NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of UN debate is concerned with 'point scoring', and battles to win debates, rather than to construct legislation. I myself have been excessively guilty of this. Now, though, I honestly need the UN's help, so I am going to lower my spear (that's not a euphemism) and ask for contributions from anyone.

I stand by the repeal of "UCPL", but I am increasingly aware of the need for replacement. I do not intend to touch copyrights or trade secrets until "Public Domain" has been repealed; there is nothing in the way of patent legislation now, though, and so I intend to cover them. I do believe there is need for patent legislation, and am not just doing this for the sake of it.

The problem

At present, each nation has individual patent laws. This is not, per se, a problem: after all, this is how all non-UN nations have had to work. I see little point in forcing a commonality of patent law, and for those who wish not to have patent laws, I will not force them to adopt them. However, there are two considerations:
i) the UN is the ideal medium for ensuring that inventors from patent-friendly countries do not have their work abused in countries without patents;
ii) the UN is the ideal medium for the creation of a centralised database, through which information could be shared.

The solution

All ideas are welcome on this. Firstly, I aim to preserve the sovereign right of nations to adjudicate, or not, on patent law. This will lead to a global irregularity, so secondly, I would aim to establish a central patent agency through which inventors could apply for patents in other nations, and learn about the necessary procedures involved. Thirdly, I aim to help inventors limit the production of their inventions in nations without patent laws.

So...anyone want to help? It's not the most interesting subject, but I'm confident we can get something together.

Incidentally, with respect to patents of genetic material, weapons, or software, or anything else controversial, I will reserve that distinction as a sovereign right, unless an especially compelling case for UN-wide legislation is made.

At last a challenge :)

How to protect patents without creating a huge bureaucratic nightmare?

I would suggest a law based on the principle that if theres an existing patent in the Gruenburg patent office for new high velocity tank gun, the Gruenburg patent law could apply worldwide to it.

(OOC: its the same principle that protects copyright on motion pictures no matter where the dvd is sold)

This way you protect an inventors rights and a nations sovereign rights and laws are protected as well.

The question is do we maintain a central database of patent information in the UN HQ which could be another bureaucratic nightmare or do we trust a nations courts to settle patent disputes.

Using the above example both inventors market their gun and find they've stumbled onto the same idea. Thats when a court steps in and makes a ruling. If one inventor blatently copied the idea and its proven they would pay compensation and that would end the matter.

I would look at this as a guiding law rather than a blanket micromanaging law which a lot of nations would bitterly oppose.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

I think there will need to be some form of minimum requirements, such as the patented idea must be original item or a modification of an existing item, and must not be naturally occuring.

After all, you don't want a Cobdenian inventor patenting the piano, and prohibiting the use of pianos everywhere. Or tigers. Or rocks.

I think there will need to be some form of minimum requirements, such as the patented idea must be original item or a modification of an existing item, and must not be naturally occuring.

After all, you don't want a Cobdenian inventor patenting the piano, and prohibiting the use of pianos everywhere. Or tigers. Or rocks.

Which is precisely why I'm uneasy about the option proposed by Kirisubo, and would rather for the moment retain patent law as a sovereign matter.

My idea, because I don't believe in copyrights/patents and Waterana doesn't have any laws concerning this subject, is to encourage nations to come to agreements themselves about this and maybe set out a framework for that to happen.

Nothing produced by a Wateranan is copyrighted/patented, and is free for distribution world wide. However if another nation wants their stuff protected, then we are more than willing to sit down with them and negotiate an agreement for that to happen. I'd hate to see the UN forcing copyright/patent laws on all nations again.

Sorry if this makes little sense, I'm still half asleep :).

My idea, because I don't believe in copyrights/patents and Waterana doesn't have any laws concerning this subject, is to encourage nations to come to agreements themselves about this and maybe set out a framework for that to happen.

Nothing produced by a Wateranan is copyrighted/patented, and is free for distribution world wide. However if another nation wants their stuff protected, then we are more than willing to sit down with them and negotiate an agreement for that to happen. I'd hate to see the UN forcing copyright/patent laws on all nations again.

Sorry if this makes little sense, I'm still half asleep.

No no, this is the approach I favour. Furthermore, as your national produce is free to distribute, creating a central agency for the sharing of that would actually help that distribution. I'm not interested in forcing you to have patent laws. However, there remains the concern of a Gruenberger patented invention: there will need to be a provision to ensure countries as ideologically-minded but less scrupulous than Waterana respect that patent.

