NationStates Jolt Archive

I"m reposting this in a a new topic in order to have a better title and remove all of the fluff, as only about six out of twenty posts in the old one had any content. So, this is a draft of legislation to create a universal patent law. Comments are encouraged.


UN Patent Law
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

Description:

NOTING that protection of ideas for products is very important to stimulate world trade;

CONVINCED that the most effective way to accomplish this is by setting up an international patent system, as many nations' patent laws cannot stand together through simple international recognition;

RECOGNIZING that the UN is the most effective organization to facilitate this:

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "patent" as a protection by law a novel, useful and nontrivial idea for a product or invention for a limited amount of time, after which the idea becomes free for all to use;
b. "discovery" as the knowledge of a natural fact, such as genetic code, mathematical algorithm, or scientific theory;

2. STRESSES that patents are protections on the idea for an invention, which includes protection on the product because all products require the ideas needed to produce them;

3. CREATES the United Nations Patent Registry for the purpose of keeping a registry of patents in all nations, which will register patents by the following process:
a. The inventor of the product, or his/her designee, must write an application to the UNPR detailing the nature of the product, what ideas should be patented as part of the patent, and detailed sketches, blueprints, photographs or construction plans for the product;
b. The inventor of the product now has exclusive use of the idea and production rights to the product until the approval process is complete;
c. The UNPR will review the patent, both to make sure it is not too wide in the scope of the ideas that it wishes to cover and that it is not a duplication of a patent already in the UNPR;
d. If these criteria are met, the patent will be approved and given an identification number, from which time the inventor holds exclusive rights to the idea and exclusive production rights to the product for a period of 25 years;

4. MANDATES that there will be a three year period starting at the time of passage of this resolution in which all national patents shall be submitted to the UNPR for review, and any patents which cover the same idea will not be internationally protected unless all of the patent holders can reach an agreement on joint ownership of the patent within a period of five years;

5. MANDATES that patents may not pertain to:
a. any invention which is already in use at the time of application;
b. any method of doing or operating something, such as a way of doing business or a piece of computer code;
c. discoveries;

6. MANDATES that patents must pertain to:
a. an idea for an invention, not a specific design, although the specific design is most likely included in the scope of the idea;
b. ideas and inventions which have some form of use, whether it be entertainment, work automation, etc.

7. EMPHASIZES that nations still have the right to have and enforce national patent law, which may or may not cover the same inventions as the UNPR, but reminds them that:
a. UN Patent Law is supreme to national patent law, and any inventions patented in the UNPR may not be used in any UN nation without consent of the patent holder;
b. National patent law does not pertain to foreign nations, unless governed by other resolutions or international treaties.

A few notes...

Putting "earth year" down is somewhat silly. I think most people go by 'earth' years.

Also, when you state that patents may not pertain to discoveries...well, it's worded strangely. What separates an invention from a discovery? Usually one relies on the other.

Finally, do you consider novels and other forms of intellectual property as inventions? It seems you do, but mayhaps it could be worded better.

Sincerely,

Nicodemus Larynger,
-Protectorate of Kiften-

Thanks for having added "genetic code"

I was also wondering, from a "innovation" point of view, if a patent should be granted all the 25 years, in case it is not used in any offered products or services by the patent holder or any licensed person or entity?

Again I am going to oppose this. Patenting genetic codes or genetic technology, or any scientific technology is not acceptable. It should be common knowledge to us of course.
We will only support it if you remove or amend all clauses involving science and/or scientific technology.

Again I am going to oppose this. Patenting genetic codes or genetic technology, or any scientific technology is not acceptable. It should be common knowledge to us of course.
We will only support it if you remove or amend all clauses involving science and/or scientific technology.

Learn. To. Read.

Read to learn yourself. I've probably interpreted it different to you. So b helpful and show me your interpretation where it doesn't restrict our natural right and heritage of scientific freedom.

Running the risk of troll-feeding, let me try this just once. The clauses you are referring to start with "Patents may not pertain to..." (hint hint)

OOC: By the way, I read to learn all the time. In fact, it is what I do for a living.

I've read it and I stick by my posts. Show me your interpretation please.

