[PASSED] Repeal "Foreign Patent Act"

[States of Glory WA Office]

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

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

Fairburn: Child slavery was legal at one point. What are you trying to argue here?

Neville: I'm more confused about why you won't simply ban the import and export of goods produced through patent theft. You claim that they will be imported and exported regardless, but what Ambassador Fairburn is trying to say is that that applies to every other WA resolution.

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

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

Fairburn: Oh, so throwing our hands up in reference to basic border control is fine, but when it comes to genocide, it's suddenly unacceptable! I'm aware that most of you lack any decency, but I expected better from you, Ambassador Bell! I refuse to tolerate this blatant double standard being applied against me! If you carry this on then...

Neville: Calm down, Ambassador Fairburn. It is not in our best interests to initiate a diplomatic crisis with the CDSP.

Fairburn: Fine, I'll end my rant, but it's the last-chance saloon before I rip Ambassador Bell a new one.

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

OOC: Yes.

OOC: By which resolutions?

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

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

Fairburn: If you'd bothered to listen to my statement, you'd tell that I wasn't referring to the state selling stolen goods. How does it benefit a member state to allow a non-state actor to sell stolen goods?!

Neville: Also, leaving aside the availability of international sanctions, wouldn't a nation with no patent system devolve into economic chaos as multiple parties make counterfeit goods at gradually tighter profit margins, trying to outcompete each other? Either that, of course, or the economy booms like an atomic weapon. One of the options isn't at all reasonable; the other one is a positive. It's complete economic anarchy regardless. Who would even want to attempt to sell anything in such a nation? The risk would be too high.

OOC: Now just watch my argument get torn apart by IA. This is why people with no background in economics shouldn't be invoking economics for their points.

[Wallenburg]

Neville: I'm more confused about why you won't simply ban the import and export of goods produced through patent theft. You claim that they will be imported and exported regardless, but what Ambassador Fairburn is trying to say is that that applies to every other WA resolution.

"This is actually a good suggestion. I would not be opposed to a well-written attempt to do this."

[Auralia]

Fairburn: Child slavery was legal at one point. What are you trying to argue here?

Honestly, I'm not sure what you were trying to argue, either.

Maybe we should just end this particular line of discussion; it doesn't seem to be very helpful.

Neville: I'm more confused about why you won't simply ban the import and export of goods produced through patent theft. You claim that they will be imported and exported regardless, but what Ambassador Fairburn is trying to say is that that applies to every other WA resolution.

We could do that, but that doesn't solve the problem of the inventor not being compensated for the domestic use of his goods in member states that don't recognize patents. All things considered, it's just easier to adopt a uniform patent system for the World Assembly, which is what I want to do.

Fairburn: If you'd bothered to listen to my statement, you'd tell that I wasn't referring to the state selling stolen goods. How does it benefit a member state to allow a non-state actor to sell stolen goods?!

Taxation of those goods, perhaps? And who's to say that member states themselves won't sell goods derived from patent theft?

Neville: Also, leaving aside the availability of international sanctions, wouldn't a nation with no patent system devolve into economic chaos as multiple parties make counterfeit goods at gradually tighter profit margins, trying to outcompete each other? Either that, of course, or the economy booms like an atomic weapon. One of the options isn't at all reasonable; the other one is a positive. It's complete economic anarchy regardless. Who would even want to attempt to sell anything in such a nation? The risk would be too high.

Why do you think perfect competition results in "economic chaos"?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Tinfect]

All things considered, it's just easier to adopt a uniform patent system for the World Assembly, which is what I want to do.

OOC:
Except for the fact that it's basically an ideological ban, threatens to obliterate Collectivist and Command economies, and devastates Social, Technological, and Economic progress in smaller, developing, or even simply non-market-based States, by handing a Technological Monopoly to a handful of advanced, and/or economically powerful Member-States.

[Auralia]

All things considered, it's just easier to adopt a uniform patent system for the World Assembly, which is what I want to do.

OOC:
Except for the fact that it's basically an ideological ban, threatens to obliterate Collectivist and Command economies, and devastates Social, Technological, and Economic progress in smaller, developing, or even simply non-market-based States, by handing a Technological Monopoly to a handful of advanced, and/or economically powerful Member-States.

((OOC: It's not an ideological ban. Feel free to challenge it on those grounds if you like, though I'm telling you right now that you're going to lose.

I really don't understand why you think granting an inventor exclusive rights to his invention for a limited time will result in economic disaster. It certainly hasn't in real life. Even the Soviet Union had something resembling a patent system.

