Oh-Nine, which grants to member nations 'the right, for a good or service originating from said nation, to receive the most favourable trade preference from any other member nation that said other nation grants to any other member nation for the same type of good or service'. As that resolution was written by the Auralian delegation as well, I'm sure that you can grasp the spirit of the resolution." Blackbourne smirks. "Additionally, my government wishes to inform yours that should this ban on patented imports continue, we will seek, per resolution Two-Oh-Eight, independent bilateral trade negotiations, with a request that the World Assembly Trade Commission issue binding arbitration, in accordance with a trade dispute arising from your violation of international trade laws."

A Meridian: You appear to be mistaken, given that patent holders are now having the exclusive rights to the good, they can therefore have no competitive goods for us to favor. As such my nation has set our most favorable position on all those goods which are covered by international patents to be "none at all whatsoever", regardless of where they come from. We will not violate your patents by importing competitors, nor by producing our own, which we cannot do under IPA. We shall have to live without the lastest do-dads for a awhile. However even the rules you mention cannot force my people to support your businesses contrary to our values. If we find that you are attempting to enforce your patents in nations that have no native patents we shall withdraw our businesses from your economy, and will encourage all member states to join in doing the same. You are free to challenge this interpretiation, however our foremost legal minds and theories support this view as consitent with all international obligations. We welcome you to impose reciprocal barriers to our trade, however if you are importing competiting goods we shall seek to return the favor and seek penalties against you for doing so.

[Araraukar]

((OOC: The problem is that photosynthesis already exists in nature, so it cannot be considered novel. Moreover, because it exists in nature, nobody can plausibly claim to have "created" photosynthesis either.))

OOC: Good. Then no process or chemical or matter that exists already somewhere can be patented. Thank you, that's all I needed to know, as it lets me completely ignore¹ this resolution.

¹EDIT: Also, clause 5. b.

[Separatist Peoples]

((OOC: The problem is that photosynthesis already exists in nature, so it cannot be considered novel. Moreover, because it exists in nature, nobody can plausibly claim to have "created" photosynthesis either.))

OOC: Good. Then no process or chemical or matter that exists already somewhere can be patented. Thank you, that's all I needed to know, as it lets me completely ignore¹ this resolution.

¹EDIT: Also, clause 5. b.

OOC: Not really. A process for refining oil can absolutely be patented, even if oil cannot. Synthetic additives to oil can also be patented.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Not really. A process for refining oil can absolutely be patented, even if oil cannot. Synthetic additives to oil can also be patented.

OOC: Even if oil refining happened in nature and the synthetic additives existed in nature?

EDIT: I probably should also point out that PPU is unlikely to ever need to refine oil...

[Sierra Lyricalia]

*snip everyone saying photosynthesis is public information*

OOC: How? Just knowing how something works isn't enough, according to various debates on this subject: you need to actually be able to make things using the process. Otherwise you could claim everything ever invented by any science fiction writer makes things like cold fusion or artificial gravity "public knowledge".

Funny you should mention that...

"I'm often asked why I didn't try to patent the idea of communications satellites. My answer is always, 'A patent is really a license to be sued.'"

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Not really. A process for refining oil can absolutely be patented, even if oil cannot. Synthetic additives to oil can also be patented.

OOC: Even if oil refining happened in nature and the synthetic additives existed in nature?

EDIT: I probably should also point out that PPU is unlikely to ever need to refine oil...

OOC: Oil refining is an excellent example. Its irrelevant if it affects your nation.

Synthetic additives can't exist in nature. They're synthetic.

Oil refining, likewise, is not a natural process. Even if it could happen in certain circumstances, magically, the process being patented is definitively an artificial one, involving technology designed to specifically refine oil. It's one thing to build a state-of-the-art refinery and patent the process you use, and to patent the process of, I don't know, a well placed geyser heating an oil field just so, or whatever.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Oil refining is an excellent example. Its irrelevant if it affects your nation.

OOC: Well it's relevant in that WAPO can issue whatever patents it wants, but if none of the patented things are used by your nation, then you can very well ignore the whole resolution as it has no effect on you, and still be in compliance. It's the same how you can be fully compliant with election-related resolutions without having elections in your nation.

If you don't use patented stuff, the patent's existence is irrelevant.

Synthetic additives can't exist in nature. They're synthetic.

No, they're synthetized.

synthetic

2. (chemistry) Produced by synthesis instead of being isolated from a natural source (but may be identical to a product so obtained).

Doesn't say they can't be obtained from nature, just that the synthesis reaction is artificial.

And just for the heck of it...

synthesis

2. (chemistry) The reaction of elements or compounds to form more complex compounds.

Photosynthesis is a chemical process in which the energy from light is used to synthetize carbohydrates from water and carbon dioxide, the waste product being oxygen.

Million edits because typos and code.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Oil refining is an excellent example. Its irrelevant if it affects your nation.

OOC: Well it's relevant in that WAPO can issue whatever patents it wants, but if none of the patented things are used by your nation, then you can very well ignore the whole resolution as it has no effect on you, and still be in compliance. It's the same how you can be fully compliant with election-related resolutions without having elections in your nation.

If you don't use patented stuff, the patent's existence is irrelevant.

OOC: Thats a fair assessment.

Synthetic additives can't exist in nature. They're synthetic.

No, they're synthetized.

synthetic

2. (chemistry) Produced by synthesis instead of being isolated from a natural source (but may be identical to a product so obtained).

Doesn't say they can't be obtained from nature, just that the synthesis reaction is artificial.

And just for the heck of it...

synthesis

2. (chemistry) The reaction of elements or compounds to form more complex compounds.

