Araraukar wrote:Zenkarra wrote:I'm still unable to come up with a better definition for bio-degradable. Leaving it out entirely would cause issues.
OOC: No, I meant replacing "Products which are entirely bio-degradable, meaning that they will return to their base materials within a reasonably short period of time in nature, and do not break down into toxic substances." with "Products which biodegrade naturally." There's a reason I linked the article to the biodegradeability issue, because many RL biodegrading things require very specific circumstances (usually heat and moisture, such as in large compost heaps of industrial scale) to actually biodegrade, and the "return to their base materials" is in any case a completely unnecessary complication and would mean that you could tag biodegradeability to petroleum products, since oil takes millions of years to form, and that's the "base material" for most plastics. (Whereas cellulose products won't turn back into wood.)I don't understand where there is a conflict with patent or copyright law. WA resolution #232 Foreign Copyright Recognition
There's a separate resolution for patents.
I see what you mean now. I will make that change.
As for patents, the International Patent Agreement applies to patents created through the World Assembly Patent Office. I assume that the WAPO would not accept patents for illegal products. As for existing patents, the bill does not protect the rights of the patent holder to create the patented product; it only protects them from competition.
Cardoness wrote:Zenkarra wrote:Without definition 1c, products made intentionally difficult to repair would be exempt from this entire bill unless they also used a second method of self-sabotage.
In order to use definition 1c to exempt their product from the bill, it must be made intentionally easier to repair. If it is made intentionally difficult, they are not exempt. Additionally, if it is naturally difficult to repair, then 1c does not trigger at all, and the rest of the bill requirements remain intact. Clause 3 then prevents future attempts at repair sabotage.
Thus, in order to use this part of the bill to get around regulation, they would have to make all of their sabotaged parts intentionally possible to repair by a third party. While this is noteworthy, I don't imagine it being a problem.
What I was suggesting at the end there is keep clause 3, but remove the third part of the definition. This way manufactures will still have to make their products cheap and easy to repair while not invalidating all of clause 2. As the resolution is currently written, clause 2 is toothless and a waste of ink.
Clause 3 directly cancels out part 3 of clause 1.A product which is made unusually difficult or expensive to restore to functionality without the assistance of the company or individuals responsible for the product's design or creation,requires that all products which meet the definition of “planned obsolescence” as defined by this resolution must not be made intentionally difficult or expensive to repair by purchasers.
Upon compliance with clause 3, which is mandatory, all products cease to meet the definition of "Planned Obsolescence".
Therefore, no product will be affected by clause 2 which only applies to "products which meet the definition of 'planned obsolescence'”.
So, I guess my question is, Why is clause 2 there at all?
If a product no longer meets the definition of planned obsolescence, then it does not need to be regulated. I do not understand why this is a problem. There is no superposition where it meets clause 3 and is still an issue.
If I remove the third part of the definition, then products made intentionally difficult to repair will not be subject to this bill at all, and clause 3 will have no effect. It is possible to create a product where the only intended sabotage is related to obfuscating repair attempts.
Lastly, there is no requirement that a product be made easy to repair. It only requires that a product may not be made intentionally difficult to repair.
If a product is intentionally fragile, but made easy to repair, then it is not covered by this bill.
If a product is intentionally fragile, but repair was not considered at all, then it becomes regulated by this bill.
If a product is intentionally fragile, and repair was made intentionally difficult, then it becomes regulated by this bill.
If a product is made sturdy, and repair was not considered at all, then it is not covered by this bill.
If a product is made sturdy, but repair was made intentionally difficult, then it becomes regulated by this bill.
I do not see what additional possibility is not covered here that you are seeing as a potential issue.
Kenmoria wrote:“The combination of 2a and 2b seems an odd choice. For example, a member nation cannot chose to use two different methods in combination, such as prohibits entirely some deliberately obsolescent items to be sold while allowing others to be sold with labelling. I suggest requiring labelling in any instance, and perhaps suggesting that products be additionally banned.”
My concern is that there should be no reason why some sabotaged products should be acceptable, but others not. By allowing member nations to mix and match the two at their own discretion, it could potentially be used as an anti-competitive law to favor certain products over others. Member nations are still allowed to choose 2a, and then ban individual products at their discretion without involving this bill.