No no, this is the approach I favour. Furthermore, as your national produce is free to distribute, creating a central agency for the sharing of that would actually help that distribution. I'm not interested in forcing you to have patent laws. However, there remains the concern of a Gruenberger patented invention: there will need to be a provision to ensure countries as ideologically-minded but less scrupulous than Waterana respect that patent.

Yes, I agree a central agence would be a good idea, not just to help the distribution, but also to ensure that unscrupulous states don't take our ideas and copyright/patent themselves, effectivly stealing, and profiting from, what we have given to the world free. This doesn't just need to protect stuff that people want profits from, it will also need to protect stuff that is given freely and non-profit.

For less scrupulous states who won't honour an agreement, perhaps allowing nations with the inventions ect to ban their stuff from that nation, and other nations being urged or even mandated to respect that and not trade the offended nations goods with the banned nation either. Just an idea.

Maybe, instead of laws regarding patents themselves, make a law or outline a system to settle disputes so that that way, the laws are protected but if a problem occurs, there is a system in place to deal with it. I'm trying to think of RL examples of how this works but the names of the courts and systems are escaping me at the moment.

OOC: Heh...Gruen "lowered his spear"... *snicker*

Hey, someone had to say it. ;)

Firstly I am glad to see a discussion open on this topic. Secondly we support the aim to find an agreement suitable for all and to use the NSUN to achieve this. However in our humble opinion any agreement will likely be a trade off between the level of cohesion we want to reach and some national sovereignty elements with regard to copy/patent rights. Some members will want more cohesion and be prepared tolerate more infringement and others will not. Equally cohesion cannot be found without some infringement and we fear unless this realisation exist and is a premise from which discussion take place very little will regrettably be accomplished. Members who take part in this discussion should come with an open mind, clear objectives on what they want and an understanding one some level their national sovereignty will be infringed upon.

For ourselves we would be most happy to see legislative consistency between member states with regard to the central elements of patent and copy rights law, such as ‘the need for invention’ for example.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia.

As I told in the UCPL repeal, I would favour a slight modification.

Once a patent is filed in country A, you would force everyone in UN nations to be bound by the patent law of A.
However, if the patent owner wishes to use the patent for economic activity in country B, the patent law of country B should be used internally.
This is to prevent the loophole of all patents being filed in the most restrictive country.

As an example: Waterana does not have patent laws, Fonzoland does. An inventor makes a new gizmo in Fonzoland, files a patent, starts selling gizmos in Fonzoland. In that case, everyone inside Waterana would have to respect Fonzoland's law. Now suppose the inventor wants to sell his product in Waterana. By doing so, he is implicitly accepting the laws of Waterana, therefore people should be free to copy gizmos for sale within Waterana only, since patent laws do not exist there.

I would like to see enshrined not just the right for a nation to refuse to acknowledge the patent of a form of life (such as neem seed, basmati rice, or an engineered microbe that acts as a detergent), but a clear statement of condemnation of such attempts to 'own' nature. I accept that this is unlikely to win much support, however.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: this also happens to be my personal position, but it's somewhat easier to justify in the finite real world than in a world populated with future beings, elves and Frisbeeterians. Bugger.

What I find amusing is the way that those who espouse human rights as completely trumping national rights suddenly start nervously coughing when this sort of subject is mentioned. Ecopoeians have just as much right to patent their products as Gruenbergers do.

We're very pleased to see that the distinguished representative of Gruenberg has opened up this topic for discussion. It's a complicated issue which deserves much thought and debate to work out basic goals and strategies before even attempting a draft. We're very interested in the issue and hope to contribute constructively to the discussion. Here are our first thoughts....

There are two approaches to the problem that we would strongly oppose. The first is the creation of some UN agency which would grant patents itself instead of having the process stay as it is, with the actual issuing of patents the function of individual nations. Our first objection to this is the notion of having to create a huge UN bureaucracy, staffed by thousands of patent examiners, lawyers, administrative personnel and managers. Our second objection -- and we believe a more compelling one -- would be that placing the issuing of patents in the hands of the UN would require creation of UN patent law, sure to get bogged down in endless controversy over touchy issues such as patenting genetic material.

The second approach we find unacceptable is legislation by the UN requiring all member nations to respect each other's patents. This, we believe, would be a license for unscrupulous nations to write very "loose" patent laws, allowing their citizens to patent -- and gain UN-wide monopolies -- on anything under the Sun. It would also run afoul of differences among nations on terms of protection and the acceptability of patenting such things as software, genetic material, etc.

From what we've seen, the honorable representative of Gruenberg shares our concerns about these approaches. We just felt we should make our position absolutely clear before moving on to some constructive suggestions. We'll do that as time permits.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

as things stand patents are handled at a local level in each nation and any disputes are handled by the appropriate courts.

I don't want an international patent office either. We've just got rid of one bureaucratic mess.

ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

I know that UN Resolutions aren't allowed to bind non-member nations, at all, but is writing ones that non-members are specifically allowed to opt in to possible? St Edmund has always (except during the brief period when we were subject to UCPL) had mutual recognition of patents with Godwinnia & the other members of the Godwinnian Commonwealth, none of which are also within the UN* and the newest of which -- St Edmund Air -- is actually an offshoot of our own nation: Those nations would be willing to opt in to a measure such as the one that Gruenberg is proposing...



[*ooc: "and none of whom, due to the 'Only one UN member per player' rule, can join that organisation whilst St Edmund remains a member"]

I think that would depend on the wording of the draft. UNSC allows this; other resolutions do not explicitly prohibit the inclusion on non-member states. I see no reason why a system which allowed for cooperation with non-members could not be achieved. But, this will be dependent on what we finally draft. Also, your point raises one concern: that whilst we may aim to preserve sovereignty of patent law, we should explicitly allow for nations to enter into patent agreements.

The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra is always concerned by talk of UN legislation on intellectual property. We subscribe to the Principle Of Attribution, whereby a creator is entitled to attribution when their creation is used, but that is all. We believe copyright is harmful, and patents are particularly insidious as attribution is often mistaken.

What I find amusing is the way that those who espouse human rights as completely trumping national rights suddenly start nervously coughing when this sort of subject is mentioned. Ecopoeians have just as much right to patent their products as Gruenbergers do.
However, for the most part they choose not to. And since Ecopoeian law is designed to defer decisions to community level where possible, some degree of patenting is possible for those wish it anyway.

Regardless, it is not a fundamental human right to possess ownership of a gene sequence, so your point is moot.

MV

We would certainly support a proposal which established a central patent agency, as suggested by the honorable representative of Gruenberg. Our suggestion would be to create a UN Patent Support Agency with the following functions:

(1) Create and maintain a UN patent information database. As we see it, this would contain complete information on all patents granted by UN member nations after the passage of the resolution. Because of the tremendous number of patents that have been granted over the years, nations should be required to submit only enough information about older patents to provide solid leads for searchers. (The RL Canadian patent database, for example, contains 75 years worth of patents: more than 1,500,000.) Nations with existing databases could be urged to submit full data on all patents.

This would be of tremendous value to inventors conducting patent searches before submitting applications for patents. Now, if an inventor wants to patent his or her invention in 20 nations, 20 separate patent searches are required. This database would streamline the process and cut the cost.

The database would also be useful to nations which enter into reciprocal patent agreements with other nations. It would allow them to conduct the searches required during patent examination much more efficiently.

(2) Create and maintain a centralized and standardized patent application system. Instead of having to submit 20 different applications to 20 different national patent offices, our inventor could submit a single application, which would be forwarded to the appropriate national patent offices.

(3) Create and maintain a central reference library of patent laws existing in UN member nations.

(4) Advise and assist nations wishing to establish reciprocal patent agreements with other nations. The UN Patent Support Agency would have experience and expertise in the field that could be of great value to the national governments.

In setting up this agency and its operations, we have to keep in mind the variety of technological levels of nations in the UN. Nations which already have a sophisticated patent database in place could probably handle the requirements with no problem. Nations which don't have the capability could have three options: (1) acquire the capability, (2) contract the process out to someone in a nation which has the needed technology, or (3) have the UN Patent Support Agency do it on a fee-for-service basis.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I have some concerns about this system, although there is much in it I admire.

Firstly, we still don't resolve the issue of differences between attitudes to IP rights, and how to prevent abuse of patented material.

Secondly, the idea of filing one application for 20 nations is nice. It only works, though, if those nations have similar procedures and requirements. So it would need to also disseminate information on patent laws and procedures, as well as merely collecting them, so as to aid inventors in assembling legal applications.

Thirdly, it's better than UCPL, but that still a lot of gnomes. Funding?

I think the IP problem should be an "all or nothing" because if not, then you'll never reach a consensus in the terms. Those who don't like the guidelines that are put in place can vote against it.

