[Draft] International Progress Compact

[Tinfect]

International Progress Compact
Category: Social Justice || Strength: Mild

Origin: Imperium of Tinfect,

Author: Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative

Imperial Division of Foreign Policy and Diplomatic Action

---

The World Assembly;

Recognizing the immense technological ingenuity of the various peoples of the Member-States,

Acknowledging the vast gulfs in economic structure between Member-States,

Deeply concerned by practices which restrict access to technological and medical innovations to wealthier Member-States,

And seeking to protect international technological and medical advancement from prohibitive and harmful restrictions,

Hereby;

Defines a Patent as a form of legal intellectual property in which the holder of a Patent is granted exclusive rights regarding an invention for a period of time, limited or unlimited, typically in exchange for disclosing details and specifications of said invention,

Reserves to individual Member-States the exclusive right to determine the legal status or recognition of patents, excepting where otherwise established by prior legislation, or wherein non-World-Assembly treaties oblige a certain policy,

Non-Bindingly Pressures Member-States to make decisions that will expand access to technologies and assist in the development of new technologies.

OOC:
This will be submitted under Second Sovereignty.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Is this not illegal for violation of the blocker rule?)

[Wallenburg]

(OOC: Is this not illegal for violation of the blocker rule?)

As written, it is.

[Tinfect]

(OOC: Is this not illegal for violation of the blocker rule?)

OOC:
Bah, I'll toss in some hand-wringing fluff about demanding Member-States make the decisions best for technological progress and access.

[Heidgaudr]

Not sure what Category to toss this in; Regulation - Legal Reform perhaps?

I don't think Legal Reform makes that much sense. See this GenSec ruling.

Free Trade - Mild maybe? Patents are barriers to trade, so blocking them would "reduce barriers to free trade and commerce" IMHO.

The definition of patent is loosely cribbed from GAR #394, and I'm sure there are better ways to define patent than my somewhat haphazard attempt.

How about something like:

Defines:

1. "Patent" as a set of exclusive rights granted to an inventor regarding their invention for a limited time typically in exchange for disclosing details and specifications of said invention.

To me, the disclosure of the invention is an important detail to note.

Regardless, full support!

[Tinfect]

I don't think Legal Reform makes that much sense. See this GenSec ruling.

OOC:
Ah, so it's Legal Reform as in Legal Reform. I suppose I should have expected that.

Free Trade - Mild maybe? Patents are barriers to trade, so blocking them would "reduce barriers to free trade and commerce" IMHO.

I would concur, but, I'm not quite sure that will stand up to inspection, given the category is usually used to enforce patents and whatnot.

Defines:

1. "Patent" as a set of exclusive rights granted to an inventor regarding their invention for a limited time typically in exchange for disclosing details and specifications of said invention.

To me, the disclosure of the invention is an important detail to note.

I like that; going to borrow your wording if you don't mind.

[Tinhampton]

Vehement Support!

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. I don't like the name very much. It should be called something accurate, like International Patent Compromise. This doesn't progress anything.

"I'm sure there are a million reasons not to deregulated patents internationally but the very concept of discussing patent law is so incredibly dull to me that I can't be arsed so I support the principle."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The final clause should end in a full stop. Also, why not use simply ‘urges’, ‘encourages’, or ‘suggests that’ rather than a three-word phrase?)

[Tinfect]

(OOC: The final clause should end in a full stop. Also, why not use simply ‘urges’, ‘encourages’, or ‘suggests that’ rather than a three-word phrase?)

OOC:
I'll fix the full stop, but as to the latter, because it's funny to me. Might change it at a later date.

"Opposed. I don't like the name very much. It should be called something accurate, like International Patent Compromise. This doesn't progress anything.

As patents are the chief barrier to both technological progress and widespread access to technologies, the name is quite appropriate.

[Second Sovereignty]

OOC:
This has fallen off the front page, so if you don't mind I'll be kicking it back to the top. I'd like to submit it as soon as possible, so if we could get some insight on possible flaws and/or the immaculate perfection of the draft as is?

[Kenmoria]

“Could not the whole of the definitional clause be made into one block of text? Numbering the definitions makes less sense when there is but one. Regardless, I suppose that I can support this. Policy-wise, I would prefer something that actually addresses standardisation of patents across international borders, but this is an acceptable compromise.”

(OOC: I also second what SP mentioned about the name. Someone looking at the title would have no idea what it is about. ‘International Progress on Patents’ would at least make the subject clear.)

[Second Sovereignty]

“Could not the whole of the definitional clause be made into one block of text? Numbering the definitions makes less sense when there is but one. Regardless, I suppose that I can support this. Policy-wise, I would prefer something that actually addresses standardisation of patents across international borders, but this is an acceptable compromise.”

"Numbering the- what?" Raxes looks down at the draft copy before him, "Oh, I'll have a word with Meraline... can't be using form drafts for something as simple as this. As for your support, we are quite glad of it."

(OOC: I also second what SP mentioned about the name. Someone looking at the title would have no idea what it is about. ‘International Progress on Patents’ would at least make the subject clear.)

OOC:
Fair enough, I suppose if it gets comments from several people I ought to see what I can do.

[Bananaistan]

"The misplaced antagonism of some our socialist brethren against international recognition of patents is mind boggling. The People's Republic of Bananaistan remains committed to the establishment of true communism and equality of the proletariat in all countries and the eventual withering away of all states and coercive authorities, and as always we will strive towards this aim in all our actions.

"However, we are clearly not there yet. In the interim, we sell our excess produce internationally as our people must be fed and must be capable of enjoying the fruits of their labours and we cannot support the internationally sponsored theft of their creative endeavours embodied by the this proposal. This is an imperio-fascist document which would allow the cabal of globalised capitalists steal all the worthwhile achievements of the workers. We are utterly opposed."

[Tinhampton]

The old title was better. As written, this covers all IP, not only patents - and I imagine this was very deliberate on your part!

[Second Sovereignty]

The old title was better. As written, this covers all IP, not only patents - and I imagine this was very deliberate on your part!

OOC:
Technically, it only covers patents until the other troublesome IP resolutions are repealed; but yes it was quite intentional. I prefer the old title myself, but we are apparently in the minority.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Removed language blocking off other forms of Intellectual Property resolutions in the interests of actually passing the proposal. Submission is coming soon, I hope, so if there are any comments, please god get them in; I am drafting it publicly for a reason.

[Second Sovereignty]

This has been submitted as Free Trade - Mild.
See here.

[The Ice States]

"While we believe that the World Assembly should be able to prohibit the practice of patents, we also understand that this would be difficult to pass in the World Assembly; and the benefits of such a policy outweigh the likelihood of the World Assembly forcing patents upon all member nations. We are therefore in support."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[The Ice States]

"Upon further discussion among our mission, we have altered our position to be in opposition to this proposal; and we apologise to the authoring mission for not having noticed these problems prior to submission. The definition's requirement that patents only be active 'for a limited time' means that indefinite patents are not included. In addition, the 'Reserves to member-states' language appears ambiguous: if it can be interpreted as referring to member nations collectively, ie the World Assembly, this is useless; if it must refer to member nations individually, our previous reservations as to limiting further restrictions on patents remain. We encourage the author to alter the proposal to remove these flaws, as we are strongly in support of the principle."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Second Sovereignty]

"Upon further discussion among our mission, we have altered our position to be in opposition to this proposal; and we apologise to the authoring mission for not having noticed these problems prior to submission. The definition's requirement that patents only be active 'for a limited time' means that indefinite patents are not included. In addition, the 'Reserves to member-states' language appears ambiguous: if it can be interpreted as referring to member nations collectively, ie the World Assembly, this is useless; if it must refer to member nations individually, our previous reservations as to limiting further restrictions on patents remain. We encourage the author to alter the proposal to remove these flaws, as we are strongly in support of the principle."

"Indefinite patents, to put it simply, do not exist, and are not a concern. Unless the World Assembly seeks the, entirely suicidal attempt of enforcing indefinite patents by law, then there is no issue here; remember that indefinite patents would be destructive even in the terms which support patents in general.

As for the reserving, such clauses have been used in myriad other resolutions throughout this Assembly's history, it is an entirely appropriate clause, and I find this interpretation that it somehow may refer to the World Assembly, utterly unreasonable." Raxes pauses for a long moment, then clicks his mandibles together. "That isn't a comment on you, of course, I'm sure you're very reasonable."

[The Ice States]

"Upon further discussion among our mission, we have altered our position to be in opposition to this proposal; and we apologise to the authoring mission for not having noticed these problems prior to submission. The definition's requirement that patents only be active 'for a limited time' means that indefinite patents are not included. In addition, the 'Reserves to member-states' language appears ambiguous: if it can be interpreted as referring to member nations collectively, ie the World Assembly, this is useless; if it must refer to member nations individually, our previous reservations as to limiting further restrictions on patents remain. We encourage the author to alter the proposal to remove these flaws, as we are strongly in support of the principle."

"Indefinite patents, to put it simply, do not exist, and are not a concern. Unless the World Assembly seeks the, entirely suicidal attempt of enforcing indefinite patents by law, then there is no issue here; remember that indefinite patents would be destructive even in the terms which support patents in general.

As for the reserving, such clauses have been used in myriad other resolutions throughout this Assembly's history, it is an entirely appropriate clause, and I find this interpretation that it somehow may refer to the World Assembly, utterly unreasonable." Raxes pauses for a long moment, then clicks his mandibles together. "That isn't a comment on you, of course, I'm sure you're very reasonable."

"No offence taken, ambassador."

"In any case, we believe that as the enforcement of indefinite patents is, indeed, far more problematic than the enforcement of patents for a limited time; it would be more important to cover in a resolution intended to prevent more capitalist member nations from forcing their economic system upon all other member nations. However, should this pass we would support a second resolution to prohibit the World Assembly from mandating indefinite patents."

"As to the plural use of 'member states', we are not alone in that interpretation of the plural use; and therefore it seems likely that the World Assembly could simply assert that it is 'member states' which are 'determining the legal status or recognition of patents' in a resolution universally legalising patents, for example."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Second Sovereignty]

OOC:
This will be pulled for slight modifications and resubmitted next week, once campaign-fatigue has worn off.
Thanks to Tinhampton for letting me know that there was a bad-faith reading being spread around without so much as mentioning it in the thread that I might be able to do something about it.

[Second Sovereignty]

OOC:
This has been submitted. Again. Please raise any bad-faith readings and pedantry quickly, lest I have to pull it moments from queue again.

[Second Sovereignty]

OOC:
Hate to triple post, but this did not make it to queue. Going to keep trying, considering changing the title back to its fluffier, prior incarnation.