NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Free Trade

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Hyronia

Description: The Government and People of the Republic of Hyronia,

RECOGNISING that patent infringement in developing economies is a serious barrier to free trade,

ACKNOWLEDGING the right of all inventors and corporations to protect their intellectual property across international borders,

and BELIEVING that the costs of consumer and industrial goods would be reduced, and availability increased if a system for intellectual property protection was globally implemented,

are PROPOSING that a regulatory body be set up under the control of the United Nations, as the United Nations International Patents Office (UNIPO) in order to arbitrate and grant international patents to inventors and corporations worldwide, as well as to review or reject possibly contentious patents, such as genome patents.

God, no.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

It'd, as always, be nice to know why you oppose it - and what, if anything, could be changed to make it 'fairer'.

It'd, as always, be nice to know why you oppose it - and what, if anything, could be changed to make it 'fairer'.
Well, I can't speak for Ecopoeia, but I'm concerned by overlap with "UCPL" (a previous resolution). I'm also concerned that patent law, which is so customized/diverse/etc. to a nation's individual needs, would be taken away from those individual nations, which have the best ability to address it.

Now, I understand the argument that the whole of the UN must recognize inventions, to be fair to the inventors, and I recognize a minority's view that no patents should be allowed anywhere. However, I'm alsoi acutely aware (and not just because I'm a member of the NSO) of the multiplicity of ways patent laws can be effective and how different style patent laws can favor inventors, business, the public, etc. I feel that to preserve the best, most representative patent laws in all nations there should not be an international patent office, and thus international patent law. I oppose UCPL.

It'd, as always, be nice to know why you oppose it - and what, if anything, could be changed to make it 'fairer'.
OOC: Sorry, short of time and energy for anything long and meaningful. I'll try and come up with something at some point. As an aside, I'd love to see UCPL get canned.

I recognise there is a lot of concern about this being a very pro-developed economy proposal, especially with regards to drugs and their availability in developed countries. But the fact of the matter is that I believe that the theft of intellectual property by people who can "do it cheaper" and with little or no recognition or reward for the original inventor is a serious problem.

The idea was that the office would also regulate patent law as well as grant patents and arbitrate disputes, so we wouldn't have anything like the obstructive patenting of junk DNA for personal profit.

I realise that perhaps this might be construed as overlapping with UCPL, but in truth it was designed primarily to enhance that resolution. If this particular proposal does not reach quorum, I'm actually going to put forward a proposal to repeal UCPL with a view to replacing it with a different set of regulations, as I believe that UCPL isn't a particularly efficient or fair system of regulating the protection of intellectual property across international borders.

The problem with allowing differences in standards and laws across international borders is that it raises barriers to free trade and raises problems that are currently apparent in real life between China and several companies in the United States and Europe.