[PASSED] Foreign Patent Recognition

[Tobeqwador]

Typical multinational corporations putting big money into pockets of politicians. The people of Tobeqwador are against this proposal, and refuse to follow it, even if passed.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"The fact that both communist and capitalist hardliners are opposed to this resolution indicates to us that it must be a fairly reasonable market promotion and regulation. Ten years isn't that strenuous a term of exclusivity; and half the nightmare scenarios that have been brought up by our fellow leftists are occluded by 6(b) anyway. We support the ability of our syndicates and other industrial outfits to be able to reap the just rewards of their hard work internationally for the indicated short period. This resolution explicitly allows nations to avoid the historically terrible practice of perpetual patent protection impoverishing their citizens and domestic industries for decades on end, while still incentivizing innovation and invention. We have cast our vote in favor."

[Revolutious]

We do not recognize patents as we believe everything belongs to everyone. We also find the language in the bill to be complex and convoluted. We do not recognize patents in our own lands, nor will we honor patents from foreign lands. Therefore, We, the Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya vote AGAINST this resolution.

Vaktra Rajarajeshwaryaaha Hypatyaaha Sophyaaha Matrusattayaaha Shaktirajasya uktam

A choice well made comrade!
This ideal of universal ownership is something I agree with.
Perhaps you could tell me more later.

[Losthaven]

Voting AGAINST the continued bastardization of the free trade category. This law creates significant barriers to trade and economic freedom. Far from increasing economic liberty, this proposal would sharply cut against free trade by requiring member nations to limit the economic activity of their own citizens based on the patent laws of a foreign jurisdiction. This kind of economic regulation may Advance Industry at the expense of economic liberty, but it is the antithesis of free trade.

[Revolutious]

Voting AGAINST the continued bastardization of the free trade category. This law creates significant barriers to trade and economic freedom. Far from increasing economic liberty, this proposal would sharply cut against free trade by requiring member nations to limit the economic activity of their own citizens based on the patent laws of a foreign jurisdiction. This kind of evonomic regulation may Advance Industry at the expense of economic liberty, but it is the antithesis of free trade.

We may not agree with an ideology of economic freedom, but it is good to see we agree this is against all of our interests.
In the context of your equally respectable political stance, I can see exactly where you are coming from.

[Nouvelle o France]

It's not everyday you see capitalists, communists, liberals and conservatives banding together. Further proof, if any was necessary, that this is one of the most dangerous resolution ever proposed.

[Ferret Civilization]

It's not everyday you see capitalists, communists, liberals and conservatives banding together. Further proof, if any was necessary, that this is one of the most dangerous resolution ever proposed.

"And yet this is still passing, what a shame. What do nation's see in this?"

[Caracasus]

It's not everyday you see capitalists, communists, liberals and conservatives banding together. Further proof, if any was necessary, that this is one of the most dangerous resolution ever proposed.

"And yet this is still passing, what a shame. What do nation's see in this?"

A telegram......

[Tinfect]

It's not everyday you see capitalists, communists, liberals and conservatives banding together. Further proof, if any was necessary, that this is one of the most dangerous resolution ever proposed.

"And yet this is still passing, what a shame. What do nation's see in this?"

"Ah, but Ambassador, they do not see anything at all. Their delegations read the title, and place their vote for it, without any thought."

[Ferret Civilization]

"And yet this is still passing, what a shame. What do nation's see in this?"

"Ah, but Ambassador, they do not see anything at all. Their delegations read the title, and place their vote for it, without any thought."

"Doesn't that go against the Read the Resolution Act though?"

[Nouvelle o France]

Actually old bean, I've have the actual voting patterns right here. These were compiled after many hours of careful observation, calculation, and pulling numbers out my arse...<places sign on front of desk>

80% Only read the title, and vote accordingly.
10% Actually read the entire damned resolution before voting.
5% Pay attention to and/or participate in the Forum debate before voting.
2% Vote by the warm and fuzzy feelings the resolution gives them.
2% use a magic eight ball to make their decision.
1% gut a sheep, and fondle the entrails, looking for a divine augary on how to vote.

Of course, these are the numbers for the Festering Snakepit, there may be some variation here in the SC.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I think this formula is once again proven right, sadly...