Incidentally, just out of curiosity, why do you capitalize certain common nouns?))

[Tinfect]

((OOC: It's not an ideological ban. Feel free to challenge it on those grounds if you like, though I'm telling you right now that you're going to lose.

OOC:
Why don't you explain how it isn't, then? Collectivist ideologies are inherently incompatible with the concept of private property, which is exactly what a patent is.

I really don't understand why you think granting an inventor exclusive rights to his invention for a limited time will result in economic disaster.

Giving one person or entity absolute control over technology, processes, or procedures, that have the capacity to benefit mankind, so that said person or entity can then dole it out to whoever is willing to pay whatever exorbitant price they want for it, is absolutely not something I can support under any circumstance, whether for 2 months or 200 years.

As for economic disaster, let's look at your proposal:

Further defines "patent", for the purposes of this resolution, as the set of exclusive rights granted to the creator of an invention, including the right:
to prevent others from using, manufacturing, offering for sale, importing or exporting the invention without permission,
to sell or license any of these rights to others,
to seek an injunction and fair damages against any entity that infringes upon these rights, and
to extinguish any of these rights;

As you are surely aware, this is your definition of a Patent. I shouldn't need to explain why this is inherently damaging to a system which did not account for such things as patents until countless International ones were suddenly thrust upon it, or why it's damaging to any system with patents, but without the Strong Economy^TM stick to wave around. But, I clearly do, as you don't seem to have bothered thinking through how this might work in a world where there are more than a handful of Capitalist Superpowers and nothing else. So, let's just break it down.

Further defines "patent", for the purposes of this resolution, as the set of exclusive rights granted to the creator of an invention,

Starting here, you've already declared your intention to invalidate Collectivist and Command economic systems and ideologies. It doesn't really matter what's defined, for the purposes of this particular criticism, you've already basically told any such Member-States that they and their ideologies aren't welcome here.

to prevent others from using, manufacturing, offering for sale, importing or exporting the invention without permission,

From this point, you are now explicitly screwing over any developing nation that is attempting to remain independent from foreign economic imperialism, or is attempting to develop in a way that does not involve setting up a market economy.

Let's go on to the next section now; but don't forget about these, as we'll be making use of them later.

Establishes the World Assembly Patent Organization (WAPO) with the following mandate:
to receive and process patent applications exclusively from inventors in World Assembly member states,

Congratulations, you have now explicitly screwed over, but actively excluded Collectivist and Command economic ideologies from the Patent System. If you really believed that Patents benefit everyone regardless of economic system, you wouldn't have done this, but, it's fairly clear from most everything you've done for the GA, that you really just want to make the GA into your personal ideological echo chamber. With that in mind, this is perfectly consistent with your goal. On the other hand, you've also successfully screwed over Corporate entities that hold patents, which I personally can't find anything wrong with, but I'm sure you object to.

to establish appropriate requirements for the structure and format of patent applications, including but not limited to the requirement that an application must include sufficient description to allow a reasonable person in the same field to construct and use the invention,
[...]
to establish and maintain a publicly-accessible archive of all patent applications it receives;

And now you've just created an environment which benefits locking Technologies behind closed doors, instead of letting them be used outside the veil of absolute secrecy. If they have to put the Schematics on the Internet for all Member-States and Non-Member-States to see, they'll not bother with the WAPS at all. If you wanted to stop 'piracy' of patents, you wouldn't have done this, but, again, that doesn't really seem to be your actual goal here.

to grant patents for inventions described by valid patent applications on a first-to-file basis,

This bit solely benefits advanced and economically powerful Member-States to the utter detriment of all others. I hope I don't have to explain why, in a world with tens-of-thousands of Member-States, of highly varied levels of Technological and Economic development, letting whoever can file paperwork faster, and without a typo, get the Big Stick of International Law to beat other entirely independent inventors of the same goddamn technology with, is a poor idea.

However, this, combined with your earlier definition;

to prevent others from using, manufacturing, offering for sale, importing or exporting the invention without permission,

Should get the point across fairly well.

to set appropriate durations for patents in individual World Assembly member states, taking into account each state's current level of economic and technological development, and

Which is to say:

To cripple other economic systems slightly less if they don't pose a threat to mine

Now, we get to your 'reasonable limitations' section;

Authorizes member states to create reasonable limitations and exceptions to the exclusive rights associated with WAPO patents when:
the patented invention was invented domestically before the WAPO was established,

Which means that Developing Nations, and recently liberated colonies, neither of which are particularly likely to have many modern inventions to their names, even if the subject of the patent has been in use for 20 years, if Joe Schmo decides to throw some paperwork at the WAPO, their economy gets to be completely screwed over, as they have suddenly lost the right to utilize Technologies that they've been using for decades now, if they want to remain in the WA.