Photosynthesis is a chemical process in which the energy from light is used to synthetize carbohydrates from water and carbon dioxide, the waste product being oxygen.

Million edits because typos and code.

OOC: I don't see how any of these semantic issues are relevant. Nobody is using purely natural processes to commercially refine oil. Its artificially controlled and managed.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I don't see how any of these semantic issues are relevant. Nobody is using purely natural processes to commercially refine oil. Its artificially controlled and managed.

OOC: Wasn't talking about oil refining, was commenting on your "they're synthetic so they're not found in nature" thing.

A question, though. Not just to you, SP. Since the PPU hivemind can change the chemistry of its own plant bodies to synthetize molecules not necessarily found in natural plants (think of how in RL we can insert genes of some living things into other living things to make them produce stuff they normally wouldn't, to get things like spider silk in goat milk), would those processes and products count as natural or patentable (or both)?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I don't see how any of these semantic issues are relevant. Nobody is using purely natural processes to commercially refine oil. Its artificially controlled and managed.

OOC: Wasn't talking about oil refining, was commenting on your "they're synthetic so they're not found in nature" thing.

A question, though. Not just to you, SP. Since the PPU hivemind can change the chemistry of its own plant bodies to synthetize molecules not necessarily found in natural plants (think of how in RL we can insert genes of some living things into other living things to make them produce stuff they normally wouldn't, to get things like spider silk in goat milk), would those processes and products count as natural or patentable (or both)?

OOC: IIRC, generally it's the process for isolating and implanting the genes, not the genes themselves. It would depend on the national entity involved as to what degree that is patentable. Under US law, you can only patent something not found in nature, wholly made by man. That's why Dolly the Cloned Sheep couldn't be patented, but the process for cloning her possibly could have. Dolly is still just a sheep.

You can patent certain living creatures, but only those that are wholly man-made. There was a bacterium that consumed oil that was patented that way, IIRC.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: And in Real Life it's simple because of the "man-made" part. In NS less so, because not all sapients are human. That's why I asked the question in the specific case of PPU, which isn't even animal-based sapient.

EDIT: That RL evolution experiment on the bacterium that spontaneously evolved to eat the previously inedible medium it was grown in, is an interesting RL case: could you patent the new kind of bacterium, despite the process of it becoming the new kind was not "man-made"?

[Separatist Peoples]

*snip*

OOC: And in Real Life it's simple because of the "man-made" part. In NS less so, because not all sapients are human. That's why I asked the question in the specific case of PPU, which isn't even animal-based sapient.

OOC: I would consider that nothing PPU does can be patented, because their processes are, by nature, natural and not artificial, and nothing they generate can be considered an invention. No more than humans can patent the process by which their kidneys filter waste. So, that puts PPU in a bind if they engage in commerce with goods that are patented elsewhere. If you grow, I don't know, cotton gins, you could still be liable for violating a patent on the invention, provided your natural cotton gin was essentially identical.

Alternatively, if the PPU has a biological way of getting refined oil from Middle Layer Emulsion, its not going to violate a patent on a mechanical process of refining MLE, and you could sell that refined oil freely.

Just ignore the applicability of the actual inventions here.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I would consider that nothing PPU does can be patented, because their processes are, by nature, natural and not artificial, and nothing they generate can be considered an invention.

OOC: In that case no patents would apply to its actions either, since after all, you can't sue plants or animals producing molecules the artificial synthesis of which has been patented.

Good, that frees it from the resolution more completely than I thought.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I would consider that nothing PPU does can be patented, because their processes are, by nature, natural and not artificial, and nothing they generate can be considered an invention.

OOC: In that case no patents would apply to its actions either, since after all, you can't sue plants or animals producing molecules the artificial synthesis of which has been patented.

Good, that frees it from the resolution more completely than I thought.

If the "synthetic" molecules that have been patented have been patented, PPU absolutely could be sued. Pharmaceuticals are the big example. You can't expect to produce a patented pharmaceutical in contravention of the uses in the resolution without permission and not be sued.

[Araraukar]

If the "synthetic" molecules that have been patented have been patented, PPU absolutely could be sued. Pharmaceuticals are the big example. You can't expect to produce a patented pharmaceutical in contravention of the uses in the resolution without permission and not be sued.

OOC: But you just said "I would consider that nothing PPU does can be patented, because their processes are, by nature, natural and not artificial". So either naturally produced molecules (in the case of medications) are natural and only the synthetic version is or can be patented, or it can create patentable things itself.

[Separatist Peoples]

If the "synthetic" molecules that have been patented have been patented, PPU absolutely could be sued. Pharmaceuticals are the big example. You can't expect to produce a patented pharmaceutical in contravention of the uses in the resolution without permission and not be sued.

OOC: But you just said "I would consider that nothing PPU does can be patented, because their processes are, by nature, natural and not artificial".

Their processes, sure. Not the products. Pharmaceuticals are patented products, not processes. I followed it up with a cotton gin example that demonstrates that PPU can replicate patented items.

[Araraukar]

Their processes, sure. Not the products. Pharmaceuticals are patented products, not processes. I followed it up with a cotton gin example that demonstrates that PPU can replicate patented items.

OOC: So the PPU could patent such products itself then? Or would they count as "public domain" for it?

Also, any opinion on this?

EDIT: That RL evolution experiment on the bacterium that spontaneously evolved to eat the previously inedible medium it was grown in, is an interesting RL case: could you patent the new kind of bacterium, despite the process of it becoming the new kind was not "man-made"?

[Auralia]

((OOC: I think it can be argued that nothing that PPU does is "natural" because it's a form of sapient life.))