Again I am going to oppose this. Patenting genetic codes or genetic technology, or any scientific technology is not acceptable. It should be common knowledge to us of course.
We will only support it if you remove or amend all clauses involving science and/or scientific technology.
You cannot patent genetic codes under this resolution:

d. Patents may not pertain to discoveries, including genetic code, mathematical algorithms, scientific theories, etc.

Of course you can patent scientific inventions, because that's what patents are for. But scientific discoveries are out.

A few notes...

Putting "earth year" down is somewhat silly. I think most people go by 'earth' years.
I guess that's fine.

Also, when you state that patents may not pertain to discoveries...well, it's worded strangely. What separates an invention from a discovery? Usually one relies on the other.
An invention relies on a discovery, but they are very different. Discoveries cannot be patented because they are not created by the patenter: they were created by whatever being/force you believe made the world as it is. Only inventions can be patented, because people deserve credit for ideas that they create.

Finally, do you consider novels and other forms of intellectual property as inventions? It seems you do, but mayhaps it could be worded better.

No, I don't: I was going to make another resolution to cover copyrights. Any suggestions on how I could make that clear?

First off, thanks for the reply.

I understand what you mean now about discoveries, and think maybe a good definition of that word could be included so people know exactly what you're talking about?

As far as copyright code, certainly they could be listed under 'intellectual properties' for the most part? An idea created by a single or group of individuals that is not already existing for the purpose of some sort of media (novels, video games, music).

First off, thanks for the reply.

I understand what you mean now about discoveries, and think maybe a good definition of that word could be included so people know exactly what you're talking about?

As far as copyright code, certainly they could be listed under 'intellectual properties' for the most part? An idea created by a single or group of individuals that is not already existing for the purpose of some sort of media (novels, video games, music).

Thank you for the reply. I've defined "discovery" and added clauses about "ideas" in order to differentiate between this and copyright law. Most changes have been bolded in this new draft:

UN Patent Law
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

Description:

NOTING that protection of ideas for products is very important to stimulate world trade;

NOTING that the most effective way to accomplish this is by setting up an international patent system, as many nations' patent laws cannot stand together through simple international recognition;

RECOGNIZING that the UN is the most effective organization to facilitate this:

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "patent" as a protection by law of an idea for a novel, useful and nontrivial idea for a product or invention for a limited amount of time, after which the idea becomes free for all to use;
b. "discovery" as the knowledge of a natural fact, such as genetic code, mathematical algorithm, or scientific theory;

2. CREATES the United Nations Patent Registry for the purpose of keeping a registry of patents in all nations, which will register patents by the following process:
a. Inventor of product writes an application about the idea and the product;
b. Application is reviewed by the UNPR;
c. If there are no other matches in the UNPR, and the product or invention has a reasonable use and is not widely known or used, it is approved;
d. The patent holder now has exclusive use of the idea for the product, unless he or she licenses it to another person or entity, for a period of twenty-five years or an equivalent amount of time.

3. MANDATES that there will be a three year period starting at the time of passage of this resolution in which all national patents shall be submitted to the UNPR for review, and any patents which cover the same idea will not be internationally protected unless all of the patent holders can reach an agreement on joint ownership of the patent within a period of five years;

4. IMPOSES the following restrictions on international patents:
a. Patents must pertain to an idea for an invention, not a specific design;
b. Patents may not pertain to any invention which is already in use or in common knowledge at the time of application;
c. Patents may not pertain to any method of doing something, such as a way of doing business;
d. Patents may not pertain to a method of operating a device, such as a piece of computer code;
e. Patents may not pertain to discoveries;
f. Patents must pertain to inventions which have some form of use, whether it be entertainment, work automation, etc.

5. EMPHASIZES that nations still have the right to have and enforce national patent law, which may or may not cover the same inventions as the UNPR, but reminds them that:
a. UN Patent Law is supreme to national patent law, and any inventions patented in the UNPR may not be used in any UN nation without consent of the patent holder;
b. National patent law does not pertain to foreign nations, unless governed by other resolutions or international treaties.

As far as copyright code, certainly they could be listed under 'intellectual properties' for the most part? An idea created by a single or group of individuals that is not already existing for the purpose of some sort of media (novels, video games, music).