I think the IP problem should be an "all or nothing" because if not, then you'll never reach a consensus in the terms. Those who don't like the guidelines that are put in place can vote against it.

I would probably also vote against that, because I don't understand a word of it. Could you rephrase your suggestion please? :)

I have some concerns about this system, although there is much in it I admire.

Firstly, we still don't resolve the issue of differences between attitudes to IP rights, and how to prevent abuse of patented material.

True. We didn't intend for what we suggested to be the entire content of the proposal. We'll have some thoughts on infringement later.

Secondly, the idea of filing one application for 20 nations is nice. It only works, though, if those nations have similar procedures and requirements. So it would need to also disseminate information on patent laws and procedures, as well as merely collecting them, so as to aid inventors in assembling legal applications.

By calling the collection of laws a "library", we intended that it be made available to all. We'd be careful about using the term disseminate, though. The library should be accessible (obviously through electronic means), but there shouldn't be a requirement to disseminate the information.

Thirdly, it's better than UCPL, but that still a lot of gnomes. Funding?

Part of the costs, at least, would be offset by doing just what RL patent offices do now: charge fees for applications and other services. And, in case someone brings this up, this would not be a violation of Resolution #4, "UN Taxation Ban". It would be a fee-for-service, not a tax.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I had a feeling it was convoluted. You're always going to be running into problems in regards to all fo the different aspects of this proposal. My rules for patents are different then yours which are different then Ausserlands' so you'll never be able to make them all gel. So you need to write out guidelines that appeal to a majority and forget those people who are over zealous in protecting IP as well as those who wouldn't give a second thought at jacking some guy's invention and selling or using it as his own.

I had a feeling it was convoluted. You're always going to be running into problems in regards to all fo the different aspects of this proposal. My rules for patents are different then yours which are different then Ausserlands' so you'll never be able to make them all gel. So you need to write out guidelines that appeal to a majority and forget those people who are over zealous in protecting IP as well as those who wouldn't give a second thought at jacking some guy's invention and selling or using it as his own.

I would like to make it expressly clear that I will not be pursuing this sort of bulldozing approach. I may not yet be clear on how best to legislate patents; I am quite clear that this is not how. No.

I understand you're trying to be nimble about this, but I don't think that you can be too careful with this without opening up the possibilities of loopholes. I would be very surprised if you are able to satisfy the fringe groups on both ends of the spectrum while at the same time appeasing those more moderate countries (mine included) as well.

I feel it's worth emphasising that disregarding other nations' patents isn't always tantamount to piracy - it could be regarded as a principled stance against the misappropriation of common bounty.

I sense that my concerns are, regrettably, unlikely to be placated by any proposal likely to arise from these discussions.

MV

I understand you're trying to be nimble about this, but I don't think that you can be too careful with this without opening up the possibilities of loopholes. I would be very surprised if you are able to satisfy the fringe groups on both ends of the spectrum while at the same time appeasing those more moderate countries (mine included) as well.

So would I. But that doesn't mean I should piss everyone off. I am a sovereigntist, and whilst I also express my distaste for the red plague afflicting some member nations, I am not interesting in forcing in patent laws where such are inappropriate. Some substantive propositions would be gratefully received, rather than simple exhortations to take the middle ground. What do you want us to actually do?

----

I feel it's worth emphasising that disregarding other nations' patents isn't always tantamount to piracy - it could be regarded as a principled stance against the misappropriation of common bounty.

Bahahahahahaha. Oh Mr Vernigaud, what will you say next.

I sense that my concerns are, regrettably, unlikely to be placated by any proposal likely to arise from these discussions.

Funny, I'm getting that sense too.

True. We didn't intend for what we suggested to be the entire content of the proposal. We'll have some thoughts on infringement later.

Ok. I'm happy to iron out this side first, then.

By calling the collection of laws a "library", we intended that it be made available to all. We'd be careful about using the term disseminate, though. The library should be accessible (obviously through electronic means), but there shouldn't be a requirement to disseminate the information.

I see. However, I do favour the UN taking a proactive approach with regard to facilitating international trade. I'll think over how to word this. I sense Another Useless Committee looming.

Part of the costs, at least, would be offset by doing just what RL patent offices do now: charge fees for applications and other services. And, in case someone brings this up, this would not be a violation of Resolution #4, "UN Taxation Ban". It would be a fee-for-service, not a tax.

Fair enough. I'm happy to put costs onto the inventors, rather than nations.

I feel it's worth emphasising that disregarding other nations' patents isn't always tantamount to piracy - it could be regarded as a principled stance against the misappropriation of common bounty.

I sense that my concerns are, regrettably, unlikely to be placated by any proposal likely to arise from these discussions.

MV

Disregarding another nation's patents is never piracy. It's important to remember that patents are and, we believe, should continue to be territorial. A patent granted by a nation protects an individual's rights to an invention only in that nation. If a patent is granted by the government of Ausserland, it protects the holder's rights to the invention only in Ausserland. It has no effect on use of the invention in Ecopoeia. This is the way it works in RL and, we believe, the only practical way for things to work in the NSUN.

As an example, here is the definition of patent from the UK Patent Office, with bolding added:

A patent for an invention is granted by government to the inventor, giving the inventor the right for a limited period to stop others from making, using or selling the invention without the permission of the inventor. When a patent is granted, the invention becomes the property of the inventor, which - like any other form of property or business asset - can be bought, sold, rented or hired. Patents are territorial rights; UK Patent will only give the holder rights within the United Kingdom and rights to stop others from importing the patented products into the United Kingdom.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

[ook: ta, Auss. I have a lot to learn...]

I thank Ambassador Barfanger for his assistance, but wish to point out that any resolution establishing patenting rights will still in effect legitimise certain unscrupulous entities' bids to own the building blocks of life itself. Perhaps a resolution will win our favour, but I would like to see it take a stance on this issue. Alternatively, a companion resolution may suffice*.

Oh, and I will thank the Gruenberger ambassador to address me properly: my name is Vergniaud.

MV

*Hmm, Damsaica's work might be very timely...

Hypothetically speaking, if God altered the nature of reality so that it was no longer logical for labour to be rewarded, then this could potentially render patents absolete.

I will not endorse until you account for this scenario.

Hypothetically speaking, if God altered the nature of reality so that it was no longer logical for labour to be rewarded, then this could potentially render patents absolete.

I will not endorse until you account for this scenario.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. If this was intended as a dig at those concocting bizarre scenarios in your thread...I wasn't one of them. In any case, nothing in this proposal would force nations in countries without property to 'reward labour': we're talking about those people who do wish to do such, or at least to have controls over the rewards of their labours.

The Four Functions laid of out by the distinguished Ambassador from Ausserland are quite astute and the Federation of Questionable Industries would support a Proposal that established such functions for the NSUN.

M. Tweedpot
NSUN Representative
Federation of Questionable Industries

I'm sorry, I don't understand. If this was intended as a dig at those concocting bizarre scenarios in your thread...I wasn't one of them. In any case, nothing in this proposal would force nations in countries without property to 'reward labour': we're talking about those people who do wish to do such, or at least to have controls over the rewards of their labours.

The concept of a patent is to give value to individuals labour eg. producing a new product. But what if some omnipotent being altered the very nature of the reality of the universe so that this was no longer logical.

I conclude that unless a clause is added to cover this event, the resolution is completely unendorsable and no-one should ever endorse it and WHAT IF THERE WERE GNOMES?

There are gnomes. They could be in your government archives changing your laws as we speak. They could be sneaking into your office to rig your chair so you fall over backwards and look foolish during an important conference. They could be rewriting your floor speeches for you. They could be sneaking up behind you right now -- AUGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

The concept of a patent is to give value to individuals labour eg. producing a new product. But what if some omnipotent being altered the very nature of the reality of the universe so that this was no longer logical.

I conclude that unless a clause is added to cover this event, the resolution is completely unendorsable and no-one should ever endorse it and WHAT IF THERE WERE GNOMES?


Hmm, that one resolution that mentioned removing religious references is, for some reason, suddenly sounding...inviting? Most troublesome... I need some time with Kenny's VP to get my thoughts straight...

The concept of a patent is to give value to individuals labour eg. producing a new product. But what if some omnipotent being altered the very nature of the reality of the universe so that this was no longer logical.

I conclude that unless a clause is added to cover this event, the resolution is completely unendorsable and no-one should ever endorse it and WHAT IF THERE WERE GNOMES?

There already are gnomes. In fact, I'm planning on staffing the patent agency with them. The question is more 'what if there were not gnomes'.

Anyway, your criticism is invalid. If it were no longer logical to reward labour, then no one would apply for a patent. I am trying toi establish a system for those who wish to, or believe it is logical to, reward individual labour. I am not forcing anyone to recognise the morality or logic of that. So your consideration is negated.