Quite honestly, this whole proposal seems to do very little other than enforce Capitalism on nations that want nothing to do with it, provide WA sanction for predatory economic imperialism, and disincentive WA Membership for Non-Capitalist and Developing Nations. It's not an economic disaster for Economic and Technological superpowers, it just lets them continue to destroy lesser states, but with explicit WA sanction.

It certainly hasn't in real life.

Success under a Capitalist system is very different from success otherwise.

Even the Soviet Union had something resembling a patent system.

The Soviet Union rapidly abandoned any real base in Collectivist ideology and became a corrupt failure of a Command Economy as well long before it collapsed. Please stop bringing it up.

Incidentally, just out of curiosity, why do you capitalize certain common nouns?))

In all honesty, I don't know. I picked up the habit at some point, and I can't really be bothered to put a stop to it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The Soviet Union rapidly abandoned any real base in Collectivist ideology and became a corrupt failure of a Command Economy as well long before it collapsed.

How about Venezuela or any of the other attempts to establish Marxist or socialist states during the 20th century? Or will this just be a case of the No True Socialist?

[Separatist Peoples]

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

Fairburn: Oh, so throwing our hands up in reference to basic border control is fine, but when it comes to genocide, it's suddenly unacceptable! I'm aware that most of you lack any decency, but I expected better from you, Ambassador Bell! I refuse to tolerate this blatant double standard being applied against me! If you carry this on then...

Neville: Calm down, Ambassador Fairburn. It is not in our best interests to initiate a diplomatic crisis with the CDSP.

Fairburn: Fine, I'll end my rant, but it's the last-chance saloon before I rip Ambassador Bell a new one.

Bell blinks. "That escalated quickly. It will take more than insulting me to spark a diplomatic incident with the C.D.S.P.. That generally takes crossing our borders without explicit permission and then complaining when we blow up your...whatever it was. Lifeboats, maybe. Hospital ship. Something innocuous.

"I don't see whats so wrong with border control. As a concept, it isn't inimical. In practice, it tends to be unable to accommodate a number of systems. And, ultimately, border control is an issue of domestic authority despite being inherently international, because it deals expressly with the flow of people into the domestic system. A patent, on the other hand, reverses that direction: its a domestic concept going into the international community. I don't see why its such a burden to respect the property of others."

OOC: By which resolutions?

OOC: Prevention of Genocide, Clause 2, last section.

Fairburn: If you'd bothered to listen to my statement, you'd tell that I wasn't referring to the state selling stolen goods. How does it benefit a member state to allow a non-state actor to sell stolen goods?!

"The Auralian delegation already addressed that it doesn't necessarly follow that nonstate actors would be the only ones who did this. That said, taxable income is a powerful motivator. As is the securing of beneficial trade deals and establish a presence in foreign markets."

Neville: Also, leaving aside the availability of international sanctions, wouldn't a nation with no patent system devolve into economic chaos as multiple parties make counterfeit goods at gradually tighter profit margins, trying to outcompete each other? Either that, of course, or the economy booms like an atomic weapon. One of the options isn't at all reasonable; the other one is a positive. It's complete economic anarchy regardless. Who would even want to attempt to sell anything in such a nation? The risk would be too high.

[/quote]

"That assumes a nation is trading with violated intellectual property only domestically. The real damage is when they are traded internationally. This is sophistry, though, because you're defending the theft of another's intellectual property, and that is never acceptable. Tolerating theft is wrong."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Child slavery was legal at one point. What are you trying to argue here?

Honestly, I'm not sure what you were trying to argue, either.

Fairburn: You ruled out the idea of banning imports because imports were going to occur regardless of their legality. I pointed out that by this logic, there was no point in making any acts illegal because those acts would occur anyway (OOC: Unless you happen to believe in magical compliance, but that's a whole other can of worms).

All things considered, it's just easier to adopt a uniform patent system for the World Assembly, which is what I want to do.

Neville: When has that ever been an excuse to tread on national sovereignty?

Taxation of those goods, perhaps?

Fairburn: Clearly, non-stolen goods can't be taxed.