Rest assured that an effort to legislate on copyright law will follow. But this proposal is about patent law, which is substantially different. The confusion between the two was one of the problems with the repealed act.

Rest assured that an effort to legislate on copyright law will follow. But this proposal is about patent law, which is substantially different. The confusion between the two was one of the problems with the repealed act.

Fonzo, you probably know those laws better than I. I suggest only one change due to awkward wording.


. "patent" as a protection by law of an idea for a novel, useful and nontrivial idea for a product or invention for a limited amount of time, after which the idea becomes free for all to use;

is what you have now...I suggest erasing the "by law of an idea" part, in bold.

Fonzo, you probably know those laws better than I. I suggest only one change due to awkward wording.


. "patent" as a protection by law of an idea for a novel, useful and nontrivial idea for a product or invention for a limited amount of time, after which the idea becomes free for all to use;

is what you have now...I suggest erasing the "by law of an idea" part, in bold.
DOH! :headbang:

I was trying to add the idea part, but didn't realize I already had it. I'll change that part back to the way it was in the first draft and your suggestion. Thanks.

Fonzoland,

No big deal. Looks good to me from here!

Fonzoland,

No big deal. Looks good to me from here!

Hey, don't wear out my name, this is Ceorana's effort! ;)

The content looks fine, but clauses 2 and 4 do not read too well. I can try to help when I have more time, meanwhile try to remove the repetition in clause 4.

I've tried to clarify things. I added clause#2, which makes the point clearer, and split #4 into two parts, #5 and #6. I also removed the rendundancy in clause#1. Is this more clear?
UN Patent Law
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

Description:

NOTING that protection of ideas for products is very important to stimulate world trade;

CONVINCED that the most effective way to accomplish this is by setting up an international patent system, as many nations' patent laws cannot stand together through simple international recognition;

RECOGNIZING that the UN is the most effective organization to facilitate this:

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "patent" as a protection by law a novel, useful and nontrivial idea for a product or invention for a limited amount of time, after which the idea becomes free for all to use;
b. "discovery" as the knowledge of a natural fact, such as genetic code, mathematical algorithm, or scientific theory;

2. STRESSES that patents are protections on the idea for an invention, which includes protection on the product because all products require the ideas needed to produce them;

3. CREATES the United Nations Patent Registry for the purpose of keeping a registry of patents in all nations, which will register patents by the following process:
a. The inventor of the product, or his/her designee, must write an application to the UNPR detailing the nature of the product, what ideas should be patented as part of the patent, and detailed sketches, blueprints, photographs or construction plans for the product;
b. The inventor of the product now has exclusive use of the idea and production rights to the product until the approval process is complete;
c. The UNPR will review the patent, both to make sure it is not too wide in the scope of the ideas that it wishes to cover and that it is not a duplication of a patent already in the UNPR;
d. If these criteria are met, the patent will be approved and given an identification number, from which time the inventor holds exclusive rights to the idea and exclusive production rights to the product for a period of 25 years;

4. MANDATES that there will be a three year period starting at the time of passage of this resolution in which all national patents shall be submitted to the UNPR for review, and any patents which cover the same idea will not be internationally protected unless all of the patent holders can reach an agreement on joint ownership of the patent within a period of five years;

5. MANDATES that patents may not pertain to:
a. any invention which is already in use at the time of application;
b. any method of doing or operating something, such as a way of doing business or a piece of computer code;
c. discoveries;

6. MANDATES that patents must pertain to:
a. an idea for an invention, not a specific design, although the specific design is most likely included in the scope of the idea;
b. ideas and inventions which have some form of use, whether it be entertainment, work automation, etc.

7. EMPHASIZES that nations still have the right to have and enforce national patent law, which may or may not cover the same inventions as the UNPR, but reminds them that:
a. UN Patent Law is supreme to national patent law, and any inventions patented in the UNPR may not be used in any UN nation without consent of the patent holder;
b. National patent law does not pertain to foreign nations, unless governed by other resolutions or international treaties.

Hey, don't wear out my name, this is Ceorana's effort! ;)

The content looks fine, but clauses 2 and 4 do not read too well. I can try to help when I have more time, meanwhile try to remove the repetition in clause 4.

