NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Patent Law is a proposal in queue to set up an international patent system, which will improve our economies and technology. After all, if people don't have protection of their invention, what incentive do they have to invent?

Linky (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=Patent)

UN Patent Law

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ceorana

Description: The UN,

NOTING that without guaranteed protection of ideas for products, there is no incentive to invent them, and that without international protection of ideas for products, there is no incentive to market them internationally,

AFFIRMING that international trade strengthens all economies involved,

CONCLUDING that the international protection of ideas for products will strengthen the economies of all member states,

NOTING WITH REGRET that national patent laws laws are inevitably different and therefore incompatible, but that this could be solved through an international patent law,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "patent" as a protection by law of 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. "information" as including all knowledge, both known and unknown, specifically genetic code of natural organisms, scientific theories, mathematical algorithms, etc.;

2. STRESSES that patents are protections on the idea for an invention, not the specific invention, but the specific invention is by definition covered in the patent for its idea;

3. CREATES the United Nations Patent Registry (UNPR) for the purpose of keeping a registry of patents in all nations, which shall register patents by the following process:
a. The inventor of the product, or his/her/its 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, construction plans and/or other related media detailing and defining the product and idea;
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 that 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 17 years, after which the idea is free for all to use;

4. DECLARES 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. STIPULATES that patents may not pertain to:
a. any invention which is already in use at the time of application;
b. any intangible product, such as computer code or information;
c. biological organisms;
d. specific designs for inventions, although a specific design must be covered in the patent;

6. DECLARES that patents may be held by any person or corporation and that they are transferable by mutual agreement, at which time the UNPR must be notified;

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 UN Patent Law is supreme to national patent law, and any inventions patented in the UNPR may not be produced in any UN nation without consent of the patent holder.

FAQ:

Patents are stupid!
That's not a question. But I'll answer it anyway:

Some nations oppose patents because they think it denies everyone the advantage of having access to technology. Or scenarios where medicine is denied to people because of a patent.

Ahem. If patents didn't exist, the pharmaceutical company (or any inventing company: please don't say EEK! RUN! MONEYMONGERING PHARMACEUTICALS!) wouldn't be able to make enough profit off of the medicine to be able to pay off the debts incurred while producing the first one, let alone taking home a profit (which gives them an incentive to invent more) or having enough to fund another R&D run for another medicine.

Also, if there's an emergency and patented medicine is needed, a government can always step in and pay the money if it wants.

Will this keep me from having a national patent system?
No. Read clause 7.

You don't have enough questions!
So ask some.

The trouble with patents is that the first one to get their idea recorded has claim to it. Even if say person A and person B build the same thing in different parts of NS world at the same time. Thus this would cause grief to the nation of say person B because person A is marketing his item from nation A thus extensive costs that would not happen if person B was able to produce and market it through another nation.

And it's possible that two people come up with exact same ideas and then build them. Also that several work on a cure for say cancer and two or more come up with same cure for it. As figure if there were all that many cures for it out there then why don't we have one yet... same with AIDS and anything else... one cure then somebody or somebodies will find it. Then patents keep all but one from using it simply because they find it and record it first.


Also since nations outside the UN often have more cause to find things then how does this apply... when they might own patents on items they find first and where do they record them since not members of UN. Also how can the UN tell members nations it can't get a cheap cure for say AIDS from an non member nation because a member nation holds the patent on it? As this would not allow members to buy patent items from other than patent holder.

I'll post my nation's full position later, but for the moment I'll limit myself to stating that we strongly support all aspects of this proposal, bar some questions concerning clause 5c.

With regards to this clause, we would like to ask what the position of GMO's would be under a U.N. patent law scheme oriented along the lines envisaged by the resolution?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The trouble with patents is that the first one to get their idea recorded has claim to it. Even if say person A and person B build the same thing in different parts of NS world at the same time. Thus this would cause grief to the nation of say person B because person A is marketing his item from nation A thus extensive costs that would not happen if person B was able to produce and market it through another nation.
Or person B buys rights from person A to build the product. Or person B works faster, which is really the point of this proposal: by having that system, it encourages people to get their ideas out quickly so the world can benefit from them sooner.

And it's possible that two people come up with exact same ideas and then build them. Also that several work on a cure for say cancer and two or more come up with same cure for it. As figure if there were all that many cures for it out there then why don't we have one yet... same with AIDS and anything else... one cure then somebody or somebodies will find it. Then patents keep all but one from using it simply because they find it and record it first.
Ways of curing someone cannot be patented, because they are intangeble. A product that would cure someone is though. If two people get it out at the same time and market it before either one gets the patent application submitted, it is then inelgible for patent because it is in use at the time under clause 5a. So I don't really understand your point.

Also since nations outside the UN often have more cause to find things then how does this apply... when they might own patents on items they find first and where do they record them since not members of UN. Also how can the UN tell members nations it can't get a cheap cure for say AIDS from an non member nation because a member nation holds the patent on it?
The patent holder has exclusive rights to the idea within the UN, so it would be almost certainly illegal (and most certainly immoral) to import from a non-un nation.
As this would not allow members to buy patent items from other than patent holder.
Not true. Other people can buy production rights from the patenter.

With regards to this clause, we would like to ask what the position of GMO's would be under a U.N. patent law scheme oriented along the lines envisaged by the resolution?
They cannot be patented under 5c.

I must respectfully disagree with the logic behind patents.

In a capitalist economy, patents restrict freedom of trade, potentially turning the economy into a command economy ruled by a single company or group of companies.

In a command economy, patents allow individuals to overthrow the government control of the economy by creating a monopoly on ideas, replacing once command economy with another.

Patents simply give too much power to a single person, because a single person can now overthrow an entire government or economy. That sort of power only serves to limit freedom.

Decent idea. One or two little issues that could possibly be cleared up, or perhaps I don't quite understand them and could be illuminated.

Description: The UN,

NOTING that without guaranteed protection of ideas for products, there is no incentive to invent them, and that without international protection of ideas for products, there is no incentive to market them internationally,

There is still the incentive of improving life, or the quality thereof, for everyone. I know, I know. There aren't that many truly selfless humanitarians out there, but there is also the sheer drive to create that does keep many scientists/inventors/tinkerers etc going.

AFFIRMING that international trade strengthens all economies involved,

CONCLUDING that the international protection of ideas for products will strengthen the economies of all member states,

Not necessarily. The open sharing of all information and ready availability of technology could perhaps improve the economies of some, but ensuring that something built in X can't be reproduced by Y without paying for the right to do so will simply reinforce the urge to reinnovate said invention to a point where they can get their own patent for their "new and improved" product. Not that that is necessarily bad, but it won't really bolster the economy.

NOTING WITH REGRET that national patent laws laws are inevitably different and therefore incompatible, but that this could be solved through an international patent law,

National laws won't necessarily be excessively different or incompatible, but your point is valid.

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "patent" as a protection by law of 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. "information" as including all knowledge, both known and unknown, specifically genetic code of natural organisms, scientific theories, mathematical algorithms, etc.;

No problems here at first read through.

2. STRESSES that patents are protections on the idea for an invention, not the specific invention, but the specific invention is by definition covered in the patent for its idea;

A little wordy and almost double-speak-politico, but it still works.

3. CREATES the United Nations Patent Registry (UNPR) for the purpose of keeping a registry of patents in all nations, which shall register patents by the following process:
a. The inventor of the product, or his/her/its 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, construction plans and/or other related media detailing and defining the product and idea;

Good.

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 that 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 17 years, after which the idea is free for all to use;

I can see some potential for abuse with the placement of 3b allowing individuals to throw patent application after patent application at the UNPR in an attempt to keep others from developing ideas that the applicant has not fully sorted out yet. Probably won't be a sticking point, however, and I can't think of any way to really clear that up.


