[PASSED] Repeal "Foreign Patent Recognition"

[Wallenburg]

Repeal "Foreign Patent Recognition"

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GA #347 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the utility of patents to many member states;

Encouraging well-reasoned legislation on the issue of patent rights and intellectual property;

Noting that GA #347 provides insufficient framework to prevent private entities and states from filing patents to block technological and scientific development in other nations, even if they have no interest in the technologies they patent;

Regretting that the target resolution allows patent holders to severely restrict use and availability of vital pharmaceutical products, thereby extending the suffering of citizens in many member nations who cannot afford to purchase exclusively patented medicines;

Noticing that GA #347 leaves many less advanced member states and their inhabitants to suffer the loss of their intellectual rights to more advanced member states and their inhabitants;

Concerned that, in order to enforce their patents abroad, patent holders must divulge the specifications of their technology, even if said technology's secrecy is a matter of crucial security;

Unconvinced that the ten-year minimum for foreign patent recognition set in clause four (4) is anything but an arbitrarily set number, with no absolutely consideration for the varying value of time on different member nations;

Aware that the concept of a patent is foreign to many member states' economic philosophies or ideologies, and may run entirely contrary to those of several member states;

Worried that GA #347 effectively forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, without recognizing the effects patents may have on their economic model or their ideological rights;

Disappointed that this resolution seeks to impose national law beyond its jurisdiction into other nations, compelling nations to recognize the legal power of patent agreements made in foreign nations;

Ultimately convinced that GAR #347 needlessly reduces economic freedoms and limits property rights;

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #347, "Foreign Patent Recognition".

Co-authored by Caracasus.

Repeal "Foreign Patent Recognition"

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GA #347 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the utility of patents to many member states;

Encouraging well-reasoned legislation on the issue of patent rights and intellectual property;

Noting that GA #347 provides insufficient framework to prevent private entities and states from filing patents to block technological and scientific development in other nations, even if they have no interest in the technologies they patent;

Regretting that the target resolution allows patent holders to severely restrict use and availability of vital pharmaceutical products, thereby extending the suffering of citizens in many member nations who cannot afford to purchase exclusively patented medicines;

Noticing that GA #347 leaves many less advanced member states and their inhabitants to suffer the loss of their intellectual rights to more advanced member states and their inhabitants;

Concerned that, in order to enforce their patents abroad, patent holders must divulge the specifications of their technology, even if said technology's secrecy is a matter of crucial security;

Unconvinced that the ten-year minimum for foreign patent recognition set in clause four (4) is anything but an arbitrarily set number, with no absolutely consideration for the varying value of time on different member nations;

Aware that the concept of a patent is foreign to many member states' economic philosophies or ideologies, and may run entirely contrary to those of several member states;

Worried that GA #347 effectively forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, without recognizing the effects patents may have on their economic model or their ideological rights;

Disappointed that this resolution seeks to impose national law beyond its jurisdiction into other nations, compelling nations to recognize the legal power of contractspatent agreements made in foreign nations;

Ultimately convinced that GAR #347 needlessly reduces economic freedoms and limits property rights;

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #347, "Foreign Patent Recognition".

Co-authored by Caracasus.

Repeal "Foreign Patent Recognition"

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GA #347 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the utility of patents to many member states;

Encouraging well-reasoned legislation on the issue of patent rights and intellectual property;

Noting that GA #347 provides insufficient framework to prevent private entities and states from filing patents to block technological and scientific development in other nations, even if they have no interest in the technologies they patent;

Regretting that the target resolution allows patent holders to severely restrict use and availability of vital pharmaceutical products, thereby extending the suffering of citizens in many member nations who cannot afford to purchase exclusively patented medicines;

Noticing that GA #347 essentially grants a monopoly on patents--and therefore all technology--to a handful of highly advanced civilizations, while leaves many less advanced member states and their inhabitants are left to suffer the loss of their intellectual rights to more advanced member states and their inhabitants;

Concerned that, in order to enforce their patents abroad, patent holders must divulge the specifications of their technology, even if said technology's secrecy is a matter of crucial security, further acting against the intended purpose of the target resolution;

