[PASSED] The General Patent Charter

[Charlotte Ryberg]

This draft deals with international recognition of patents and international protection of of the rights of patent holders in member states.

The following is a copy of the latest revision. So far it is much better: it used to be very awful, I must admit: but it is said that posting it here would obviously get a good polishing by the other honoured ambassadors then it'll be fabulous.

The General Patent Charter
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Author: Charlotte Ryberg

SEEKING to establish international laws for:
• the mutual recognition of patents issued by member countries;
• the protection of the rights of patent holders within a member country;

The World Assembly,

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:
• Invention: a contrivance or construction of something which has not before existed, proven to be workable, useful and non-obvious;
• Patent law: any legislation that provides for issuing of Patents in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention; an official right allowing the Patent Holder to exclude unauthorised individuals or private entities from making or marketing an invention for a certain period of time, after which the invention enters the public domain;
• Patent Holder: a person, their assignee or an entity who holds the patent, regardless of whether they were the inventor or not;
• Public domain: patents that are not subject to protections of patent law or specific state ownership, making the invention freely available for use by anyone;
• Biological patenting: where research methods, specific sequences, chemical compositions or the process for creation of genetically engineered biological matter are patented;

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;

2. SPECIFIES that the minimum term of the patent shall be at least 20 years, subject to renewal eligibility and fees as determined by the issuing member country, and member countries that require a payment of a renewal fee to keep a patent, or patent application in force, must ensure that the renewal fee is fair and sensible, and that the interval for the payment of such renewal fee is a year or longer;

3. CALLS FOR national patent laws to grant active patent applications that have been filed but not yet granted a "Patent Pending" status, which shall provide no legal protection unlike a granted patent, but will provide for protection in case of intentional infringement later, if that patent application is granted;

4. SPECIFIES that where no action is taken to renew a patent, even if renewals are permitted, when the patent term expires, that patent will automatically enter the public domain;

5. RESTRICTS biological patenting to the methods for creation of genetically engineered biological matter only;

6. CREATES the Universal Patent Archive (UPA), a branch of the Universal Library Coalition, and invites member countries to submit their patents to the UPA; inclusion of date & time stamps will determine who patented what first, for posterity and preservation of knowledge.

7. REQUIRES member countries to provide for patent holders to seek damages from anyone who can be proven to have intentionally infringed their patent(s), but states that the existence of such patents in the UPA is not the sole valid argument for infringement;

8. ALLOWS patent holders to licence; mortgage; assign, transfer, or give away the patent; place the patent into the public domain; or allow the patent to expire.

ASSURES that nothing in this resolution will affect the right of member countries to accept/reject patent applications or allow/disallow patent renewals after expiration.

No need to ask about category and strength: Free Trade, Mild as recognition of the patent in all member states will cut the trouble of trading a patented product globally with just one patent from a member state.

The General Assembly,

RECOGNISING the legality of patent laws of member states, but considering the need to establish international rules for the provision of:
• The international recognition of patents granted by member states,
• The international protection of the rights of inventors who file patents with a member state;

FURTHER NOTING the issues in regards to the patenting of genes, which may result in higher costs for genetic testing, and then serious and even life-threatening complexities and delays to the development of life-saving medicines;

SEEKING to resolve the said statements, the General Assembly therefore,

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution only:
• Patent law: as any legislation that provides for the issue, in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention, of a Patent, an official right prohibiting anyone other than the Inventor, being a person, their assignee or the company, from making or marketing an invention for a certain period of time, after which the invention enters the public domain;
• Public domain: as a collection of patents that are not subject to the protections of patent law or specific state ownership, making the invention freely available for use by the public;
• The term patent pending, as an invention in which a patent application has been filed at the patent office of a member state, but where a patent has not necessarily been granted;
• Gene patenting, as a practice in which specific sequences, and/or chemical compositions of biological matter such as, but not limited to: genes, genomes, cells, are patented, resulting in the granting of exclusive rights to the inventor;

EMPHASISES that the definition of Gene patenting does not include the patenting of the process for the creation of genetically engineered genes;

1. AFFIRMS that national patent laws, including the process of application for a patent, apply to all patents that were filed before the patent office of that nation;

2. MANDATES that national patent laws must grant the following rights and protections to the inventors of any granted patent filed before the patent office in that member state:
- The immediate recognition of the patent in all member states;
- the right for the inventor to exclude unauthorised individuals or companies from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention during the maximum term of the patent, which shall be for at least 20 years subject to the payment of renewal fees, as described in section 5, if applicable in that member state.
- The right to seek damages from infringers;

3. REQUIRES (in the respect of genes) that member states shall adapt and enforce their patent law to outlaw the practice of gene patenting (as defined in this resolution).

4. MANDATES that national patent laws shall provide for an active patent application to be referred to as “patent pending”, where no legal protection is conferred unlike a granted patent, but provides for potential infringers to be liable for damages if a patent is granted;

5. PROVIDES for the Patent Office of a member state to:
a) Require a payment of a renewal fee to keep the patent in force, on condition that the frequency of the payment of such fees is one year or less frequent;
b) Require a payment of a renewal fee in respect of a patent application prior to it being granted, subject to the conditions as described in Section 5a.

6. PROVIDES for the holder of a patent to sell, license, mortgage, assign or transfer, give away, put in the public domain, or simply abandon the patent.

I'd like to thank: Malikov!

A chronology of Patent Law and the International Community:

• UN #45: UCPL- Universal Copyright/Patent Law, by Anward - The first resolution involving Patent Law was a combined Copyright and Patent law resolution which made the relevant laws of member states the same between them.
• UN #133: Repeal "UCPL", by Gruenberg - The repeal argued that Copyright and Patents are different and member states approach such laws in different ways.
• UN #156: Universal Copyright/Patent Law, by Ceorana - Patent law is now a individually subject, and a central patent registry was created. Biological organisms and intangible products such as computer code were excluded from patenting. Under this resolution all patents lasted for 17 years.
• UN #205: Repeal "UN Patent Law", by Kelssek - The patenting of Lifesaving medicines was the main argument.
• WA #41: Access to Life-Saving Drugs, by Sionis Prioratus - Although mostly about health, patents for life-saving medications and vaccines could be temporarily waivered in the most extraordinary of situations, at last resort, but only where negotiations were exhausted.

Ms. Sarah Harper
Chief Delegate to the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg

[Grays Harbor]

take out the prohibitions on gene patenting, and perhaps we might consider offering support for this.

[Glen-Rhodes]

take out the prohibitions on gene patenting, and perhaps we might consider offering support for this.

That, Ambassador, would defeat the purpose. What are the benefits of patenting a human cell stem, as opposed to patenting the process of extracting and using it?

Anyways, I have a few comments. Assuming you are modeling this after the WA Copyright Charter, it should deal delicately with infringement. There's the possibility that two people from different nations will invent the same thing. This proposal needs to account for that, and say that invention of the same thing is not solely grounds for infringement. In order for it to qualify as infringement, there has to exist proof of a direct intent to infringe.

1. AFFIRMS that national patent laws, including the process of application for a patent, apply to all patents that were filed before the patent office of that nation;

Where are you trying to go with this? In the WA Copyright Charter, this type of clause exists so that people who choose to use their work in other nations can't claim copyright violation based on their home nation's laws; a work made in Nation A, but used in Nation B, is subject to the copyright laws of Nation B. However, this clause merely states that national patent laws apply to patents within that nation. It's stating the obvious.

5. PROVIDES for the Patent Office of a member state to:
a) Require a payment of a renewal fee to keep the patent in force, on condition that the frequency of the payment of such fees is one year or less frequent;
b) Require a payment of a renewal fee in respect of a patent application prior to it being granted, subject to the conditions as described in Section 5a.

More thought needs to go into this. Currently, there's nothing preventing a patent office from setting renewal fees unreasonably high, in an effort to force the patent into the public domain. Or, for another example, making the repayment be in intervals of days, hours, minutes, etc. Having to pay 1000 GRD per day for a patent would essentially force it into the public domain.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I have made some changes. The draft is now saying that:

- The invention of the same product shall not the sole ground for infringement of a patent, but member states must provide for the right of the inventor of a granted patent to seek damages from any person or company that can be proven to have intentionally and directly infringed the said patent;

and

- Any person or company who deliberately and directly intends to infringe the said patent application under "patent pending" may be liable for damages, should a patent application be granted;

I have also removed the old section one, which allows the new dedicated clause in regards to infringement to become Section 2.

In terms of renewal fees, the draft is now saying that:

-Member states who opt to require a payment of a renewal fee to keep the patent, or patent application (prior to it being granted) in force, are required to ensure that: the renewal fee is fair and reasonable, and that the interval for the payment of such renewal fee is one year or longer;

This respects the fact that some members states do not require payment of renewal fees.

If there is anything missing or odd, please let me know. Particularly, I would be happy to hear what the honoured ambassador to Malikov thinks of the progress.

Ms. Sarah Harper
Chief Delegate to the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg

[Grays Harbor]

take out the prohibitions on gene patenting, and perhaps we might consider offering support for this.

That, Ambassador, would defeat the purpose. What are the benefits of patenting a human cell stem, as opposed to patenting the process of extracting and using it?

Why do you assume that the term "gene patenting" is reserved for stem cells, or human genes at all? Everything has them, from the lowest single celled creature up to plants and animals. To prohibit "gene patenting" would devestate the agricultural research industry, for example, by removing any barriers patents now put in place to protect research and proprietary rights.

Making an incorrect assumption that a vague statement could only mean one thing is a dangerous path to begin.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why do you assume that the term "gene patenting" is reserved for stem cells, or human genes at all? Everything has them, from the lowest single celled creature up to plants and animals. To prohibit "gene patenting" would devestate the agricultural research industry, for example, by removing any barriers patents now put in place to protect research and proprietary rights.

Making an incorrect assumption that a vague statement could only mean one thing is a dangerous path to begin.

I am assuming nothing. I merely gave a scenario, about which you have not answered my questions. Well, you sort of have, but you are misguided, Ambassador. Banning patents on biological matter (which I think would be a better way of putting it, Ambassador Harper) would not 'devastate the agricultural research industry'. GM food companies, for example -- to be abundantly clear, this is scenario, not an assumed reservation -- do not need to patent the genetic mutations themselves, but merely the process in which one induces them. Indeed, it is the process that is the invention, not the gene.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Gene patenting affects everything, GM crops or stem cells or even the creation of creatures that people thought it existed through fantasy only. It is about allowing researchers, not to socially engineer, but to actually find cures for diseases and: if the genes that they needed to develop a vaccine for a major epidemic had active patents in force, how would they be able to seek permission, if that gene was patented by, say, a big corporation with no mind other than making profit? That would put lives at serious risk.

Speaking of biological patents vs. profit, I may be rethinking about the category carefully too.

Ms. Sarah Harper
Chief Delegate to the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg

[Grays Harbor]

Gene patenting affects everything, GM crops or stem cells or even the creation of creatures that people thought it existed through fantasy only. It is about allowing researchers, not to socially engineer, but to actually find cures for diseases and: if the genes that they needed to develop a vaccine for a major epidemic had active patents in force, how would they be able to seek permission, if that gene was patented by, say, a big corporation with no mind other than making profit? That would put lives at serious risk.

Speaking of biological patents vs. profit, I may be rethinking about the category carefully too.

Ms. Sarah Harper
Chief Delegate to the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg

I'm smelling an awful lot of "IF" coming off that argument.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I would focus more on the patent charter in general for now, honoured ambassador to Grays Harbour. Because they are clearly marked they can be deleted in the final version if there is enough consensus.

I can now offer all honoured ambassadors a new way of referring to the holder of the patent which is as follows: I used to define it as "Inventor", the inventor who has patented the invention, of course, but we started to run into problems if the inventor died and its heir decided to take the custody of the patent, and inevitably that heir can't be called an inventor in practice, so therefore we should call it simply the "holder of the patent".

Well, almost. It seems inventor is such a great term, so which direction should I take? Should we call the holder of a patent an inventor?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm smelling an awful lot of "IF" coming off that argument.

It appears that the Ambassador has never heard of preventative measures.

Well, almost. It seems inventor is such a great term, so which direction should I take? Should we call the holder of a patent an inventor?

The inventor is the person or corporation who submits a patent. A patent holder is the person who holds the patent, regardless of whether or not they invented the innovation.

Also, Ambassador Harper, I would suggest renaming 'gene patenting' to 'biological patenting', since your description more closely relates to the latter.


[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Grays Harbor]

I'm smelling an awful lot of "IF" coming off that argument.

It appears that the Ambassador has never heard of preventative measures.

Of course we have. Which is why we are attempting to prevent this travesty.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Of course we have. Which is why we are attempting to prevent this travesty.

And does the Ambassador harbor the same feelings for every other resolution passed by this body? Because each resolution is written to prevent certain things from happening. I find your reason for opposition weak, considering the nature of the World Assembly. The concern for national sovereignty is noble, but the World Assembly is not obligated to uphold national sovereignty, nor do I believe it should be.

Aside from these lofty oppositions, is there any other reason why the Ambassador is opposed? We may be able to have a debate, then.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Grays Harbor]

Of course we have. Which is why we are attempting to prevent this travesty.

And does the Ambassador harbor the same feelings for every other resolution passed by this body? Because each resolution is written to prevent certain things from happening. I find your reason for opposition weak, considering the nature of the World Assembly. The concern for national sovereignty is noble, but the World Assembly is not obligated to uphold national sovereignty, nor do I believe it should be.

Aside from these lofty oppositions, is there any other reason why the Ambassador is opposed? We may be able to have a debate, then.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

Obviously not, my sarcastic colleague, as we have voted in favour of many, and authored or co-authered a few. Whether you approve of our opposition to this particular, either through means of attempting to make it look as though we blanket disapprove everything, or reject any objection we make, is is of no concern to us.

The WA is not designed to uphold National Sovereignty, true, however, it is also not designed to trample every aspect of it into unrecognizable dustbunnies either. many issues are international in scope. This is not one of them.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The WA is not designed to uphold National Sovereignty, true, however, it is also not designed to trample every aspect of it into unrecognizable dustbunnies either. many issues are international in scope. This is not one of them.

And how is this not one of them? That is what I am asking you to answer. You cannot simply say "national sovereignty" and expect anybody to care about your opinion afterward. This proposal is modeled after the WA Copyright Charter. It seeks to legitimatize patents on the international stage, the same way the World Assembly as legitimatized copyrights. It seeks to lay down the core basics of patent law, which should already exist in nations with patent laws already.

The only thing that can be considered a breach of national sovereignty is the banning of biological patents. You argue this, but I have provided a sound rebuttal, to which you have either ignored or are unable to refute. Biological patenting is an ethical issue, and the World Assembly can and should legislate on it as we have legislated on human rights, abortion, and dozens of other non-international issues. Until you can say why that is untrue, I advise Ambassador Harper to not entertain the objections of the Greys Harbor delegation. "Because it's just not", isn't an argument.


[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Grays Harbor]

We never said "national sovereignty", which is a last resort non-argument. What was said was "better handled at the national level." We would think that someone as learned as yourself could recognize the difference.

[Glen-Rhodes]

We never said "national sovereignty", which is a last resort non-argument. What was said was "better handled at the national level." We would think that someone as learned as yourself could recognize the difference.

I was not aware that nations could force other nations to recognize their patents. This is an astounding revelation! Or maybe you're only referring to the gene patent ban. Either way, it's also an astounding revelation that nations can be trusted to act in the correct ethical way on their own!

Also, the two things are the same argument in different words, especially without any qualifications.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Buccaneers FC]

Please. Get rid of the gene patenting interdiction and we shall be in full support of this.

/s/ Myan Al 'Khali.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Well, almost. It seems inventor is such a great term, so which direction should I take? Should we call the holder of a patent an inventor?

The inventor is the person or corporation who submits a patent. A patent holder is the person who holds the patent, regardless of whether or not they invented the innovation.

Also, Ambassador Harper, I would suggest renaming 'gene patenting' to 'biological patenting', since your description more closely relates to the latter.

Ah, just the word I was looking for. Thank you honoured ambassador Dr. Castro, I have taken note of that, and also replaced gene patenting with biological patenting. The length of the definition of the patent holder has resulted in that definition getting its own sub-clause.

Ms. Sarah Harper
Chief Delegate to the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg

[Glen-Rhodes]

Please. Get rid of the gene patenting interdiction and we shall be in full support of this.

Why?

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Buccaneers FC]

It violates "Stem Cells for Greater Health" by prohibiting stem cell research.

It's in the fine print. Read between the lines.

/s/ Myan Al 'Khali.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It violates "Stem Cells for Greater Health" by prohibiting stem cell research.

/s/ Myan Al 'Khali.

And how does a ban on patenting biological matter prohibit research? Does the Ambassador realize that the most logical argument is that the patent itself prohibits research? In order to conduct research on a patented stem cell, one would have to apply for permission, and on the slight chance that permission is granted, pay substantial fees. Whereas, with the ban, a researcher would have to apply for nothing and pay no fees whatsoever.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Buccaneers FC]

Once again, Dr. Castro, it violates a previous resolution. It's illegal.

/s/ Myan Al 'Khali.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Once again, Dr. Castro, it violates a previous resolution. It's illegal.

/s/ Myan Al 'Khali.

And once again, I ask, "How so?" It doesn't prohibit research of any kind. "Stem Cells For Greater Health" does not prohibit the World Assembly from banning biological patents, either.

Assertions need to be supported by facts, my good sir.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Buccaneers FC]

You wanted facts, you got facts.

• Biological patenting, as a practice in which specific sequences, and/or chemical compositions of biological matter such as, but not limited to: genes, genomes, cells, are patented, resulting in the granting of exclusive rights to the patent holder;

[color=#008000]3. REQUIRES (in the respect of biology) that member states shall adapt and enforce their patent law to outlaw the practice of biological patenting (as defined in this resolution).

Read everything in green, Dr. Castro. Clearly outlaws stem cell research.

It's in the fine print.

/s/ Myan Al 'Khali.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Read everything in green, Dr. Castro. Clearly outlaws stem cell research.

It's in the fine print.

/s/ Myan Al 'Khali.

No, it doesn't at all. It bans patenting biological matter. I'm simply not seeing where the correlation between researching and patenting is being drawn.


[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]