4. DECLARES 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;

Good idea. You may wish to include something about new members joing the UN and any patents they may already hold, as well as something about mediation in the instances of multiple patents holders not agreeing about joint ownership.

5. STIPULATES that patents may not pertain to:
a. any invention which is already in use at the time of application;

That's almost a no-brainer, but good to keep in. There are those who would nit pick about it if it wasn't there.

b. any intangible product, such as computer code or information;
c. biological organisms;

I'm a little curious about the rationale for these exceptions. In the case of 5b, intellectual property is essentially exempt from patent protection as a result. With 5c, it would mean that if a nation, group, or individual managed to genetically engineer something, say a super-soldier (as we in Kivisto have recently begun producing), then such a scientific breakthrough wouldn't be internationally protected.

d. specific designs for inventions, although a specific design must be covered in the patent;

As you previously stated, still good.

6. DECLARES that patents may be held by any person or corporation and that they are transferable by mutual agreement, at which time the UNPR must be notified;

I wouldn't have thought of that. Nice touch.

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 UN Patent Law is supreme to national patent law, and any inventions patented in the UNPR may not be produced in any UN nation without consent of the patent holder.

Good. All in all, I like it.

In a capitalist economy, patents restrict freedom of trade, potentially turning the economy into a command economy ruled by a single company or group of companies.
No, they don't. Patents promote freedom of trade, in fact, because they stimulate innovation. If your work is simply going to be taken and made by a corporation, with you receiving no benefit, there is no incentive to create anything new. However, a patent means that one guy working in his toolshed can compete with a multinational conglomerate: it matters not their respective positions once the invention is patented.

In a command economy, patents allow individuals to overthrow the government control of the economy by creating a monopoly on ideas, replacing once command economy with another.
You just said patents detract from individual bargaining power. How do they allow individuals to "overthrow the government"? A patent does not create a "monopoly on ideas" - it means that one specific invention must be licenced before others can produce it, and that they must seek approval to do so.

Patents simply give too much power to a single person, because a single person can now overthrow an entire government or economy. That sort of power only serves to limit freedom.
I can only disagree, and wonder what the hell sort of economic system GhostEmperor has that patents are such feared ghouls.

OOC: You are aware that patents are generally considered to have been central to the development of industrial capitalism? Feudalism --> capitalism does not seem to me indicate they facilitate a move to command economies.

In a capitalist economy, patents restrict freedom of trade, potentially turning the economy into a command economy ruled by a single company or group of companies.
I'd say if someone wants to do such a service to our economy and think up every single invention that it is possible to invent, then market it through a huge company [my point is that they can't], they probably deserve to rule the economy.

In a command economy, patents allow individuals to overthrow the government control of the economy by creating a monopoly on ideas, replacing once command economy with another.
See above.

Patents simply give too much power to a single person, because a single person can now overthrow an entire government or economy. That sort of power only serves to limit freedom.
How would they overthrow the government? Also, as I said above, in order to have an "idea monopoly", you'd have to think up all possible inventions, which is virtually impossible.

Kivisto: thanks for the comments. This has already reached queue, so how it is is how it must stay.

I'm a little curious about the rationale for these exceptions. In the case of 5b, intellectual property is essentially exempt from patent protection as a result.
That's because intellectual property must be covered under copyrights, which I'm planning another proposal on. One of the main problems that led to the repeal of the old Universal Copyright/Patent Law was that it mixed copyrights and patents.
With 5c, it would mean that if a nation, group, or individual managed to genetically engineer something, say a super-soldier (as we in Kivisto have recently begun producing), then such a scientific breakthrough wouldn't be internationally protected.
I wasn't quite sure about the rationale for that either, but a lot of people felt very strongly about it, so I decided to add it.

Bumpity bump bump, Bumpity bump bump, Look at Patent Law go!
Bumpity bump bump, Bumpity bump bump, Tomorrow it will go to vote!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/ducttape.jpg

Personnally I would prefer if this gave a longer period of control over the ideas to the creater. Perhaps 25 or 30 years. I have a feeling that several products will never be patented because of the short duration of control they have. Many may choose to keep their process secret to enjoy their monopoly over the product for a longer period of time.

An example from the fictional real world is Coka Cola which had they patented their formula would have long since had it revealed to the public and they would soon go out of business from the knock offs that arise using that formula.

Personnally I would prefer if this gave a longer period of control over the ideas to the creater. Perhaps 25 or 30 years. I have a feeling that several products will never be patented because of the short duration of control they have. Many may choose to keep their process secret to enjoy their monopoly over the product for a longer period of time.
Trouble is, some people would argue the time given in this resolution is too long for certain areas of industry, such as computing. I think going with one set one period of control makes sense, but inevitably, there are going to be areas where it seems too long, and areas where it seems too short.

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "patent" as a protection by law of 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. "information" as including all knowledge, both known and unknown, specifically genetic code of natural organisms, scientific theories, mathematical algorithms, etc.;

Agreed.

2. STRESSES that patents are protections on the idea for an invention, not the specific invention, but the specific invention is by definition covered in the patent for its idea;

Good.

3. CREATES the United Nations Patent Registry (UNPR) for the purpose of keeping a registry of patents in all nations, which shall register patents by the following process:
a. The inventor of the product, or his/her/its 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, construction plans and/or other related media detailing and defining the product and idea;
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 that 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 17 years, after which the idea is free for all to use;

I'd prefer it if we just opened an extra office in the UN Free Trade Commission to decrease bureaucracy. Also I'd personally make raise the 17 years to something higher, but thinking about it, in 17 years either everybody will have bought the technology or something better will have come along.

4. DECLARES 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;

Good.

5. STIPULATES that patents may not pertain to:
a. any invention which is already in use at the time of application;
b. any intangible product, such as computer code or information;
c. biological organisms;
d. specific designs for inventions, although a specific design must be covered in the patent;

Isn't 5b contradicting the earlier part 2 (an idea isn't tangible) and also what about computer programs, are they not covered at all?

6. DECLARES that patents may be held by any person or corporation and that they are transferable by mutual agreement, at which time the UNPR must be notified;

Agreed.

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 UN Patent Law is supreme to national patent law, and any inventions patented in the UNPR may not be produced in any UN nation without consent of the patent holder.

Good. Inventors are going to want a UN patent more than a national one because the UN pat. would protect them in more places.

what about computer programs, are they not covered at all?
Surely they would be copyrighted.

Surely they would be copyrighted.

Copyrights would have to be at a national level because.

STRUCK OUT BY REPEAL



UCPL



A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
bProposed by: Anward

Description: UCPL- Universal Copyright/Patent Law

In it's current state, copyright law varies from country to country. It makes free trade more difficult, as the laws differ from nation to nation.

As a representative of the Dominion of Anward, I realize my nation needs foreign trade to boost our economy. If we made a copyright/patent law that would apply to all countries there would be no 'gray area' and this would hopefully stimulate interest for countries to be more willing to trade between the nations of the United Nations.

My proposal asks the following to be implemented:

1. Copyright/Patent Law be the same between all UN members.

2. Copyright/Patent organizations be modified to accommodate the number of requests for copyright. This should be done by establishing a new International Copyright Organization, with chapters in every capital. This agency would receive other chapters' copyrights, and send copyrights established in that country to all other chapters. With the Internet Age, this is a simple process.

3. With many different languages, a sub-agency should be established to correctly translate the copyright/patents, into each chapters native language.

4. An additional sub-agency be created to be informed of, and monitor all copyright/patent infringements. Reducing the need for the government to take the time to investigate the actions. A recommended course of action will then be reported, and a court of the nation of the offender make the ruling.

Votes For: 11198

Votes Against: 8149

Implemented: Mon Jan 26 2004

Yes, they would have to be at a national level, until something on international copyrights is passed.

It should have been written in, but...

Computer programs should not be pattented. (And I'm a computer programmer by trade ... go figure.) Computer programs should in general be covered under copyright. Elements of computer programs on the other hand can consist of nontrivial ideas that probably should deserve pattent.

