[PASSED] Repeal "The General Patent Charter"

[Mallorea and Riva]

The former half of an repeal and replace campaign for GAR #93, The General Patent Charter.

Repeal "The General Patent Charter"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #93

Affirming the practice of granting inventors certain exclusive rights associated with their inventions in exchange for the detailed public disclosure of that invention, which promotes scientific and technological innovation,

Believing that World Assembly harmonization of patent law, as attempted by GAR #93, "The General Patent Charter", is necessary, as the effectiveness of patents is substantially reduced when other member states fail to recognize them,

Regretting, however, that the target resolution's myriad flaws necessitate its repeal,

Concerned that the target resolution fails to clarify the extent to which member nations are required to recognize the validity of patents issued by other member nations, especially:

1. whether the right of national patent offices to renew patents under clause 2 of the target resolution compels all member nations to recognize such a renewal, as patents must always be "recognized in all member countries" under clause 1 of the target resolution,
2. whether, if this is in fact the case, this seemingly unrestricted renewal right would effectively allow a single member nation to prevent a patent from entering the public domain in all member nations indefinitely,
3. whether, if this is not the case, the target resolution effectively prohibits all member nations from renewing patents, as patents must always be "recognized in all member countries" under clause 1 of the target resolution,

Saddened that this lack of clarity largely prevents the target resolution from accomplishing its stated purpose of ensuring the "mutual recognition of patents issued by member countries,"

Disappointed that the target resolution fails to provide adequate protection against "submarine patents", or patents whose issuance and publication are intentionally delayed with the intent of launching litigation against infringing industries that developed during the delay,

Alarmed that the target resolution compels member nations to offer patent protection to domestic inventors, even though member nations may prefer to implement some other form of recognition for intellectual property for their own citizens, which is an issue with no international significance,

Hoping that a replacement resolution governing the foreign recognition of patents will soon be passed,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #93, "The General Patent Charter".

[Railana]

((OOC: Bumping this.))

[Jarish Inyo]

The government of Jarish Inyo does not recognize patents. Nor do we have a patent office.

[Railana]

The government of Jarish Inyo does not recognize patents. Nor do we have a patent office.

Then you are failing to comply with your international obligations as a member of the World Assembly.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Jarish Inyo]

I'm in compliance with my international obligations as a member of the WA. GAR#93 does not require that a nation have patent laws or even to recognize patents.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Distressed that, notwithstanding the controversy surrounding the patentability of biological matter, member nations are prohibited from recognizing the patentability of such matter even when protection is only granted within national borders, which is not an international issue,

OOC: I'm not sure it makes much difference to include this argument. People who want the WA to take action on biological patents will oppose this argument even where they might otherwise support the repeal; people who don't want the WA to take action on biological patents will probably support the repeal without it.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

You might add that Clause 3 pays mere lip service to filed but yet-to-be-granted patents with a weak "calls for," rather than actually mandating protection against intentional infringement for pending patents that are later granted, retroactively to the filing date. Also there is nothing in the target resolution that prevents submarine patents, the granting of which is antithetical to the goals, intentions, and entire point of the whole idea of patent protection. Hoping these protections are politically possible in a replacement resolution, we register tentative support for this repeal.

[Ra Rosulh]

I'm in compliance with my international obligations as a member of the WA. GAR#93 does not require that a nation have patent laws or even to recognize patents.

"The Mandate in Cause 1 reads as such;

to have their patents recognized in all member countries; and to exclude unauthorised persons or private entities from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention;

It would seem you are not in compliance, if you do not recognize patents."

OOC; As for the repeal draft, I see no issues, but I am not really of a position to present support, being Non-WA.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually it states the following:

1. MANDATES that national patent laws must grant the following rights to patent holders, whose patents are granted and filed at their patent office: to have their patents recognized in all member countries; and to exclude unauthorised persons or private entities from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention

As my nation has no patent laws or offices, I am in compliance. It's cute that you left out the part that states national patents and patent office.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Actually it states the following:

1. MANDATES that national patent laws must grant the following rights to patent holders, whose patents are granted and filed at their patent office: to have their patents recognized in all member countries; and to exclude unauthorised persons or private entities from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention

As my nation has no patent laws or offices, I am in compliance. It's cute that you left out the part that states national patents and patent office.

You're missing the point. Whether or not you grant domestic patents, you still have to recognise patents where they are granted by other WA nations. If a single WA nation grants a patent, then every member nation is obligated to recognise that patent ("to have their patents recognized in all member countries").

[Jarish Inyo]

I'm not missing the point. GAR#93 doe not require me to recognize international patents if my nation has no patent laws.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Again, Article 1 requires that every member nation recognise a patent if it is accorded by any WA nation. So long as there is at least one WA nation granting patents, every WA member nation is obligated to recognise those patents.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, it doesn't requires that every member nation recognize a patent if it is accorded by any WA nation. It requires a nation's patent laws to grant certain rights to patent holders. One being having their patents recognized in all member countries.