Ah my mistake towards both you and Ceorana.

c. Patents may not pertain to a method of operating a device, such as a piece of computer code;

Let's theorize that a new method related to heart surgery were developed by a Mikitivity based physician. Could that method be patented? As presented I'm thinking not, but wanted to make sure.

Let's theorize that a new method related to heart surgery were developed by a Mikitivity based physician. Could that method be patented? As presented I'm thinking not, but wanted to make sure.
No. However, they could patent the idea for a device necessary to the procedure.

Again I am going to oppose this. Patenting genetic codes or genetic technology, or any scientific technology is not acceptable. It should be common knowledge to us of course.
We will only support it if you remove or amend all clauses involving science and/or scientific technology.

*clears throat*

Learn to read.

d. Patents may not pertain to discoveries, including genetic code, mathematical algorithms, scientific theories, etc.

e. Patents may not pertain to discoveries;

5. MANDATES that patents may not pertain to:
a. any invention which is already in use at the time of application;
b. any method of doing or operating something, such as a way of doing business or a piece of computer code;
c. discoveries;


The whole "Doest Pertain to Discoveries" part basically means "Genetic Code, Mathematical Algorithms, Scientific Theories, etc." as he states. You should really read through the whole thing before stating something that has already been dealt with in the proposal.


If i still held my deligate status, and this was up for deligate approval, i would approve this.

Learn to read.

Nice echo! ;)

No. However, they could patent the idea for a device necessary to the procedure.

So if I were an eye doctor and developed a new tool for surgery to improve vision, the tools could be patented. That is clear. :)

So if I were an eye doctor and developed a new tool for surgery to improve vision, the tools could be patented. That is clear. :)
Yup. Does the resolution need to be more clear in that regard?

Yup. Does the resolution need to be more clear in that regard?

No, it is great as is. Though if it reaches quorum, and I hope it does, I think you should make an FAQ (similar to what Kenny did for the previous repeal) and include this question and point to the relevant resolution text. I'm sure we can help your government build that FAQ.

No, it is great as is. Though if it reaches quorum, and I hope it does, I think you should make an FAQ (similar to what Kenny did for the previous repeal) and include this question and point to the relevant resolution text. I'm sure we can help your government build that FAQ.
Good idea.

I'm thinking that this might be near final-draft stage. What does everyone else think?

Looks good to me!

Thanks for having added "genetic code"

I was also wondering, from a "innovation" point of view, if a patent should be granted all the 25 years, in case it is not used in any offered products or services by the patent holder or any licensed person or entity?
I'm thinking it would be best to say they have exclusive rights to it for the twenty-five years, at which point it becomes public domain. Otherwise, you open up a huge can of worms: you can't void it after a certain amount of time, because they might still use it, so you have to wait for approval...

I'm going to start working on an FAQ.

Does this resolution let me patent computer code / genetic code / methods of surgury?
No. Computer code and methods of surgery are methods of doing something, so forbidden, genetic code is a discovery, so forbidden.

This violates my national sovereignity! I don't want to have to license all my nation's patents in some bureaucratic organization!
You can still enforce national patent law in your nation. However, registering the patents internationally gives international protection, important if your nation engages in free trade with other nations.

Patent law is boring and stupid! Why should I support this?
Without international patent law, international trade would be stifled because people would not trust that their ideas would not be stolen.

What about copyrights?
I'm going to do that in a future resolution. We want to keep them separate. See the resolution "Repeal "UCPL"".

I have closed borders, and this will stifle my stealing of other people's ideas!
Then open up your borders. Your economy will be better for it.

[QUOTE=Ceorana]I'm thinking it would be best to say they have exclusive rights to it for the twenty-five years, at which point it becomes public domain. Otherwise, you open up a huge can of worms: you can't void it after a certain amount of time, because they might still use it, so you have to wait for approval...


Ok, thanks for your answer on this point

Putting "earth year" down is somewhat silly. I think most people go by 'earth' years.

But there are nations in NS that are located on worlds where the years are different lengths, and not specifiying which type of year was meant in this resolution could consequently lead to problems in any patent disputes that involved one or more of them...

But there are nations in NS that are located on worlds where the years are different lengths, and not specifiying which type of year was meant in this resolution could consequently lead to problems in any patent disputes that involved one or more of them...