Algorithms can be pattented if they are nontrivial ideas. I think the "Fast Fourrier Transform" would have been an excellent example for a proper pattent. In the real world the infamous Xor pattent for graphic cursor placement was something that should have given the idiot who approved the pattent at the US pattent office the death penalty for gross neglect of common sense.

It should have been written in, but...
That's like saying that orange juice production rights should have been covered in Waste Disposal Covenant. This resolution is about patents, and patents only. The reason UCPL was repealed was that it mixed copyrights and patents, when they are almost entirely different.
Isn't 5b contradicting the earlier part 2 (an idea isn't tangible)...
No. 5b says the product that the idea is for must be tangible.

And thats exactly it. International Patenting is a smart way of keeping world trade alive. If a country can't make a certain product, they'll have to buy it from another country. Foreign trade promotes peace, and that's the goal of the U.N.

This policy of international patenting also forces companies to research in newer, undeveloped areas of the markets, making the world economy better in the end. It's a win-win situation. Anyone against patenting needs to look at the long term effects of it.


Office of Interior Secretary Charles Crosby

The Federation of Vainne

So, I doubt the patents are going to be free... since nothing's ever free. I presume the people wanting to get these patents for their products be paying out of pocket?

Have you ever seen someone dying of AIDS? Do you know what that looks like?

Do you know how many people die of AIDS in Africa every day? 5,500. Every day.

The World Health Org. is STILL trying to sort through the patent issues necessary to get low-cost medicine to these peoples' neighbors, children and grandchildren, who are currently dying of exactly the same thing.

17 years. That's how long this resolution would keep any new drugs effectively out of reach of the people who need it most.

The argument for the resolution goes like this: if drug companies don't have patent protection, they have no incentive to do the research that leads to these wonderful drugs in the first place.

But I don't think it's either/or. Viagra, for instance, an enormous money-maker for Pfizer, is not a drug that urgently needs to be made available at low cost. Drugs like this could have a longer lead time for exclusive rights. Yes, lines would have to be drawn and judgments made about how important certain inventions are. But I feel we're capable of that.

The current resolution condemns entire generations to easily-averted, slow, and painful deaths. It needs work.

Drugs aren't the only companies that use pattent law to vile advantage.

Pattent law can be used to kill potential competition. Consider advanced battery technology. EV cars pose a threat to the glorious oil industry, and extreemely advanced battery technology poses the greatest threat. And thus it has come to pass that Chevron/Texaco has the pattent rights to the Nickel Metal Hydride NiMH battery technology. They have given permission to only one company to use these batteries (Toyota) and only for Hybrid vechicles only! The details of this agreement, unfortunately is considered a corporate secret. The NiMH pattent expires in 2010. FOUR MORE YEARS!

Patents encroach on free trade. Sorry, but no.

I believe in intellectual property and copyrights (and copyleft, when appropriate), but I feel that patents restrict the free flow of ideas far too much.

Patents encroach on free trade. Sorry, but no.
How do patents encroach on free trade? Patents stimulate trade.

If Dankism had said he disliked patents and copyrights then I could understand (not agree, but understand), where he was coming from, but it seems he's confused.

(ooc:confusing poll, maybe i'm just a moron [just a moron, most probably] what is abstain?)

(ooc:confusing poll, maybe i'm just a moron [just a moron, most probably] what is abstain?)
OOC: Abstain = not vote either way.

Our vote is no, simply because drug patents are not given a different law, and we think 17 years is too long for a drug company to refuse lower priced generic drugs. We won't argue whether or not drug companies deserve some period of exclusivity, but 17 years is too long... in the opinion of Prince County.





Machiabelly,
Benevolent Potentate Of Prince County

Egad!! A UN resolution that doesn't outlaw tariffs?? FOR! :D

Kivisto: thanks for the comments. This has already reached queue, so how it is is how it must stay.


That's because intellectual property must be covered under copyrights, which I'm planning another proposal on. One of the main problems that led to the repeal of the old Universal Copyright/Patent Law was that it mixed copyrights and patents.

I wasn't quite sure about the rationale for that either, but a lot of people felt very strongly about it, so I decided to add it.

Thank you for the explanation, I am sated. FOR.

I take issue to clause 5c.

While I can recognise the intent behind the clause it has a few loopholes and inadvertant side affects I find disturbing.

First the definition of biological organism is too generalised. For example DNA is not a biological organism in and of itself, neither does this definition include the biological, chemical and physical processes occuring within a biological organism.
Additionally chemical and physical processes ocurring outside organisms isn't covered at all.

Also, while I agree that intelligent engineered organisms, such as "super soldiers" should not have their destiny governed by patent law and the company that created them, other engineered organisms such as bacteria or viral organisms that may be engineered for medical or industrial purposes should be protected under patent law.

As such I think 5c should read that no natural product or process should be patentable, which would prevent such absurdities as patenting genetic code, while still protecting a companies investments in producing products from these natural processes.

clause 5b also worries me a bit. The definition of information to me seems to include some tangible ideas (can anyone explain how genetic code is intangible, seeing as we all have some inside us?) so its use in 5b sets up a contradiction. I'm sure patent lawyers will love that one.

I cannot vote for a resolution that takes such loopholes and, by superceeding national laws, perpetuates them globally.

And thats exactly it. International Patenting is a smart way of keeping world trade alive. If a country can't make a certain product, they'll have to buy it from another country. Foreign trade promotes peace, and that's the goal of the U.N.

This policy of international patenting also forces companies to research in newer, undeveloped areas of the markets, making the world economy better in the end. It's a win-win situation. Anyone against patenting needs to look at the long term effects of it.


Office of Interior Secretary Charles Crosby

The Federation of Vainne
I like your way of thinking.
So, I doubt the patents are going to be free... since nothing's ever free. I presume the people wanting to get these patents for their products be paying out of pocket?
No. These patents are free to get.
Have you ever seen someone dying of AIDS? Do you know what that looks like?

Do you know how many people die of AIDS in Africa every day? 5,500. Every day.

The World Health Org. is STILL trying to sort through the patent issues necessary to get low-cost medicine to these peoples' neighbors, children and grandchildren, who are currently dying of exactly the same thing.

17 years. That's how long this resolution would keep any new drugs effectively out of reach of the people who need it most.
Appeal to emotion.
The argument for the resolution goes like this: if drug companies don't have patent protection, they have no incentive to do the research that leads to these wonderful drugs in the first place.

But I don't think it's either/or. Viagra, for instance, an enormous money-maker for Pfizer, is not a drug that urgently needs to be made available at low cost. Drugs like this could have a longer lead time for exclusive rights. Yes, lines would have to be drawn and judgments made about how important certain inventions are. But I feel we're capable of that.
Still, then companies have more incentive to produce drugs like Viagra than AIDS-type drugs. Also, there's this thing called 'government-funded health insurance', or 'low-income healthcare welfare'. The problem is not as big as you make it out to be.
Drugs aren't the only companies that use pattent law to vile advantage.

Pattent law can be used to kill potential competition. Consider advanced battery technology. EV cars pose a threat to the glorious oil industry, and extreemely advanced battery technology poses the greatest threat. And thus it has come to pass that Chevron/Texaco has the pattent rights to the Nickel Metal Hydride NiMH battery technology. They have given permission to only one company to use these batteries (Toyota) and only for Hybrid vechicles only! The details of this agreement, unfortunately is considered a corporate secret. The NiMH pattent expires in 2010. FOUR MORE YEARS!
So the car companies should have tried to invent it earlier, which is the incentive this proposal seeks to give. Also, at least the technology got invented: now we can pressure C/T to let other companies use it for a price, or just wait until the patent is up.

I take issue to clause 5c.

While I can recognise the intent behind the clause it has a few loopholes and inadvertant side affects I find disturbing.

First the definition of biological organism is too generalised. For example DNA is not a biological organism in and of itself, neither does this definition include the biological, chemical and physical processes occuring within a biological organism.
That's intentional. We don't want people patenting something that can think and move on its own. You can patent part of its system, though.
Additionally chemical and physical processes ocurring outside organisms isn't covered at all.
Also intentional.
As such I think 5c should read that no natural product or process should be patentable, which would prevent such absurdities as patenting genetic code, while still protecting a companies investments in producing products from these natural processes.
That would allow super soldiers then.

(can anyone explain how genetic code is intangible, seeing as we all have some inside us?)
The code is intangible, as it is information. The stuff inside us is DNA, which carries the genetic code.
I cannot vote for a resolution that takes such loopholes and, by superceeding national laws, perpetuates them globally.
Everything that can and cannot be patented was agreed on by the people who worked with me on this. There was very strong opposition to genetic code or biological organisms. So the "loopholes" you speak of are not really loopholes.

I am highly disturbed by this proposal. What this means is the following:
1. Nations at a scientific disadvantage will now be at an economic disadvantage, because nations who are able to fund their researchers will have almost-world-wide patents on their goods, as opposed to patents in individual nations. This gives already powerful nations more power, while it stifles the growth of developing nations. If the nation has deliberately isolated itself from science, that's their problem. If it's not the nation's fault, don't put economic sanctions on it.
2. Even more red tape, which has a number of obvious effects, such as bogging down important scientific progress (i.e. new treatments/cures for dangerous and infectious diseases).
3. It forces hippie nations (OOC: stfu about NatSov!) who don't believe in patents to use them. In other words, the UN would be disregarding the various political systems and ideologies of its member nations and would be, yet again, butting into the affairs of individual nations, where it has no business.

I have more, but I'm tired of typing.

Absolutely, definitely, positively, not. Never. This is on par with "Support for Unelected Leaders" or whatever that silly thing was called.

Wait until the Senate hears about this.

Angrily,
A. T. Stilgram
The Indignant Caratian Ambassador to the Ever-Intrusive-and-Bureaucracy-Choked United Nations

I am highly disturbed by this proposal. What this means is the following:
1. Nations at a scientific disadvantage will now be at an economic disadvantage, because nations who are able to fund their researchers will have almost-world-wide patents on their goods, as opposed to patents in individual nations. This gives already powerful nations more power, while it stifles the growth of developing nations. If the nation has deliberately isolated itself from science, that's their problem. If it's not the nation's fault, don't put economic sanctions on it.
2. Even more red tape, which has a number of obvious effects, such as bogging down important scientific progress (i.e. new treatments/cures for dangerous and infectious diseases).
3. It forces hippie nations (OOC: stfu about NatSov!) who don't believe in patents to use them. In other words, the UN would be disregarding the various political systems and ideologies of its member nations and would be, yet again, butting into the affairs of individual nations, where it has no business.

I have more, but I'm tired of typing.

Absolutely, definitely, positively, not. Never. This is on par with "Support for Unelected Leaders" or whatever that silly thing was called.

Wait until the Senate hears about this.

Angrily,
A. T. Stilgram
The Indignant Caratian Ambassador to the Ever-Intrusive-and-Bureaucracy-Choked United Nations
So you'd rather we just not invented anything because we wouldn't get any money off of it for inventing it ourselves?

Hello UN Delegates,

My nation aspires to enter the biotech industry and wishes/proposes clarification to the "biological organisms" clause.

Viruses and individual genes are not in themselves organisms. Possible cures for patients with genetic disorders (ie. muscular dystrophe) may potentially be cured by a donor gene delivered via lysogenic viral infection. Development of such treatments may not progress if there is no way to capitalize on the methods and donor genes used. Because the genetic code is degenerative, variations are allowed within the code such that multiple versions of the gene will result in the same expression. In that way, multiple companies can still compete if they are limited to the rights for one version of the gene. If one researcher or company develops more than one version, the UN will facilitate mandatory sale of rights of this gene to other firms. The price of these products will be debated and agreed upon before sale and scientific literature will still credit the original scientist for its discovery.

I request to be consulted in the future when legislation regarding biochemical/biotech/medical research is in the works.

The Caratian Ambassador raises several intriguing points. Would be that they were both true and relevant.

As to the first claim, that developing nations will be somehow crippled by an international patent law, I find the position of Caratia to be absurd. Developing nations will have far greater access to technology that is patented simply because it will be marketed for worldwide consumption. Even in the case of a patented technology being effectively denied to a developing economy, after seventeen years are up, the technology is freely available. In the absence of a patent, a corporation or national government could make technological developments secret, effectively denying access to anybody indefinitely. Granted, seventeen years of obstruction by a recalcitrant inventor can have tragic results, but indefinite concealment has the potential to be far worse.

Second, the delegation from Krioval is hard pressed to determine how this resolution would create additional bureaucracy. Aside from a handful of archivists, the process should be incredibly streamlined. Apply for a patent, verify that the patented technology fits the requirements and has not already been patented, and wait for confirmation. There is no reason for this process to be a lengthy one.

Third, "hippy nations" need to learn that no single ideology drives the United Nations - we legislate where and how we will. Some resolutions restrict capitalist nations, others restrict socialist and communist nations; likewise with pure democracies and dictatorships. It is how the system was designed. Appealing to the "some nation won't deal well with this" principle demonstrates an incredibly weak argument. I would thusly suggest that one who worries about ideological purity please visit eastern Europe - specifically Crimea River.

It is the ardent hope of the Republic of Krioval that this well developed legislation is speeded toward passage, and that the whimperings of those fearful of change be ignored as the impotent cries of the communist "intellectuals" that they are.

Ambassador Yoshi Takahara
Republic of Krioval

OOC: Everything above was 100% in-character. I personally enjoyed Caratia's rant immensely./OOC

No, they don't. Patents promote freedom of trade, in fact, because they stimulate innovation. If your work is simply going to be taken and made by a corporation, with you receiving no benefit, there is no incentive to create anything new. However, a patent means that one guy working in his toolshed can compete with a multinational conglomerate: it matters not their respective positions once the invention is patented.

The government of Mikitivity would like to reiterate the above statement as presented by the people of Gruenberg. However, instead of thinking of this as one individual working in a toolshed, an unilateral patent law would also protect smaller UN nations from larger UN nations, and thus stimulate a diversified UN wide economy. This happens to be something that Mikitivity strongly feels is in the interest of our combined economic security, and thus has cast its vote in favour of this resolution.

Howie Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

What is put forward for approval by this resolution is in no way similar to the patents we know in the real world and compare unfavourably with them.

A RL patent must be for specific inventions that should be novel (ie no prior art), innovative (ie not an obvious extension of prior art) and capable of "industrial" application (industry in its broadest sense, so including agriculture and services but excluding entirely abstract and intellectual activity).
The resolution makes no mention of any need to be practical, inventive or even new. Worse it specificly states that patents do not cover specific inventions but rather "ideas". The first person to get a patent on a car design would have had ownership on the idea of the car if this had been used as a model in real life!

The exceptions to what can be patented that are listed in the resolution also do not cover things that are usually exempt in RL. Borrowing from the UK patent office:
An invention is not patentable if it is:

* a discovery;
* a scientific theory or mathematical method;
* an aesthetic creation such as a literary, dramatic or artistic work;
* a scheme or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business;
* the presentation of information, or a computer program.

If the invention involves more than these abstract aspects so that it has physical features (such as a special apparatus to play a new game) then it may be patentable.

In addition, it is not possible to get a patent for an invention if it is a new animal or plant variety; a method of treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy; or a method of diagnosis.

The exceptions do vary from nation to nation (business processes are patentable in the US, software is patentable in various jurisdictions) but discoveries are excluded everywhere I know of as are scientific theories and mathematical methods.

The proposal also ignores one of the most important patent dispute questions. In the event of two people trying to patent the same invention (which given that the patent now covers the idea rather than the invention itself will happen more often than in RL) which patent claim takes precedence? Will the system be a "first to invent" one like the US or a "first to file" like pretty much every other patent jurisdiction?

The poll says "patents are stupid" I say "These patents would be stupid".

Unfortunately, US law doesn't have a character limit, unlike the NS UN; therefore, we're limited in how much detail can be expressed. Imagine US patent law if they only had 3500 characters (not words) to use.

On a more happy note, imagine if the IRS only had 3500 characters. Mmmm...

We in Zav were originally in full support of this resolution but calmer thought has forced us to revise our opinion.

All arguments against this resolution have been answered by suggesting that if such a resolution did not exist then we would have no inventions or inventing would slow down. 20,000 years of history argues against this. Secondly, the fact that one country may patent something that is desperately needed by it's neighbour can then blackmail that country for 17 years does not sound a particularly good idea.

In Zav there are no patents. All inventions of any type are funded by the central governman and owned by the government. The inventor of course is feted as a clebrity and is furtehr funded for more great ideas. After all, money should not be the incentive to better the world and its people. It is this type of thinking that every member in Zav protests against.

For want of a horse the cart slowed down.

For want of a driver the cart lost direction.

For want of a wheel the cart fell down.

For want of a financial incentive the wheel didn't get invented.

We think not.

This is the right way. the spiritual way.

Son of Zav.

A RL patent must be for specific inventions that should be novel (ie no prior art), innovative (ie not an obvious extension of prior art) and capable of "industrial" application (industry in its broadest sense, so including agriculture and services but excluding entirely abstract and intellectual activity).
The resolution makes no mention of any need to be practical, inventive or even new. Worse it specificly states that patents do not cover specific inventions but rather "ideas". The first person to get a patent on a car design would have had ownership on the idea of the car if this had been used as a model in real life!
In RL, it covers the invention, not the specific design. That was the least wordy way I could put it.

* a discovery;
See clause 5b
* a scientific theory or mathematical method;
Clause 5b
* an aesthetic creation such as a literary, dramatic or artistic work;
Excluded in the definition:
1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "patent" as a protection by law of 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;
* a scheme or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business;
Those are information, not inventions.
* the presentation of information, or a computer program.
Clause 5b.

If the invention involves more than these abstract aspects so that it has physical features (such as a special apparatus to play a new game) then it may be patentable.
Yes.

In addition, it is not possible to get a patent for an invention if it is a new animal or plant variety; a method of treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy; or a method of diagnosis.
Yes.

The exceptions do vary from nation to nation (business processes are patentable in the US, software is patentable in various jurisdictions) but discoveries are excluded everywhere I know of as are scientific theories and mathematical methods.
What's your point?

The proposal also ignores one of the most important patent dispute questions. In the event of two people trying to patent the same invention (which given that the patent now covers the idea rather than the invention itself will happen more often than in RL) which patent claim takes precedence? Will the system be a "first to invent" one like the US or a "first to file" like pretty much every other patent jurisdiction?
It's first to file, and it seems pretty clear to me:
c. The UNPR will review the patent, both to make sure that 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;


All arguments against this resolution have been answered by suggesting that if such a resolution did not exist then we would have no inventions or inventing would slow down. 20,000 years of history argues against this.
Times have changed.
Secondly, the fact that one country may patent something that is desperately needed by it's neighbour can then blackmail that country for 17 years does not sound a particularly good idea.
Yes, I know you mentioned this argument, but, again, would you prefer that one country just not invent something desperately needed by its neighbor country?

In Zav there are no patents. All inventions of any type are funded by the central governman and owned by the government. The inventor of course is feted as a clebrity and is furtehr funded for more great ideas. After all, money should not be the incentive to better the world and its people. It is this type of thinking that every member in Zav protests against.
Well, you can keep doing that. The world will be better for it. And if this passes, you can even patent that kind of stuff internationally! Woohoo!

Whether we like it or not, corporations do much of the inventing in our society, and corporations want to get money. So what better way to get them to invent more than to make sure they get money for it?

Have you ever seen someone dying of AIDS? Do you know what that looks like?

Do you know how many people die of AIDS in Africa every day? 5,500. Every day.

The World Health Org. is STILL trying to sort through the patent issues necessary to get low-cost medicine to these peoples' neighbors, children and grandchildren, who are currently dying of exactly the same thing.


The fact that the governments in several of the worst-affected countries have placed hefty levels of import taxes on the drugs doesn't exactly help the situation either...

Unfortunately, US law doesn't have a character limit, unlike the NS UN; therefore, we're limited in how much detail can be expressed. Imagine US patent law if they only had 3500 characters (not words) to use.

On a more happy note, imagine if the IRS only had 3500 characters. Mmmm...


OOC: and the EU...

All arguments against this resolution have been answered by suggesting that if such a resolution did not exist then we would have no inventions or inventing would slow down. 20,000 years of history argues against this. Secondly, the fact that one country may patent something that is desperately needed by it's neighbour can then blackmail that country for 17 years does not sound a particularly good idea.

In Zav there are no patents. All inventions of any type are funded by the central governman and owned by the government. The inventor of course is feted as a clebrity and is furtehr funded for more great ideas. After all, money should not be the incentive to better the world and its people. It is this type of thinking that every member in Zav protests against.

Does this mean that you would never use concepts that were invented in other nations, or do you want to be free to copy those without giving any payments to whoever holds the patents on them in those other lands?

Does this mean that you would never use concepts that were invented in other nations, or do you want to be free to copy those without giving any payments to whoever holds the patents on them in those other lands?

If we were to know before hand that nation A built the gizmo and we copied it then we would expect to have to pay for that gizmo to nation A.

The problem is we get new nations into UN all the time and they each have the same ability to build a gizmo as current member nations do. Thus once they come in they face being billed by older member nations for their gizmos. I know if they are in use they are exempt from patent laws so now the older nation lost it's patent because the new nation has been using the same gizmo for years. Thus both lose their control on the trade of these gizmos.

Also we have current trade agreements in place now with certain non UN member nations for igizmos that members may get a patent on. Are we expected to deal only with those members that hold those patents on these gizmos? Even when the non UN nation may have been first to build the gizmo!

To:All who inquire
From: UN Delegate Ragan of sNooVa
Subject: Approval

My nation has no issues with this proposal it is well thought out for such a limited space and we are proud to vote this proposal a yes. While yes it has it's faults as pointed out by others it has its own triumphs as well. We look forward to seeing more proposals who are written this well unlike the WDC that had my nation in an uproar as we tried to sort out the problems we saw in it's writings. We happily congradulate the Ambassador of Ceorana for writing a paper of this catagory, this proposal should put new life into the UN and luckily it doesn't attack any personal liberties of specific nations such as the WDC. We wholeheartedly push this proposal into action as soon as possible hoping no one else owns a patent on the Lolly Pop Licking Machine, but if they do we will gladly agree to an ability to share the patent.

Sincerely,
UN Delegate Ragan of sNooVa,
Official Lollypop licker of Gumdrops

I have issues on several grounds. The way patents are named and stored. The way. 5b tends to contradict other sections. Competition problems.

Competition problems- patents do not stem competition, infact, quite the opposite. The wind-up radio was invented by a guy in his shed not a multi-national corporation. However, the problems with having ideas at the same time appears highly problematic. It could be possible that the scientific community could supersede national boundaries, given free roam of the world and should only be answerable to the UN. Since a 'scientist' is vague term i would include all living, intelligent individuals as scientist, thus nationstates should become a federal world state. The UN should preside over all with federal governments, similar to that of current USA, in each country. The UN shouldn't be a talking shop- it should be a doing shop. One that I would be proud to join.

The current patent sytem within the UK allows patents to be named in any form. By allowing this there are many patents that ar 'hidden' by ambiguous names, this makes it difficult for people to search and see if the thing they want to patent is already patented. If there is a universal way to name and to end ambiguity within patent names it would make them easier to store and to search.
So far Jimmy carter has yet to say yes.
Thanks,
Gene Marshall
Come and Hug me next to my Gazebo

That's intentional. We don't want people patenting something that can think and move on its own. You can patent part of its system, though.

Oh please. I really hope this isn't the case. Of course they say a broken analogue clock tells the correct time twice a day so it might be possible to insert a good clause into a resolution for the wrong reason, but this is clearly a wrong reason.

Under the current resolution as written there is nothing to prevent the creation and pattenting of self replicating nanobots, or AI powered transport devices.

No, biological systems should not be pattented by the same reason that computer programs should not be pattented. DNA/RNA sequences, like Computer code is copyright, not pattent. An algorithimic process might be pattentable but not a specific coding instance.

That saying, if you come up with an RNA system that would reattach buffer strings to DNA strands (which normally fall off with age) allowing someone to live forever, I would probably argue that this should be pattentable, but I'm not going to argue against a resolution on this one exceptional exception.

This poll is way too black-and-white.
Most of the real problems with patents have to do with how they are implemented, now whether or not they are allowed.
Patents on non-novel ideas (something anyone could have thought up) are almost certainly a bad idea, whereas patents on a drug that takes 12 years and $50 million to develop are probably a good thing because otherwise no one would spend the time or money.

Unfortunately, US law doesn't have a character limit, unlike the NS UN; therefore, we're limited in how much detail can be expressed. Imagine US patent law if they only had 3500 characters (not words) to use.

On a more happy note, imagine if the IRS only had 3500 characters. Mmmm...

OOC: Though this is an excellent point, US environmental law tends to be just as long ... meaning, I'm sure this post can be recycled. ;)

IC:
The beauty of shorter international laws, is they give some degree of sovereignty / legislative freedom to member nations. I know that my government has not authorized me to simply hand over the powers reserved for the appointees to the Council of Mayors, and I strongly suspect that your governments have done the same. Bearing the partical nature of effective international law, Mikitivity takes no issue with UN resolutions being only a page or two in length. Furthermore, finer details can be brought up in UN floor debate and essentially "amended" by the proponents, and should this resolution pass (which my government hopes) arguments relating to legislative intent would be much more clear.

The problem is we get new nations into UN all the time and they each have the same ability to build a gizmo as current member nations do. Thus once they come in they face being billed by older member nations for their gizmos. I know if they are in use they are exempt from patent laws so now the older nation lost it's patent because the new nation has been using the same gizmo for years. Thus both lose their control on the trade of these gizmos.

Good point.

Also we have current trade agreements in place now with certain non UN member nations for igizmos that members may get a patent on. Are we expected to deal only with those members that hold those patents on these gizmos? Even when the non UN nation may have been first to build the gizmo!

We have some existing agreements like that too: One of them is a shared system of patents within the Godwinnian Commonwealth, so that anything which has been patented in any of those nations is counted as patented in St Edmund too and the current patent-owner's rights to it would therefore be protected in the UN under this resolution...

its a good idea

How do patents encroach on free trade? Patents stimulate trade.

OCC: Sorry about that, someone was on my account at my house... I'm actually completely FOR this proposal :p

By the way, anyone catch this?

NOTING WITH REGRET that national patent laws laws are inevitably different and therefore incompatible, but that this could be solved through an international patent law, (emphasis mine)

LOL, well i like the proposal..So i voted for it.

LOL, well i like the proposal..So i voted for it.

OOC: Must you "LOL" in every post? :rolleyes:

<snip>
OOC: Thanks for returning the favor. :rolleyes: I'd be for this IRL.

Oh please. I really hope this isn't the case. Of course they say a broken analogue clock tells the correct time twice a day so it might be possible to insert a good clause into a resolution for the wrong reason, but this is clearly a wrong reason.

Under the current resolution as written there is nothing to prevent the creation and pattenting of self replicating nanobots, or AI powered transport devices.

No, biological systems should not be pattented by the same reason that computer programs should not be pattented. DNA/RNA sequences, like Computer code is copyright, not pattent. An algorithimic process might be pattentable but not a specific coding instance.

That saying, if you come up with an RNA system that would reattach buffer strings to DNA strands (which normally fall off with age) allowing someone to live forever, I would probably argue that this should be pattentable, but I'm not going to argue against a resolution on this one exceptional exception.
Of course you can't patent the code, just as much you can't patent the blueprints for an invention. They're copyright (if they can be protected at all). We're talking about the actual organism.

In RL, it covers the invention, not the specific design. That was the least wordy way I could put it.

See clause 5b

Clause 5b

Excluded in the definition:


Those are information, not inventions.

Clause 5b.

Yes.

Yes.

What's your point?

It's first to file, and it seems pretty clear to me:




Times have changed.

Yes, I know you mentioned this argument, but, again, would you prefer that one country just not invent something desperately needed by its neighbor country?

Well, you can keep doing that. The world will be better for it. And if this passes, you can even patent that kind of stuff internationally! Woohoo!

Whether we like it or not, corporations do much of the inventing in our society, and corporations want to get money. So what better way to get them to invent more than to make sure they get money for it?

We regret to say that we forget that in the world outside the region of Democracy that capitalism is still the official religion. We cannot see through your eyes and you cannot see through our eyes. Through our eyes, all we see in your answerrs is the belief that new times means power, money and self-love is more important than faith, trust and love of your neighbour. In this way you do not weaken our opposititon. You merely strengthen it.

This is the right way, the spiritual way.

Son of Zav.

Of course you can't patent the code, just as much you can't patent the blueprints for an invention. They're copyright (if they can be protected at all). We're talking about the actual organism.

BUt you can't patent the "actual organism" because under the resolution you can only patent the idea behind the device, not the device itself. Aside from the "code" there isn't much patentable in any particular organism, almost every structure in a living creature existed more or less in the same manner before the creation of the new organism.

Self replicating things are a strange notion that patent law was not designed to address in the first place. The patent owner owns the rights to the idea behind the device, not the devices themselves. And yet by design he has given a significant right of patent away to the devices themselves by designing them to self replicate. This constitutes the waving of patent rights to the devices. (Because by designing them that way he has expressed his intent to wave those rights.)

Sorry somebody logged into my account and sabtaged it. I was able to fix it.

this could be a good but it could also be a bad thing to do you never know

Even if there are benifits, I don't see what's wrong with the numerous pre-existing national patent laws. This is a solution searching for a problem, and it will find them.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

2. STRESSES that patents are protections on the idea for an invention, not the specific invention, but the specific invention is by definition covered in the patent for its idea

This is way too vague, I have the idea of a person transportation device that you sit on, there that's every thing from riding a horse to the motor bike patented, Yes I know it would fall under obvious (well you would hope, but I wouldn't bet on the PO doing it's job). How ever this bill is too open to abuse with dubious patents being used to black mail companies into dubious licensing deals, since the definition of idea is not clean enough.

Patents if they must exist, they should only exist to protect a specific mechanism for a particular use not something as woolly as an 'idea' (that is not what the patent system should be for). The simplest rule of thumb is that it can't be kicked it isn't patentable.

As for pharmaceuticals, the mechanism of purify plant X extract to cure Y disease would be clearly patentable (though the pharmaceutical companies would probably have words with you for going about kicking things.)

Norderia abstains from this issue...

WITH EXTREME POTENCE!




(Due to the potence of Norderia's abstainence, all parties involved will agree that said abstainence shall be worth no less than 5 abstaining votes)

__________________
Sub-signature:
Norderia: Home of the vote of vigorous indifference.

Patents are OK, but I don't like how they can become open to the public after so long. Revert the patent to the creator's birth country's government upon their death and the country's economy will continue to grow through the ages; schoolchildren will remember Inventor X for eons to come and thank HIM/her daily for ________ invention! I can see why patents are good, I merely dislike the expiration date clause(s). Kegan

This is way too vague, I have the idea of a person transportation device that you sit on, there that's every thing from riding a horse to the motor bike patented, Yes I know it would fall under obvious (well you would hope, but I wouldn't bet on the PO doing it's job). How ever this bill is too open to abuse with dubious patents being used to black mail companies into dubious licensing deals, since the definition of idea is not clean enough.

Patents if they must exist, they should only exist to protect a specific mechanism for a particular use not something as woolly as an 'idea' (that is not what the patent system should be for). The simplest rule of thumb is that it can't be kicked it isn't patentable.

As for pharmaceuticals, the mechanism of purify plant X extract to cure Y disease would be clearly patentable (though the pharmaceutical companies would probably have words with you for going about kicking things.)
The "idea" part is very necessary. Suppose I wanted to patent a car design, and it was just that design. What's the point? Someone can just put the gas tank on the other side of the car, and viola! It's not covered by the patent. Of course the UNPR will keep them not too broad, they're UN gnomes with nothing else to do.
Even if there are benifits, I don't see what's wrong with the numerous pre-existing national patent laws. This is a solution searching for a problem, and it will find them.
Ummmm...they don't apply in other nations?

The "idea" part is very necessary. Suppose I wanted to patent a car design, and it was just that design. What's the point? Someone can just put the gas tank on the other side of the car, and viola! It's not covered by the patent.


The idea part as I have said is too vague, First you do not patent a car design, you copyright that, you do patent any mechanisms that are unique and new, not the design it self. Think along the lines of a special gear box, new crankshaft or new kind of screw, it is the unique and new conponents that are patented. Adding a fuel tank would not get round the patent. If you add a component to a patented device, unless it largly changes it's function and maner of it's functioning, you are still using the patented technology.

Of course the UNPR will keep them not too broad, they're UN gnomes with nothing else to do.

Except buckle to the presure of large coporations that want to squash any innovation that they don't own. Well that and cause the employment of a very large number of lawyers.

I still view the concept of owning an idea as non-sensical, how on earth do you tell who thought of it first if it is the idea that is patented, not any physical mechanism or plan to construct such an item.

After much consideration, Ecopoeia will vote against the resolution. This has not been an easy decision as the author has made a valiant attempt to address many of our concerns.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Not to be rude, but ...

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/chechnya.jpg (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=36)

Not to be rude, but ...

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/chechnya.jpg (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=36)

And he is, too (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=36). :D

Try clicking the card, genius. :p

Try clicking the card, genius. :p

Ugh.

It's first to file, and it seems pretty clear to me:


While we in the Armed Republic of Shillelagh Diplomacy find the majority of this proposed resolution to be favorable, we take issue with the matter of contested patents. We are strong believers in the philosophy of "first to invent" and NOT "first to file". Unfortunately, that means that our vote will be against this resolution.

Furthermore, we believe that the UNPR should be self-sufficient through the collection of appropriate fees. This will act as a deterrent to companies or individuals filling patents purely for "strategic" reasons or for the purpose of harassment.

We congratulate the authors on what is otherwise a very well written proposal, and is clearly well intentioned. It pains us to have to vote against a proposal with such potential.

Sincerely,

Aaron Bell
Foreign Minister
The Armed Republic of Shillelagh Diplomacy
The Enlightened

I'm going to have to disagree. If you invent the wonderful solution to everything and then sit on your shelf for a number of years, well then too bad if someone else then also invents the wonderful solution to everything and submits it for a pattent.

Even in the real world, it's almost impossible to verify the date when a item was invented. It's sure easy to verify the date when the item is submitted.

After much consideration, Ecopoeia will vote against the resolution. This has not been an easy decision as the author has made a valiant attempt to address many of our concerns.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Is there any specific section that you could perhaps cite as something your government would like to see changed that would change your vote?

Howie Katzman

I agree with the patent law, as its written except for one little detail...

You can't patent biologlical organisms?

What about plants, or breeds of livestock that you have very carefully engineered? What about them?

I still support this law, but it's just something that may be worth discussing.

I agree with the patent law, as its written except for one little detail...

You can't patent biologlical organisms?

What about plants, or breeds of livestock that you have very carefully engineered? What about them?

I still support this law, but it's just something that may be worth discussing.

I raised this point earlier in the debate and to be honest I was not entirely satisfied with the response, after all, if you have precision engineered (i.e. with GM plants) an organic organism that acts in a manner intended engineering, then you should be able to, at the very least, patent the process.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

How about we write up a separate proposal on biological material? I can see both sides' arguments, and given this proposal appears likely to pass, biological matter could be dealt with on its own.

Something on plant breeders' rights?

How about we write up a separate proposal on biological material? I can see both sides' arguments, and given this proposal appears likely to pass, biological matter could be dealt with on its own.

Something on plant breeders' rights?

"Green Fingers Protection Act"?

I was actually thinking of calling it "Protection of Plants Act".

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 17 years, after which the idea is free for all to use;

The 17 year limit is the only item I find unsatisfactory. The creator should retain the patent for life or until it is willingly sold. But compromising on this one tiny thing really is no problem if it solves the overall issue.

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 17 years, after which the idea is free for all to use;

The 17 year limit is the only item I find unsatisfactory. The creator should retain the patent for life or until it is willingly sold. But compromising on this one tiny thing really is no problem if it solves the overall issue.
I think your reasoning is good, but it wouldn't work that way. It's just too long to keep something locked up. Additionally, with the first-to-file system, it would be too high stakes.

I'm glad you like the basic idea. :)

I was actually thinking of calling it "Protection of Plants Act".Protection Act for Plants?

Protection Act for Plants?

Cynic, won't you think of the saplings? Will someone please think of the saplings.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

You can't patent biologlical organisms?

Absolutely not. Last time I checked the biological cell has existed for a very long time. You pattent ideas that lead to devices not instructions that modify how that device operates. DNA/RNA code for genetically manufactured organisms should be copyrighted, not pattened. It's as pattently absurd as saying that Microsoft should be able to pattent the PC running windows because they designed the windows operatng system code. They can copyright the code, but they cannot pattent the hardware that runs the code because they did't invent that!

That saying we need a good copyright law that encompases both computer code and DNA/RNA code as well.

Protection Act for Plants?

Safety Act for Plants would be more appropriate. ;)

And less repulsive.

Safety Act for Plants would be more appropriate. ;)

And less repulsive.

How about 'Protection Unto Live Plants' instead? ;)

The Confederacy of Reidalian is in favor of protected the rights of individuals to the results of creative thought. As such, we generally support the resolution under discussion. However, we do have an issue with the highlighted phrasse in section 6:

6. DECLARES that patents may be held by any person or corporation and that they are transferable by mutual agreement, at which time the UNPR must be notified;

We believe that corporations are not creative entities and should not have the same rights as individuals. We would like the resolution amended to remove the highlighted phrase so that only individuals and groups of individuals may hold patents. Corporations would of course be able to license patents from the holders, but we object at this time to granting ownership of intellectual property to artificial entities that are incapable of creating value themselves.

We look forward to further discussion on this issue.

Regards,
vonKreedon, Syndic Council Chair

The Confederacy of Reidalian is in favor of protected the rights of individuals to the results of creative thought. As such, we generally support the resolution under discussion. However, we do have an issue with the highlighted phrasse in section 6:

6. DECLARES that patents may be held by any person or corporation and that they are transferable by mutual agreement, at which time the UNPR must be notified;

We believe that corporations are not creative entities and should not have the same rights as individuals. We would like the resolution amended to remove the highlighted phrase so that only individuals and groups of individuals may hold patents. Corporations would of course be able to license patents from the holders, but we object at this time to granting ownership of intellectual property to artificial entities that are incapable of creating value themselves.