Unconvinced that the ten-year minimum for foreign patent recognition set in clause four (4) is anything but an arbitrarily set number, with no absolutely consideration for the varying value of time on different member nations;

Aware that the concept of a patent is foreign to many member states' economic philosophies or ideologies, and may run entirely contrary to those of several member states;

Worried that GA #347 effectively forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, without recognizing the effects patents may have on their economic model or their ideological rights;

Disappointed that this resolution seeks to impose national law beyond its jurisdiction into other nations, compelling nations to recognize the legal power of contracts made in foreign nations;

Alarmed at the destructive power of this resolution against developing economies across the Multiverse, and against free trade between member nations;

Ultimately convinced that GAR #347 needlessly reduces economic freedoms and limits property rights;

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #347, "Foreign Patent Recognition".

Co-authored by Caracasus.

Repeal "Foreign Patent Recognition"

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GA #347 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the utility of patents to many member states;

Encouraging well-reasoned legislation on the issue of patent rights and intellectual property;

Noting that GA #347 provides insufficient framework to prevent private entities and states from filing patents to block technological and scientific development in other nations, even if they have no interest in the technologies they patent;

Regretting that the target resolution allows patent holders to severely restrict use and availability of vital pharmaceutical products, thereby extending the suffering of citizens in many member nations who cannot afford to purchase exclusively patented medicines;

Noticing that GA #347 essentially grants a monopoly on patents--and therefore all technology--to a handful of highly advanced civilizations, while less advanced member states and their inhabitants are left to suffer the loss of their intellectual rights;

Concerned that, in order to enforce their patents abroad, patent holders must divulge the specifications of their technology, even if said technology's secrecy is a matter of crucial security, further acting against the intended purpose of the target resolution;

Aware that the concept of a patent is foreign to many member states' economic philosophies or ideologies, and may run entirely contrary to those of several member states;

Worried that GA #347 effectively forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, without recognizing the effects patents may have on their economic model or their ideological rights;

Disappointed that this resolution seeks to impose national law beyond its jurisdiction into other nations, compelling nations to recognize the legal power of contracts made in foreign nations;

Alarmed at the destructive power of this resolution against developing economies across the Multiverse, and against free trade between member nations;

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #347, "Foreign Patent Recognition".

Repeal "Foreign Patent Recognition"

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GA #347 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the utility of patents to many member states;

Encouraging well-reasoned legislation on the issue of patent rights and intellectual property;

Noting that GA #347 provides insufficient framework to prevent industries private entities and states from filing patents to block technological and scientific development of technology and science in other nations, even if they have no interest in developing said technologies themselves the technologies they patent;

Regretting that the target resolution allows patents holders to severely restrict use and availability of vital pharmaceutical products, thereby extending the suffering of citizens in WA countries that many member nations who cannot afford to purchase exclusively patented medicines;

Noticing that GA #347 essentially grants a monopoly on patents--and therefore all technology--to a handful of highly advanced civilizations, while less advanced member states and their inhabitants are left to suffer the loss of their intellectual rights;

Aware that many member states may not be familiar with what a patent even is the concept of a patent is foreign to many member states' economic philosophies or ideologies, and may run entirely contrary to those of several member states;

Worried that GA #347 effectively forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, without heed to recognizing the effects patents may have on their economic model or their ideological rights;

Disappointed that this resolution seeks to impose national law beyond its jurisdiction into other nations, compelling nations to recognize the legal power of contracts made in foreign nations;

Alarmed at the destructive power of this resolution against developing economies across the Multiverse, and against free trade between member nations;

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #347, "Foreign Patent Recognition".

[Nouvelle o France]

You have our approval. This abomination should be repealed as soon as possible.

[Aranoff]

Upon reading and commenting on the Resolution currently at vote, we agree that a Repeal will be necessary, albeit for other reasons cited. We will support the repeal of GA #347, should it pass, but not for the reasons cited by the Repeal resolution. We do believe that patent recognition is of fundamental importance, this bill does not address all of our concerns.

[Araraukar]

We do believe that patent recognition is of fundamental importance, this bill does not address all of our concerns.

Would you like to share your concerns, then, to make the repeal better and more relevant?

[Aranoff]

"I certainly can repeat ourselves from the ongoing discussion happening during the vote." Jessica rolled her eyes.

"Firstly, the definition of 'Invention' seems dubious. We find that the term 'composition' is most likely implied to mean a composition of materials, but, the definition could be construed to mean rather a composition of thought, sound, or art. These are typically delegated to the realm of copyright, and not that of patents. Thus, the law becomes dangerously over-reaching, and while we favor such laws to protect our corporate persons, this could make any matter of text concepts 'patent-able,' which opens our great culture creators to further expensive processes.

The Resolution also does not aim to make it easier for member nations to identify and locate patents and patent owners to safeguard themselves against infringement. Our Corporate Citizens favor such a resolution, but it must be constructed intelligently.

We find that there's no office of the WA to maintain a repository of patents to ensure that our nation, and more importantly developing nations, can research patents to ensure there is no infringement. Litigation in defense of a patent infringement as well as the aggressive enforcement of patents are extremely costly actions that patent authors and violators must make. If the WA is to take up such a position, which we feel it must, then there ought be a reasonable means by which Member Nations can ensure that they are taking all safeguards. We have proposed to the author, should the Resolution not pass, to revise it with the incorporation of the Bureau of Patent Administration to maintain a record of patents.

We do not believe this record keeping body should be responsible for filing and administering to the formation of patents, but more of a patent library."

Jennifer sighs and then leaves the podium.

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium would support this Repeal even if it were written entirely in limerick. Submit this as soon as possible, Ambassador."

[Wallenburg]

"The Imperium would support this Repeal even if it were written entirely in limerick. Submit this as soon as possible, Ambassador."

Distressed at this awful proposition,
And noting its very impaired vision,
347 is bad
And it makes us quite sad
Repeals “Foreign Patent Recognition”.

[Ferret Civilization]

"Well this repeal will have my support, given how much support the resolution has I hope this repeal works. Just something that could help, I don't know, but possibly adding in something about suppressing scientific advancement and/or research. May or may not help."

[The Palentinate]

"You have my full support for repeal."

[United industrial]

you sold me i am changing my vote on this right now

[Wallenburg]

"Well this repeal will have my support, given how much support the resolution has I hope this repeal works. Just something that could help, I don't know, but possibly adding in something about suppressing scientific advancement and/or research. May or may not help."

"That is very helpful indeed, Ambassador. More clauses for the clause god!"

OOC: Assuming that work does not bog me down, I will probably submit this in two days. I will--of course--push back that deadline should further comments be made on how to improve this.

[Elke and Elba]

We can offer our unconditional support at this point of time.

Regards,
Ambassador Olafsen

[Bananaistan]

The target resolution has no power whatsoever and forces nobody to do anything they don't want to do due to its reliance on the optional arbitration procedures within WAR#208. Given its utter failure to achieve the imperialist aims of its author, we are inclined to oppose any repeal as it blocks anyone from introducing substantive provisions relating to patents that might actually affect member states.

[Araraukar]

The target resolution has no power whatsoever and forces nobody to do anything they don't want to

Except it forces nations to recognize foreign patents, even if the nation hasn't got a patenting system of its own. I'm fairly sure even some greenery around here might be willing to support this repeal for that reason alone...

[Bananaistan]

The target resolution has no power whatsoever and forces nobody to do anything they don't want to

Except it forces nations to recognize foreign patents, even if the nation hasn't got a patenting system of its own. I'm fairly sure even some greenery around here might be willing to support this repeal for that reason alone...

OOC: I don't believe it does. If a nation refuses to recognise a particular foreign patent under Section 6 which allows nations to set all sort of reasonable limitations and exceptions, the patent holder has no comeback as section 7 says it's an international trade dispute. International trade disputes are subject to voluntary arbitration, so the "offending" nation is under no obligation to submit to arbitration and can carry on its merry way recognising no foreign patents at all.

I have already set out my interpretation of the various issues in the debate on the proposal at vote: linky.

... Section 7 [of the target 'resolution'] 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....

[Araraukar]

Except it forces nations to recognize foreign patents, even if the nation hasn't got a patenting system of its own. I'm fairly sure even some greenery around here might be willing to support this repeal for that reason alone...

OOC: I don't believe it does. If a nation refuses to recognise a particular foreign patent under Section 6 which allows nations to set all sort of reasonable limitations and exceptions, the patent holder has no comeback as section 7 says it's an international trade dispute. International trade disputes are subject to voluntary arbitration, so the "offending" nation is under no obligation to submit to arbitration and can carry on its merry way recognising no foreign patents at all.

I have already set out my interpretation of the various issues in the debate on the proposal at vote: linky.

... Section 7 [of the target 'resolution'] 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: Pfft, I was already agreeing with the repeal, don't make me decide otherwise by making me read parts of the vote thread I'm avoiding.

[Domnonia]

You have our approval. This abomination should be repealed as soon as possible.

The Dominis Foreign Mission to the World Assembly Science Programme agrees with the honourable delegation of Nouvelle o France in that the offending legislation is both an abomination and deserving of appeal. Our colleagues in Bananahammock have kindly and thoroughly presented an affidavit that can only be interpreted as condemning both the target resolution and it's original passage by this Assembly. We agree to these facts though cannot conclude, similarly to Banaananananabatman, that it is in the best interests of our Assembly to participate in a clever tacticians performance of Actus Reus and so be deprived of perception.

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassadors, shall I send this for approval?"

[Aranoff]

"The Allied States with support this repeal as soon as possible!"

[The Palentinate]

"By the looks of it, it looks like it's in order. I hope this repeal passes with haste. My country is already having to create a Patent Division and legal team to deal with this headache of a resolution."

[Railana]

Regretting that the resolution calls for longer patents on pharmaceutical products, thereby extending the suffering of citizens in WA countries that cannot afford to purchase patented medicines.

While the resolution calls for such protection, it does not mandate such protection. In fact, under Access to Life-Saving Drugs, patents can be waived entirely under certain circumstances, negating any effects the resolution might have in such cases.

Worried that GA #347 effectively forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, without heed to the effects patents may have on their economic model or their ideological rights.

Actually, the resolution states quite clearly in clause 8 that member nations are not required to recognize domestic patents. I agree that nations probably won't be very competitive if they recognize foreign patents but not domestic ones, but it remains an option. I can't say I'm that sympathetic to nations with an "economic model" or "ideological rights" based on the theft of intellectual property.

Confused by the vague language used in order to define a "patent".

I'm confused by your vague language. Can you point out anything specifically wrong with the definition?

Disappointed that this resolution seeks to impose national law beyond its jurisdiction into other nations, compelling nations to recognize the legal power of contracts made in foreign nations.

In what sense is this true? National patent offices have the authority to regulate recognized foreign patents under clause 6. You even recognize this later in the repeal.

Alarmed at the destructive power of this resolution against developing economies across the Multiverse, and against free trade between member nations.

This is an unsupported assertion. You're not even arguing why this is the case.

Dismayed that the severe restrictions of GA #347 allow foreign governments to besiege member states via exclusive patent rights, annihilating member states' capacity to advance technologically and scientifically.

In other words, "Recognizing that patents are bad..." This isn't an argument. You need to explain how patents prevent scientific and technological innovation.

Further noting that, upon closer analysis of GA #347, clause 6.(d) essentially allows all member nations to ignore all other clauses entirely as "additional reasonable and appropriate patent regulations" to maintaining any kind of economy.

Nope. Such regulations must be "consistent with the object and purpose of the resolution", which is stated quite clearly in the preamble.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

Regretting that the resolution calls for longer patents on pharmaceutical products, thereby extending the suffering of citizens in WA countries that cannot afford to purchase patented medicines.

While the resolution calls for such protection, it does not mandate such protection.

Mandates that each member state recognize the exclusive rights associated with foreign patents for the lesser of the following: ten years after the date on which the patent was granted, or the period used by the member state that granted the patent;

In fact, under Access to Life-Saving Drugs, patents can be waived entirely under certain circumstances, negating any effects the resolution might have in such cases.

Life-saving medications’ and vaccines patents may be temporarily waivered only in the most extraordinary of situations, like in the presence of imminent or unfolding public health catastrophes, such as lethal airborne diseases with a small period of incubation, strictly for as small a period as necessary, as determined by the WHA and only after every other venue of emergency negotiations between the WA and the patent holders have been exhausted.

Those are quite a few hoops to jump through. I imagine a powerful epidemic could wipe out millions before the first medicines arrive. And for anything that doesn't kill enough to constitute a "public health catastrophe", the medicine may never arrive. So no, it doesn't negate any effects this resolution has with regard to patented medicines.

Worried that GA #347 effectively forces nations without a patent system to adopt one, without heed to the effects patents may have on their economic model or their ideological rights.

Actually, the resolution states quite clearly in clause 8 that member nations are not required to recognize domestic patents. I agree that nations probably won't be very competitive if they recognize foreign patents but not domestic ones, but it remains an option. I can't say I'm that sympathetic to nations with an "economic model" or "ideological rights" based on the theft of intellectual property.

It remains an "option" that will destroy their economy and plunge their civilization into a dark age.

Confused by the vague language used in order to define a "patent".

I'm confused by your vague language. Can you point out anything specifically wrong with the definition?

I'll grant you that. The definition seems adequate upon further analysis.

Disappointed that this resolution seeks to impose national law beyond its jurisdiction into other nations, compelling nations to recognize the legal power of contracts made in foreign nations.

In what sense is this true? National patent offices have the authority to regulate recognized foreign patents under clause 6. You even recognize this later in the repeal.

Everything but the last clause of this repeal highlights the problems it has outside of the opt-out clause.

Alarmed at the destructive power of this resolution against developing economies across the Multiverse, and against free trade between member nations.

This is an unsupported assertion. You're not even arguing why this is the case.

Say that someone invents a bolt-action rifle for the first time across the Multiverse. A while later, a guy in another nation in another universe invents the bolt-action rifle. These two nations know nothing of each other because they haven't made it to space. Yet if one of them patents their invention before the other, the other nation must recognize a patent it doesn't even know about? And even if they know each other, then what? What if the inventor refuses to let the other nation use his patented technology? What if--since this nation cannot make these rifles--the one that can invades them and slaughters the antiquated nation's musketmen? You really need to think these things through. If you made a provision allowing for nations to recognize multiple patents on the same technology if the inventors involved discovered the technology independently, then I would support this. But the resolution as it is now would destroy economies, societies, and nations across the Multiverse.

Future tech nations will own all the patents. What interest would they have in letting us use their most basic technology? Hell, they could patent clothing, arrowheads, and man-made fire, and civilizations that have never even heard of patents won't have any power to stop them.

Dismayed that the severe restrictions of GA #347 allow foreign governments to besiege member states via exclusive patent rights, annihilating member states' capacity to advance technologically and scientifically.

In other words, "Recognizing that patents are bad..." This isn't an argument. You need to explain how patents prevent scientific and technological innovation.

In other words, member nations can refuse to let other nations use their patented tech, even for the most obvious necessities, i.e. basic medicine, transportation, military technology, etc.

Further noting that, upon closer analysis of GA #347, clause 6.(d) essentially allows all member nations to ignore all other clauses entirely as "additional reasonable and appropriate patent regulations" to maintaining any kind of economy.

Nope. Such regulations must be "consistent with the object and purpose of the resolution", which is stated quite clearly in the preamble.

viewtopic.php?p=26264993#p26264993

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Take out the reference to the loophole, and Submit. This way, if the Mods take up Railana's interpretation, it doesn't get dinged for on Honest Mistake violations.

[Wallenburg]

OOC:
Take out the reference to the loophole, and Submit. This way, if the Mods take up Railana's interpretation, it doesn't get dinged for on Honest Mistake violations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9jtyH2-yW0

[Wallenburg]

I'm making a note that this has been submitted, since my Invader Zim reference may have been obscure.