Also, if allowing the sale of stolen goods is oh so beneficial, wouldn't it only be reasonable for a member state to do so? Therefore, under Reasonable Nation Theory, all WA legislation should be drafted with the assumption that member states have legalised the sale of stolen goods.

Neville: That is a giant leap, and I've debated with Ambassador Parsons!

And who's to say that member states themselves won't sell goods derived from patent theft?

Fairburn: Mr. Nobody, the official ambassador to the nation of Nothing.

"I don't see whats so wrong with border control. As a concept, it isn't inimical."

Fairburn: That's my point, Ambassador Bell. Ask the Auralians why they're so opposed to the idea of border control.

OOC: By which resolutions?

OOC: Prevention of Genocide, Clause 2, last section.

OOC: It's actually Convention Against Genocide, but touché.

This is sophistry, though, because you're defending the theft of another's intellectual property, and that is never acceptable. Tolerating theft is wrong.

Fairburn: Why not just go ahead and accuse us of being fascists while we're playing the mudslinging game?

[The Atlae Isles]

The Atlae Isles opposes this repeal. The Foreign Patent Act (we don't know if it passed yet, but let's assume it does), established a system in which a patent in one country, as long it was approved in the WAPS and is legal, has to be recognized in the international community (or at least WA members). This prevents stealing and imitating products (OOC: done by China) and it's a system that isn't broken and doesn't need fixing!

But we don't know the outcome yet...so,

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: It's actually Convention Against Genocide, but touché.

OOC: The actual names all kind of run together in my head at this point. Its The Genocide Thingy to me.

This is sophistry, though, because you're defending the theft of another's intellectual property, and that is never acceptable. Tolerating theft is wrong.

Fairburn: Why not just go ahead and accuse us of being fascists while we're playing the mudslinging game?

[/quote]
"...Are you fascists? Placing an idealogical label on you that you disagree with is a lot more subjective than theft. Theft is pretty objective: Did you use this thing? Yes. Did you have permission to use this thing? No. Did you profit or benefit economically from using this thing? Yes. Theft. Intellectual Property Theft, to be precise, since actual pursegrabbing has a somewhat different order of operations. Either way, intellectual property ownership must generate a right of exclusivity, or there is no incentive to innovate, merely to be the best thief."

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

The Amabassador from The United Royal Isles of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:
The United Isles, though new to this esteemed body, agrees with the author of the repeal that the current act is flawed in its current conception. We are deeply troubled by the build in opt-out to excentially a sweeping reform of international trade. We feel this opt-out line undermines the intent that legislation passed by this body should apply in all nations. By allowing nations the access to this information without requiring that they be bound to honor the Patents granted by the agency, would allow individual nations free reign to push into the public domain the work of other nations and profit from the work while mataining their ideological purity.
We also find lacking any provision regarding the process by which patents should be protected in the event of duplication between countries held by different entities. The current act contains language which instructs this new organization the task of collecting and registering existing patents as well as future ones. Yet leaves it wide discretion in arbiting the validity of such patents. How shall we know if duplicate patents from smaller nations will be treated with the same weight before this agency as those from the larger more influential nations. If such duplicates exist, as there are bound to be with people working on the same issues in different parts of the globe, will one originating entity be deprived of legal protections merely for the sake of uniformity? And surely such a process would discourage younger, and developing nations from the invention and growth they desire.
We ask the author of this repeal, to further consider this second issue as well and help us in drafting protections for my fellow newer nations in this effort to help protect international trade.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

The Amabassador from The United Royal Isles of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:
The United Isles, though new to this esteemed body, agrees with the author of the repeal that the current act is flawed in its current conception. We are deeply troubled by the build in opt-out to excentially a sweeping reform of international trade. We feel this opt-out line undermines the intent that legislation passed by this body should apply in all nations. By allowing nations the access to this information without requiring that they be bound to honor the Patents granted by the agency, would allow individual nations free reign to push into the public domain the work of other nations and profit from the work while mataining their ideological purity.
We also find lacking any provision regarding the process by which patents should be protected in the event of duplication between countries held by different entities. The current act contains language which instructs this new organization the task of collecting and registering existing patents as well as future ones. Yet leaves it wide discretion in arbiting the validity of such patents. How shall we know if duplicate patents from smaller nations will be treated with the same weight before this agency as those from the larger more influential nations. If such duplicates exist, as there are bound to be with people working on the same issues in different parts of the globe, will one originating entity be deprived of legal protections merely for the sake of uniformity? And surely such a process would discourage younger, and developing nations from the invention and growth they desire.
We ask the author of this repeal, to further consider this second issue as well and help us in drafting protections for my fellow newer nations in this effort to help protect international trade.

Ambassador:
As was fervently discussed on the page for the target resolution, the only nations allowed to opt out of the international patent system are those who have no national one. This is in order to not coerce member nations into adopting a patent system that may damage their economic platform.

So, effectively, there is no opt-out clause, because either you have to follow the patent system or you never had one in the first place, so it's irrelevant.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

Ambassador:
As was fervently discussed on the page for the target resolution, the only nations allowed to opt out of the international patent system are those who have no national one. This is in order to not coerce member nations into adopting a patent system that may damage their economic platform.

So, effectively, there is no opt-out clause, because either you have to follow the patent system or you never had one in the first place, so it's irrelevant.

The Ambassador, The Honorable J. Everett:
We thank you for you reply in this matter. While we recognize the importance of not imposing economic ideology on those member state whose systems are incompatible with the idea of patents; the fact remains that the target resolution contains no prohibitions against abuse of this international patent system, nor do we find adaquate the protections for younger nations as stated in our orginal statement against this resolution. To the issue of "opt-out" , the resolution wording contains no prohibition against a county abolishing its patent system, and pushing into the public domain the works of other countries. Merely asks of those counties already without a patent system to not attempt to enforce intellectual property being their national borders. The resolution accepts at face value the necessary good will of nations to not abuse this system. And in this light we are also concerned further that if patents and intellectual property are anathema to individual member states economic systems, that it remains unenforceable for those nations. Thus violating the intent of this body to be able to craft legislation applicable to all.
We also remain concerned with power vested in this new agency to collect and collate existing patents and determine which among the many thousands, millions, maybe even billions of patents filed and extant among our various nations will remain valid. With no clear guidance on how existing patents would be protected in the event of duplication across national borders, the whims and politics of the agency would reign. This is inheirently biased against smaller newer nations. We hope that this clarifies our position to the honorable gentleman, and look forward to working together within this esteemed body.

[Excidium Planetis]

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

"According to my resources patents were historically enforced by Communist nations on Terra." Blackbourne informs, clearly reading this information off his datatab.

[Auralia]

Are there any further comments on this before I submit?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Imperium Anglorum]

Observing that this leaves inventors with substantial risks and few rewards, thus significantly reducing the incentive to innovate throughout the World Assembly,

OOC: Ought be changed to something like "Observing that this leaves inventors with substantial risks and few rewards, thus significantly reducing the incentive to pay for the research and development necessary for innovation". The reason why patents work is not because innovators would not have innovated without them, it is because they would never have gotten the funds to innovate without patents.

One thing which I never liked about CGP Grey's video on copyright is that he straw mans the argument that people would not create art. That's irrelevant. What is important is that writers need advances to buy food so they can finish their works, directors need money to pay for filming equipment so they can film them, and recordists too need equipment and food to finish their works. People need to understand that intellectual property does not make people more willing to create art, but rather, it makes them able to create art.

All in all, I will support this proposal given a clarification like the change above (well, I'm also not a fan of the fact you italicised the words... I guess I raise a fuss about it in these brackets).

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

The Amabassador from The United Royal Isles of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett :
We express reservations regarding the proposed replacement resolution. However, we do remain in support of repealing and replacing the target resolution in the name of improving the quality and use of international laws.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: We remain unconvinced about the arguments presented in this repeal. We also fear that any replacement will attempt to force a patent system on member states. Therefore, we will oppose this.

[Wallenburg]

Neville: We remain unconvinced about the arguments presented in this repeal. We also fear that any replacement will attempt to force a patent system on member states. Therefore, we will oppose this.

[Christian Democrats]

We support this repeal proposal. In general, we favor broader protections for all property rights in international law.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

We support this repeal proposal. In general, we favor broader protections for all property rights in international law.

So what's your proposed replacement? Because repealing this without one is sure to demolish international property rights, not protect them.

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

We support this repeal proposal. In general, we favor broader protections for all property rights in international law.

So what's your proposed replacement?

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... 9&t=394978

[Nilla Wayfarers]

So what's your proposed replacement?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=394978

The argument for that draft is not convincing enough to warrant this repeal.

[Excidium Planetis]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=394978

The argument for that draft is not convincing enough to warrant this repeal.

"If protection of intellectual property rights is not convincing enough to warrant a repeal, I can't see why you would support the current resolution. This is leaving aside that you originally challenged the Christian Democrat delegation for their support, and your challenge has been solidly answered."