We look forward to further discussion on this issue.

Regards,
vonKreedon, Syndic Council Chair
What you are requesting can't be done, once a proposal is up for vote it cannot be changed. If you wanted this change made you should have brought it up while the proposal was being drafted on the forum.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

What you are requesting can't be done, once a proposal is up for vote it cannot be changed. If you wanted this change made you should have brought it up while the proposal was being drafted on the forum.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We are quite new to this process, having received our UN membership yesterday evening, so please excuse any procedural gaffs.

To be clear, once a proposal is made available for voting it may not be changed; that the only way to change a resolution once voting has begun is to defeat the resolution and begin the process again. Is this correct?

Respectfully,
vonKreedon, Syndic Council Chair

We are quite new to this process, having received our UN membership yesterday evening, so please excuse any procedural gaffs.

To be clear, once a proposal is made available for voting it may not be changed; that the only way to change a resolution once voting has begun is to defeat the resolution and begin the process again. Is this correct?

Respectfully,
vonKreedon, Syndic Council Chair
Yes or once it passes you can repeal it and replace it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Confederacy of Reidalia votes against this proposal.

We are generally in favor, but are unwilling to vote for a proposal that elevates corporations to the same level as individuals. We hope that the proposal will be defeated so that it might be resubmitted without the objectionable language. Should it be approved, as seems all but certain, Reidalia will work for its repeal and resubmition.

Regards,
vonKreedon, Syndic Council Chair

That saying we need a good copyright law that encompases both computer code and DNA/RNA code as well.
That is being worked on.

Protective Legislation for Advancements in Nature-improvement Technology and Sub-species? ;)

Perhaps I should have visited this topic earlier. I am concerned that 15 years is too long a time in a world of change. I would have preferred that the patent's length was indivdually assessed by a board.

The Confederacy of Reidalia notes that patents may not be held by corporate entities in Reidalia. We trust that the just passed resolution will not be interpreted to mean that we must allow such entities to hold patents in our country, or to allow Reidalian patents to be transferred to corporate entities in other countries.

The region of Not We, of which Reidalia is a member, instructed our Delegate to vote against this measure because of the corporate entity acting as a person issue. Can a region pass laws as well as nations and the UN?

The Confederacy of Reidalia notes that patents may not be held by corporate entities in Reidalia. We trust that the just passed resolution will not be interpreted to mean that we must allow such entities to hold patents in our country, or to allow Reidalian patents to be transferred to corporate entities in other countries.
In terms of international patent law, yes, corporations can hold patents. You can do what you want with your national patent law.

The region of Not We, of which Reidalia is a member, instructed our Delegate to vote against this measure because of the corporate entity acting as a person issue. Can a region pass laws as well as nations and the UN?
Not in a gameplay sense, but yes in a roleplay sense.

We also wonder what you have against corporations holding patents. Corporations invent stuff all the time, in fact, they probably invent most stuff. So how to expect for them to be compensated if they don't hold patents?

The Confederacy of Reidalian is in favor of protected the rights of individuals to the results of creative thought. As such, we generally support the resolution under discussion. However, we do have an issue with the highlighted phrasse in section 6:

6. DECLARES that patents may be held by any person or corporation and that they are transferable by mutual agreement, at which time the UNPR must be notified;

We believe that corporations are not creative entities and should not have the same rights as individuals. We would like the resolution amended to remove the highlighted phrase so that only individuals and groups of individuals may hold patents. Corporations would of course be able to license patents from the holders, but we object at this time to granting ownership of intellectual property to artificial entities that are incapable of creating value themselves.

We look forward to further discussion on this issue.

Regards,
vonKreedon, Syndic Council Chair

The Ausserland delegation would like to welcome Councillor vonKreedon to these halls. We look forward to his participation in our debates.

On the point raised.... Corporations may well not be considered "creative entities" in the Confederacy of Reidalian, but they are in Ausserland. Many patented inventions are the result of collaborative development by employees of corporations, working on company time and being paid by the corporation. In addition, many corporations fund independent developers. Ownership of the patent is their return for the funds invested. We believe that refusal of patent ownership to corporations would have a serious negative impact on in-house R&D and sponsored independent research.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

...SNIP...
On the point raised.... Corporations may well not be considered "creative entities" in the Confederacy of Reidalian, but they are in Ausserland. Many patented inventions are the result of collaborative development by employees of corporations, working on company time and being paid by the corporation. In addition, many corporations fund independent developers. Ownership of the patent is their return for the funds invested. We believe that refusal of patent ownership to corporations would have a serious negative impact on in-house R&D and sponsored independent research.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

First, I want to thank the representatives from Ceorana and from Ausserland for their kind welcomes to this august body.

Regarding both of their questioning of my nation's opposition to assigning patent rights to corporate entities, I believe that the answer is in the quote, above, from Minister Olembe. As the Minister correctly points out the patents are, "...the result of collaborative development by employees of corporations...." The corporation did not create the patentable inventions, its employees did as only people can create. This is not to say that the corporation should not gain from providing the support for the employees, Redalian Syndicates routinely include exclusive rights of license provisions in the membership contracts of Syndic members, but the patents are retained by the people who actually created the invention.

Why does this matter? It matters in two areas:

Indvidual freedom
Corporate entities are not people


In the first area it means that the inventors since they retain patent rights to the invention also retain leverage to obtain just compensation for the fruits of their creative genius. While they may not be able to license or produce their invention, the exclusive licensing authority being owned by the Syndicate, they can prevent the Syndicate from producing and profiting from the invention if they do not feel that they are being justly compensated. This prevents the Syndicate from coercively exploiting its members.

In the second area we are strongly opposed on principle and on practical application to any instance in which a corporate entity gains the rights of a person. Since only people can invent it would be an assertion of corporate personhood for a corporate entity to be granted a patent.

Your Obedient Servant,
vK

*snippity*

Why does this matter? It matters in two areas:

Indvidual freedom
Corporate entities are not people


*snip-snip*

In some areas of the law, corporations are indeed treated as people.

In some areas of the law, corporations are indeed treated as people.
Well, I think that's his point. Some people dislike the issue of corporate personhood - presumably under Reidalian law, corporations can't gain such status.

Well, I think that's his point. Some people dislike the issue of corporate personhood - presumably under Reidalian law, corporations can't gain such status.

It's not done to give them any sort of "status." It's done more for simplicity's sake. A corporation buying land, for instance, does it the same way a person would.

We thank the honorable representative from Reidalia for his courteous reponse to our comments. We think we'll have to agree to disagree. We have two comments in rejoinder.

First, the people who engaged in the collaborative effort which produced the invention were properly compensated (we would hope) for the work they put into the effort. They received their salaries for performing the duties of their jobs, which obviously included participating in the development of the item. We're not sure we understand the "exclusive rights of license provisions" mentioned, but it seems to us that the system merely allows employees to extort extra compensation from corporations for their work -- work which they agreed to perform for agreed-upon compensation. The corporation paid them to develop the item. They agreed to do it. Now they can prevent the corporation from profiting from the investment because they want more money?

On the second point, corporations are regarded under a multitude of laws as "legal entities", with certain abilities and obligations. We see nothing unusual or antagonistic to human rights in allowing them to claim patents.

Pointless to continue to debate since the resolution has passed, but we wanted to respond to the representative's interesting comments.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I'd also like to point out that the corporation can represent the group of people. You can't have five individuals own a patent, because then you wonder who gets to decide what to do with it. They must band together to form a corporation, which is basically everyone's interests combined into one decision-making body, which then owns the patent.

A corporation has been described as a single person, the management etc being the mind and the workers the hands.

I just receved word that the patent reslution has passed! Due to the fact that this is the 1st set of patent laws to be placed in effect in my nation I should have no probloms following this UN Reselution.

it sounds good