[Ferret Civilization]

"Yeah, I guess that's the case... Still, what a shame. Well if nation's don't follow the Read the Resolution Act why is there so much trouble about nation's not following other resolution/acts like this one... Just using that statistics of course, if any ambassador here read this and voted yes, please tell me I'm wrong."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Yeah, I guess that's the case... Still, what a shame. Well if nation's don't follow the Read the Resolution Act why is there so much trouble about nation's not following other resolution/acts like this one... Just using that statistics of course, if any ambassador here read this and voted yes, please tell me I'm wrong."

[Ferret Civilization]

"Fair enough, thanks for proving me wrong. And I do mean that."

[Paffnia]

Having considered both the TG campaign and counter-campaign for this resolution, the opinion of the Islands is FOR the proposal, and I have voted accordingly.

[The Palentinate]

"I would just like to remark that it seems like there are many blockheads in the World Assembly who will vote for legislation just for the sake of seeing something get passed. Not saying everyone is a blockhead just the majority of those who voted for this resolution. I reckon the only way to get rid of this resolution is to draft a resolution to repeal it. I am sure a lot of the same blockheads whom voted for it will indeed vote for its repeal."

[Revolutious]

"I would just like to remark that it seems like there are many blockheads in the World Assembly who will vote for legislation just for the sake of seeing something get passed. Not saying everyone is a blockhead just the majority of those who voted for this resolution. I reckon the only way to get rid of this resolution is to draft a resolution to repeal it. I am sure a lot of the same blockheads whom voted for it will indeed vote for its repeal."

"Seconded Tovarich. We certainly have much to work with to argue against it, from its general ineffectiveness in supporting market regulation OR free trade, to the loopholes that come about from it, to its affect on the availability of lifesaving patented medicines."

[Nouvelle o France]

Since the Repeal Resolution is already drafted, we might even go to vote on its repeal as soon as this is passed.
If we waste a month time on this subject, swinging between Repeal and Restoration, people might ACTUALLY come and read them to see what the hell is going on...then again, I might be expecting to much from the average elector... It is not for no reason we don't have elections in Nouvelle o France. So much wasted time and money to leave the fate of the nation in the hands of fools...

[NoFrellsGiven]

Voting AGAINST the continued bastardization of the free trade category. This law creates significant barriers to trade and economic freedom. Far from increasing economic liberty, this proposal would sharply cut against free trade by requiring member nations to limit the economic activity of their own citizens based on the patent laws of a foreign jurisdiction. This kind of evonomic regulation may Advance Industry at the expense of economic liberty, but it is the antithesis of free trade.

I agree. This resolution will be a nightmare to enforce. And there is much doubt that patents will advance industry as we have seen google and microsoft call a stalemate on patent wars. A prize system or nothing at all will work better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as ... to_patents

[Ardortia]

Voting AGAINST the continued bastardization of the free trade category. This law creates significant barriers to trade and economic freedom. Far from increasing economic liberty, this proposal would sharply cut against free trade by requiring member nations to limit the economic activity of their own citizens based on the patent laws of a foreign jurisdiction. This kind of evonomic regulation may Advance Industry at the expense of economic liberty, but it is the antithesis of free trade.

I agree. This resolution will be a nightmare to enforce. And there is much doubt that patents will advance industry as we have seen google and microsoft call a stalemate on patent wars. A prize system or nothing at all will work better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as ... to_patents

How many times do people need to tell you that real world references have no meaning in NationStates?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Contrary to many of my friends and colleagues here who regularly frequent the General Assembly halls, I must cast my vote in favour of this proposal. This is for a number of reasons which I am to elucidate.

First, as Delegate of Europe, I have long-held that my own responsibility is to my constituents. Thus, I will be voting in favour of this proposal because Europe is voting in favour of this proposal. In varitate concordia! On this subject, I must also state that I have no objections with the choice of our region and believe that this vote is best for Europe.

Second, the effect of this patent regulation scheme is negligible on national sovereignty. Whilst patents are a scheme which is, in effect, forced upon the member nations of this Assembly, we must also realise that this is what the World Assembly does. The World Assembly infringes on national sovereignties. Whilst I zealously disagree with those who would say 'leave if you don't agree', from the context of if World Assembly membership were mandatory (OOC: it is if you want to be part of the governments of many regions and have influence), this is not a problem since patents are not a major exercise of sovereignty and the sovereignty infringements placed on your nation are well cancelled by your nation's infringements placed on others.

Third, for economic reasons, this legislation is a good thing. Whilst the delegation from Losthaven has made right and proper remarks regarding how the definition of free trade has been long stretched by this Assembly, we believe that this is somewhat irrelevant. Integral to free trade is the free and long-standing rights of property owners to their properties. Patents are part of that property. For free trade to occur, clear and well-defined property rights must be defined. Otherwise, one would have anarchy instead of markets. This proposal corrects these issues on an international scale by defining those property rights and doing so in a manner which does not infringe on the rights of others in other nations. A maximum limit of 10 years is very reasonable in the context of this consideration.

Fourth, the most important impact which my colleagues have brought up is the impact of this legislation on governments who are socialist or operate under strongly protectionist economies. Socialist governments have argued, as have my most honourable and distinguished colleagues from Caracasus and Tinfect, that this proposal would torpedo their efforts to build socialism in their countries. This is dealt with by the proposal in granting limitations to patent rights in § 6(b) and § 6(d). A nation may simply prevent the exploitation of those patent rights and void them or just ignore this legislation by claiming their national legislation preserves 'limitations and exceptions are necessary to enforce any additional reasonable and appropriate patent regulations' in their nation. Thus, this is no major issue for socialist economies and governments.

I beg to remain, my Sirs, your humble servant,

[Revolutious]

(Image)

Contrary to many of my friends and colleagues here who regularly frequent the General Assembly halls, I must cast my vote in favour of this proposal. This is for a number of reasons which I am to elucidate.

First, as Delegate of Europe, I have long-held that my own responsibility is to my constituents. Thus, I will be voting in favour of this proposal because Europe is voting in favour of this proposal. In varitate concordia! On this subject, I must also state that I have no objections with the choice of our region and believe that this vote is best for Europe.

Second, the effect of this patent regulation scheme is negligible on national sovereignty. Whilst patents are a scheme which is, in effect, forced upon the member nations of this Assembly, we must also realise that this is what the World Assembly does. The World Assembly infringes on national sovereignties. Whilst I zealously disagree with those who would say 'leave if you don't agree', from the context of if World Assembly membership were mandatory (OOC: it is if you want to be part of the governments of many regions and have influence), this is not a problem since patents are not a major exercise of sovereignty and the sovereignty infringements placed on your nation are well cancelled by your nation's infringements placed on others.

Third, for economic reasons, this legislation is a good thing. Whilst the delegation from Losthaven has made right and proper remarks regarding how the definition of free trade has been long stretched by this Assembly, we believe that this is somewhat irrelevant. Integral to free trade is the free and long-standing rights of property owners to their properties. Patents are part of that property. For free trade to occur, clear and well-defined property rights must be defined. Otherwise, one would have anarchy instead of markets. This proposal corrects these issues on an international scale by defining those property rights and doing so in a manner which does not infringe on the rights of others in other nations. A maximum limit of 10 years is very reasonable in the context of this consideration.

Fourth, the most important impact which my colleagues have brought up is the impact of this legislation on governments who are socialist or operate under strongly protectionist economies. Socialist governments have argued, as have my most honourable and distinguished colleagues from Caracasus and Tinfect, that this proposal would torpedo their efforts to build socialism in their countries. This is dealt with by the proposal in granting limitations to patent rights in § 6(b) and § 6(d). A nation may simply prevent the exploitation of those patent rights and void them or just ignore this legislation by claiming their national legislation preserves 'limitations and exceptions are necessary to enforce any additional reasonable and appropriate patent regulations' in their nation. Thus, this is no major issue for socialist economies and governments.

I beg to remain, my Sirs, your humble servant,

(Image)

Ah! You, Tovarich, I like. Looking after the interests of nations with varying economic and political structures in your region truly is evidence of a just leader.
While I will not change my vote against this, your argument is both persuasive and well composed.

The leaders of the Bloc could stand to learn a thing or two from you.

[Caracasus]

-Snip-

Ah! You, Tovarich, I like. Looking after the interests of nations with varying economic and political structures in your region truly is evidence of a just leader.
While I will not change my vote against this, your argument is both persuasive and well composed.

The leaders of the Bloc could stand to learn a thing or two from you.

Indeed. We often find Parsons to be a fair and reasonable ambassador and a good troubleshooter for potential problems within legislation. It is unfortunate that we disagree with him on this, however. We find his arguments, while compelling, not a strong enough justification to vote for this. We still feel this encourages and in some instances forces, other nations to accept legislation passed by other nations. There may well be a loophole - however we do not find the fact that a loophole exists that allows us to essentially not follow a piece of legislation strong enough grounds to agree with the legislation.

[Bananaistan]

There was a long and tedious debate at the Standing Joint Committee on Industry and Commerce at the Banamen parliament. Unfortunately, as the WA ambassador I am obliged to attend at meetings considering WA proposals. After 15 hours of debate, they decided to refer it on to the Standing Joint Committee on Justice due to the significant amount of legalese who spent another 12 hours considering it and then they bloody well sent it on to a Committee of the Whole as they couldn't agree a position. The Supreme Congress of People's Deputies then ultimately decided that they weren't best qualified to immediately take a position without the Attorney General's advice. So off it went to his office.

In the heel of the hunt, he expressed the opinion that despite not introducing any immediately apparent onerous provisions, the proposal will be unworkable, or, at the least, unenforceable, due to section 7. Therefore, I have been instructed by the Government of the People's Republic of Bananistan to cast Bananaistan's vote against the proposal.

The precise reasoning as outlined by the Attorney General is as follows. Section 7 states that the WA "specifies that international intellectual property disputes, including but not limited to international disputes on copyrights, trademarks, or patents, constitute international trade disputes for the purposes of international law." The relevant phrase here is "international trade disputes [further] to international law". This particular international law, IE the proposal currently at vote, makes no further comment on how an international trade dispute is handled. However, WAR#208 Resolving WA Trade Disputes does deal with international trade disputes.

In the absence of precise legislative guidance, it is reasonable to infer that this section 7 in the proposal currently at vote, therefore, sets out that any disputes between member states and foreign patent holders are to be handled as if they are disputes falling within the remit of WAR#208.

The first point of contention thus arises. WAR#208 contains no mechanism for an individual, a group of individuals, or an organisation, or indeed, for anybody other than a member state to seek a legal remedy. It is clear and apparent within WAR#208 that it applies only to disputes between sovereign and independent nation states who are members of the World Assembly. For example, section 3a refers to the principle that the mediation and arbitration under WAR#208 can only occur with the "initial explicit, uncoerced consent of all the member nations involved in the dispute." Therefore, an individual or an organisation who feels they have been wronged by the decision of a foreign government in regards to the applicability of a patent they hold domestically to that foreign member state, has no right to seek a remedy under this proposal.

Given the long standing and accepted principle of international law enforced by this august body that no law can amend another, we must accept that this is the case and, therefore, the proposal currently at vote cannot retrospectively amend WAR#208 to apply to disputes between member states and non-sovereign actors. Therefore, only the wronged individual's or organisation's home government can seek remedy further to WAR#208.

The next point of contention also arises under section 3a of WAR#208. If we accept a legal fiction that the wronged individual's or organisation's home government has the right to seek remedy under WAR#208 even though they may have no standing to do so, all that government, or member state if you will, can do under WAR#208 is ask the offending member state to agree to binding arbitration. The offending member state is under no obligation whatsoever to agree to the binding arbitration as section 3a of WAR#208 clearly states that the binding arbitration can only occur with the "initial explicit, uncoerced consent of all the member nations involved in the dispute."

This needs no further comment, but to sum up, and paraphrase, it is easy to foresee the following situation arising: inventor A is a citizen and resident of member state X. He invents a widget which is "useful, novel and nonobvious". He validly registers and is granted a patent in X. Now he wants to sell the widget in member state Y. Member state Y says "sorry sonny, no cigar, we're just going to make this ourselves as we feel this is a reasonable exception to your rights", further to section 6. A now has to petition X to ask Y to go to the WATC for arbitration. Y are fully within their rights to say "nah, not bovvered, bruv" and poor auld A has no option but to just to jog on.

OOC: I call a HoC illegality but that's not really important. What is important is that the proposal is totally toothless due to the reliance on the optional arbitration procedures within WAR#208.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I call a HoC illegality but that's not really important. What is important is that the proposal is totally toothless due to the reliance on the optional arbitration procedures within WAR#208.

OOC: I don't think the current At Vote is a House of Cards illegality. This is because of the standard test of HoC: If 208 GA were repealed, would this resolution stand alone? The answer to that question is Yes. It would stand alone. It interplays with 208 GA, but is not dependent on it, which is the test for a House of Cards violation.