OOC: This is the exact reason it can bug me that nations can be on 'separate' planets...

Yes, you probably have a point there St. Edmund.

But there are nations in NS that are located on worlds where the years are different lengths, and not specifiying which type of year was meant in this resolution could consequently lead to problems in any patent disputes that involved one or more of them...

No. A year (without qualification) is part of a standard system of measurement, and is a well defined unit of time, specifically the period of time during which the Earth completes a single revolution around the sun.

The concept can be extended to a Mars-year or a Jupiter-year or whatever, which measure different periods of time, but when used just as "year" presents no ambiguity.

No. A year (without qualification) is part of a standard system of measurement, and is a well defined unit of time, specifically the period of time during which the Earth completes a single revolution around the sun.

And where is that standard system of measurement actually defined as applying within NS? Under the terms of the 'Metric System' Resolution, shouldn't we be talking in terms of 'megaseconds' instead? ;)

And where is that standard system of measurement actually defined as applying within NS? Under the terms of the 'Metric System' Resolution, shouldn't we be talking in terms of 'megaseconds' instead? ;)

The official use of year as a unit is not enshrined anywhere. The definition of the word "year" as a standardised unit of time is imposed by the fact that RL English is the official language of NS. Please don't force me to request definitions of every word in your post. ;)

OK, I think I'll define "year" as "one earth year". It just seems like it's better to add a bit of harmless fluff than get this voted down or repealed because some Martian was offended.

I'm planning on submitting this next Sunday evening, if there are no more huge comments, so post before then at least saying that you have some comments if you don't have time to post them.

I'm not sure about that though. Some UN Member Nations are not on Earth, they have their own planets and/or galaxies.

Maybe you could figure out some universal unit of time?

I'm not sure about that though. Some UN Member Nations are not on Earth, they have their own planets and/or galaxies.

Please find one dictionary definition of year that does not refer to a revolution of the Earth around the sun, and I will reconsider my position. Until then, techwanking is trumped by semantics. ;)

Please find one dictionary definition of year that does not refer to a revolution of the Earth around the sun, and I will reconsider my position. Until then, techwanking is trumped by semantics. ;)
Find a dictionary that's not printed on earth. ;)

I'm going to stand by my decision to define it. I don't see how it can hurt, and that's the kind of thing people scream at when they try to repeal perfectly good legislation. ;)

Please find one dictionary definition of year that does not refer to a revolution of the Earth around the sun, and I will reconsider my position. Until then, techwanking is trumped by semantics. ;)It's possible to create a definition of a year without using earth's rotation:

1 year = 31 556 926 seconds
1 second = 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom

Therefore,

1 year = 290 091 200 511 139 020 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom

Q.E.D.

Souce (http://www.metas.ch/en/scales/second.html)

Addition to clause#1:

c. "year" as the length of time necessary for the earth to revolve around the sun, or 290,091,200,511,139,020 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom;

Thanks Hack. ;)

I feel this is necessary simply because nations are situated on other planets, and they may have different semantics, and because it helps make things more clear.

OOC: groan... well, OK.

OOC: I can just see the 40 Hour Workweek replacement:

The standard workweek shall 1,324,617,353,932,142 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom per 5,563,392,886,514,995 periodsof the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom

(I suspect my maths is wrong, which would rather piss on the joke. Oh well.

OOC: I can just see the 40 Hour Workweek replacement:

The standard workweek shall 1,324,617,353,932,142 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom per 5,563,392,886,514,995 periodsof the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom

(I suspect my maths is wrong, which would rather piss on the joke. Oh well.

I like the suggestion;) , anyone willing to put it in reso form?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

OOC: I can just see the 40 Hour Workweek replacement:

The standard workweek shall 1,324,617,353,932,142 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom per 5,563,392,886,514,995 periodsof the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom

(I suspect my maths is wrong, which would rather piss on the joke. Oh well.

What if there is some nation in some paralel universe that defines the caesium-133 atom as being a garbage truck? Or if there is some nation who counts in the hexadecimal system? Or...