My nation has no patent laws. Without parent laws, patent holders are not granted those rights, including having their patents recognized.

My nation not having patent laws is not obligated to recognize those patents.

[Railana]

Distressed that, notwithstanding the controversy surrounding the patentability of biological matter, member nations are prohibited from recognizing the patentability of such matter even when protection is only granted within national borders, which is not an international issue,

OOC: I'm not sure it makes much difference to include this argument. People who want the WA to take action on biological patents will oppose this argument even where they might otherwise support the repeal; people who don't want the WA to take action on biological patents will probably support the repeal without it.

((OOC: I'm not certain the latter is true, but you might be right about the former. I'll think about it.))

You might add that Clause 3 pays mere lip service to filed but yet-to-be-granted patents with a weak "calls for," rather than actually mandating protection against intentional infringement for pending patents that are later granted, retroactively to the filing date. Also there is nothing in the target resolution that prevents submarine patents, the granting of which is antithetical to the goals, intentions, and entire point of the whole idea of patent protection. Hoping these protections are politically possible in a replacement resolution, we register tentative support for this repeal.

We've added a clause about submarine patents. Thank you for your support.

Actually, it doesn't requires that every member nation recognize a patent if it is accorded by any WA nation. It requires a nation's patent laws to grant certain rights to patent holders. One being having their patents recognized in all member countries.

My nation has no patent laws. Without parent laws, patent holders are not granted those rights, including having their patents recognized.

My nation not having patent laws is not obligated to recognize those patents.

The resolution implicitly requires that you create such laws if they do not yet exist. This is quite obvious to any reasonable person reading the resoluton's text, given the object and purpose of the resolution.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[The Dark Star Republic]

But it's not your nation's laws that are relevant, Rybergification of the proposal language notwithstanding.

Let's say Nations A and B are both WA members. A patent is granted in Nation A for a piece of technology that magically causes lead not to be toxic. Nation A's patent laws now require that the patent be recognised in every WA nation, including Nation B. That Nation B claims not to have any patent laws is irrelevant to the Compliance Ministry.

[Jarish Inyo]

Railana,

The resolution does not implicitly requires a nation to create such laws if they do not yet exist. The resolution only does what it says it does. No where in it's text does it require laws to be created if none exist.

The Dark Star Republic,

My nation's laws are not irrelevant to GAR#93 or the Compliance Ministry. GAR#93 requires that if a nation has patent laws, that those laws give certain rights to patent holders. The Compliance Ministry only ensures that the nation's laws are in compliance with the resolution. Without patent law and GAR#93 not requiring patent laws to be created, a nation is not required to recognize any patent.

[Railana]

The resolution does not implicitly requires a nation to create such laws if they do not yet exist. The resolution only does what it says it does. No where in it's text does it require laws to be created if none exist.

"The resolution only does what it says it does" is a vague and poor interpretative philosophy. Resolutions should be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the resolution, in the context in which they are used, in light of the object and purpose of the resolution, and without prejudice to any special meaning given to a term as defined in the resolution. ((OOC: That is to say, in accordance with real life international norms.))

In any event, I don't think I'm going to convince you of anything, so why don't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Jarish Inyo]

I didn't give any special meaning given to any term as defined in the resolution when I read GAR#93. You may not like the fact that that the resolution can only do what it mandates, but is what it is.

We will have to agree that we will disagree on this.

[Louisistan]

OOC: "submarine patents"? That's not actually patents on submarines, right? I don't know if that is a widely recognized term in the U.S. but for us non-native speakers that is just gibberish.

IC: Tentative support, though we have to have a little talk with the Ministry of Commerce.

[Railana]

OOC: "submarine patents"? That's not actually patents on submarines, right? I don't know if that is a widely recognized term in the U.S. but for us non-native speakers that is just gibberish.

((OOC: No; it's a colloquial term (which is why it is surrounded by quotation marks) that is defined in the resolution.))

IC: Tentative support, though we have to have a little talk with the Ministry of Commerce.

Again, thank you for your tentative support.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Railana]

((OOC: I'll be submitting this soon if there are no further comments.))

[SkillCrossbones]

Aw rats, I was hoping this was a thread for the other Repeal "The General Patent Charter" proposal!

Repeal "The General Patent Charter"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA #93

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #93: The General Patent Charter (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Because someone asked me too, and I'm a nice person

[The Eternal Kawaii]

The resolution does not implicitly requires a nation to create such laws if they do not yet exist. The resolution only does what it says it does. No where in it's text does it require laws to be created if none exist.

"The resolution only does what it says it does" is a vague and poor interpretative philosophy.

Actually, "the law means what the law says" is a long-standing maxim when interpreting WA resolutions.

We have approved this proposal in the hope that a better-worded version be passed as a replacement. It should include language closing Jarish Inyo's loophole.

[Chester Pearson]

[Lexicor]

OOC: Support

IC: "We hope to see this repeal pass."

- Funky Dela
Head Lemon Harvester
Lexicorian WA Office, Left of the Lemonade Stand