My point that year is well defined in the language of the UN, called English, stands unchallenged. Even techwanking has limits. Oh, a new word for you:

semantic-wanking

Can anyone find an alternative, better sounding term for it?

EDIT: Hack, I hope you realise you haven't fulfilled my challenge. At all.

semantic-wanking

I like it! :D

Hmmm... you guys are right, it is really silly.

How about removing the fluff about the caesium atom:

c. "year" as one year on earth;

Ceorana, to be honest, I think half the legalism that exists in the UN forum is in reaction to just one poster. That poster has departed, and we can once again allow ourselves to believe there is such a thing as 'common sense'. There are times when we can just let words be words, and move on. Furthermore, the terms of these patents are being handled by a central UN agency, not by individual nations...so only the central agency need be concerned anyway, and they know what a year is without thumbing through Inorganic Chemistry For Beginners. Just say "three years", and get back to the actual substance of the proposal.

Furthermore, the terms of these patents are being handled by a central UN agency, not by individual nations...so only the central agency need be concerned anyway, and they know what a year is without thumbing through Inorganic Chemistry For Beginners. Good point. I'll just leave it as it was in the previous draft then.

That poster has departed
Thank Heavens!

*pop*

There's some cheap and nasty Ecopoeian bubbly going round in celebration of the return of (some) common sense.

Please find one dictionary definition of year that does not refer to a revolution of the Earth around the sun, and I will reconsider my position. Until then, techwanking is trumped by semantics. ;)

The Jews and the Muslims both have "years" which they still use for religious purposes, if not for national/official ones too, that are a few days shorter than this...

The Jews and the Muslims both have "years" which they still use for religious purposes, if not for national/official ones too, that are a few days shorter than this...

<sigh> <double sigh> <triple freaking sigh>

How do you think they independently came up with a unit so remarkably close to 365 days? Maybe it is because... it is also a measure of the time taken by one revolution of the Earth around the Sun?

*withdraws from this thread with a nervous breakdown*

As the writer of this draft, I would like to say that I am going to leave "years" undefined at least for the first submission. If there is a strong current of members not voting for/approving it because of this, then I will change it in a future draft.

Are there any criticisms on the content of the resolution, i.e. what it's going to do?

EDIT: Hack, I hope you realise you haven't fulfilled my challenge. At all.I was just demonstrating that the scientific measurement of a year has nothing to do with the Earth's rotation. Much like the scientific definition of the meter has nothing to do with centimeters.

I was just demonstrating that the scientific measurement of a year has nothing to do with the Earth's rotation. Much like the scientific definition of the meter has nothing to do with centimeters.

As you might have seen, the debate was between plain vanilla earth years and <unspecified planet>-years. Therefore, I was debating pure semantics (hence my reference to a dictionary), not scientific measurement error reduction. In other words, stating the fact that a year is a well defined measure of time, and needs no further definition in a proposal.

As you might have seen, the debate was between plain vanilla earth years and <unspecified planet>-years. My pendantry aside, $non-Earth_years is irrelevent. This falls under the bit about how Proposals don't need to fit every possible permutation of every possible nation. If someone wants to create a loophole by playing with the definition of "year" they may, but for purposes of a proposal, simply saying "year" is sufficient.

So, essentially, we agree. I think.

So, essentially, we agree. I think.

Yes, completely. Sorry, I misunderstood your posts.

<sigh> <double sigh> <triple freaking sigh>

How do you think they independently came up with a unit so remarkably close to 365 days? Maybe it is because... it is also a measure of the time taken by one revolution of the Earth around the Sun?

*withdraws from this thread with a nervous breakdown*

No, it's a number of lunar months that roughly coincides with the reproductive cycles of the livestock unpon which the Jews & Arabs depended for sustenance back when their cultures were based on pastoralism.

I am about to submit this for the first time w/ telegrams. Comments and problem reports are still welcome, and please approve this and/or have your delegate approve it. It will be submitted ASAP (next 5 minutes) under the title "UN Patent Law".

42 approvals so far; it leaves the queue on Friday. I've probably telegrammed around 300 delegates so far (almost everyone who approved Workplace Safety Act), and am continuing. Anyone who would like to send out a few TGs would be more than welcome. ;)

The proposal may be found at http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Patent

Two days and you're about 1/3 of the way there ... could make it. If it does, would you mind creating a new thread with a poll similar to the current resolution, as I suspect you, myself, and Jey will all be interested in documenting this. :)

If it doesn't, keep the list of supporters.

I will not give patents to any of my military or espionage hardware away. I am against this. Also, I feel that if it is necessary, I should have a right to copy other peoples hardware without interference. Please include a section for military and other sensitive material.

I will not give patents to any of my military or espionage hardware away. I am against this. Also, I feel that if it is necessary, I should have a right to copy other peoples hardware without interference. Please include a section for military and other sensitive material.
Why shouldn't you be able to patent military hardware?

Of course, if you patent a secret invention, everyone will know about it by looking through the international patent registry, so you might not want to. But I don't understand your reasoning, or what you want me to do.

I will not give patents to any of my military or espionage hardware away. I am against this. Also, I feel that if it is necessary, I should have a right to copy other peoples hardware without interference. Please include a section for military and other sensitive material.Military technology is rarely patented. It is generally classified.

Military technology is rarely patented. It is generally classified.


Back in the early 1930s a German arms-manufacturing firm that had just developed a new bomb-fuse decided to protect its interests by getting this patented in other countries, such as Britain, as well as in Germany. At one stage during WII British bomb-disposal teams were having trouble with hitherto-unexploded German bombs whose fuse-mechanisms caused them to detonate during defusing attempts, but a civil servant remembered seeing that mechanism patented a decade or so earlier and dug it out of the files, thus saving a number of lives.

Military technology is rarely patented. It is generally classified.

There are mechanisms, however, whereby such technology can be made "proprietary" without patenting it.

*bump*

11 approvals to go; if you're a delegate, please consider supporting it here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=patent).

*bump*

11 approvals to go; if you're a delegate, please consider supporting it here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=patent).

You are a mind reader... spooky.

You are a mind reader... spooky.
No...just lurking on Reclamation :p

No...just lurking on Reclamation :p

Bah. Why don't you move a puppet there instead? :rolleyes:

No...just lurking on Reclamation :p


Ew.

Thanks for the bump Gruenberg.

By Undeniable, immutable, personal fact, I'm going to submit this again soon. Are there any other comments?

Bump

I was also wondering, from a "innovation" point of view, if a patent should be granted all the 25 years, in case it is not used in any offered products or services by the patent holder or any licensed person or entity?
OOC: In real life when this happens people use the patent and if the patent holder sues the people use the defence of prosecution laches (effectievly saying that a principle of 'use it or lose it' applies to intellectual property rights).

OOC: In real life when this happens people use the patent and if the patent holder sues the people use the defence of prosecution laches (effectievly saying that a principle of 'use it or lose it' applies to intellectual property rights).
I don't think that would fly with the version that has been submitted.

In other news, it has been submitted, and needs 21 approvals in the next ten hours in order to reach quorum.

bump

yes, it's been resubmitted.

OOC: In real life when this happens people use the patent and if the patent holder sues the people use the defence of prosecution laches (effectievly saying that a principle of 'use it or lose it' applies to intellectual property rights).

OCC: This is incorrect. Prosecution laches refers to something entirely different. It is an unreasonable and undue delay in prosecution of the patent. Although it is commonly associated with paper patents, it is more specifically associated with "submarine" patents.

there is no "use or lose it" principle in RL patent law.

At least this is the case in US law and international patent law to my knowledge. I'd be surprised if prosecution laches had a different meaning in England.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2190.htm
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1354.html

FWIW, as a RL patent lawyer, my hat is off to the author of this resolution. Not bad at all. (Although method claims are allowed in RL).

FYI, here (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl.htm) is a good copy of US patent laws, if you find you need it.

SupercalifragilisticexpedaliAPPROVAL LINK! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Patent)

OOC: *Bump* (just to raise the profile of this thread a bit).

(bump)

non-existant Studies have shown that approving UN Patent Law reduces the risk of heart disease, so:

Don't get sick, approve it quick! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Patent)

In queue - congratulations.

Yay!

Caratia will support this resolution when it comes to vote. (Seeing her economy is in a bit of a squall at the moment and requires all the help it can get :rolleyes:)

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations