NationStates Jolt Archive

RECOGNISING that all innovations are necessarily built upon previous innovations, that patent monopolies are often difficult to overcome even after the expiry of the patent, and hence that patents slow and stifle innovation, and;

CONCERNED by the failure of the UN Patent Law to provide exceptions for vital items such as lifesaving medicines, which has caused lives to be lost due to the unaffordability of patented medicines and the constraining of UN member nations from independently carrying out the production of such medicines, and;

BELIEVING that the benefits of international patents do not outweigh the costs to the welfare of the people of the world and to economic efficiency, and;

RECOGNISING that other incentive systems besides patent monopoly profits are possible, and;

RECOGNISING the right of nations to determine their own patent regulations or to abolish them entirely, and to establish an incentive system most appropriate to their needs,

NOW THEREFORE, the United Nations, in council assembled,

URGES nations to resolve international patent disputes via peaceful and diplomatic bi- or multi-lateral negoiation,

ENCOURAGES governments, public and private institutions to reward researchers for their inventions on the basis of their benefit to society,

ABOLISHES the United Nations Patent Registry, and;

REPEALS Resolution 156, "UN Patent Law"

Here are my arguments for, from discussion on UNOG, to prevent my rehashing the basic points over again:

- Patents don't stifle creativity. What they can stifle is technological development, because technology is built upon existing technology. If you have to wait for about 20 years (or however long you've set your patent time limit) before you can start working on stuff that a company wants to squeeze all the monopoly profit from, that's 20 years' delay in innovation and development.

- Patents are an infringement in the working of the free market - since it does create an artificial government-granted monopoly, hence the impediment to economic efficiency.

- Alternative suggestions have been things like tax credits and "innovation funds" but while I'm totally down with that, lots of Kists get real snippy if you suggest anything which remotely sounds like government intervention. They call you all sorts of names. It hurts my feelings. *sniff*

- While I expect patents will be retained by most countries anyway, there's the possible counterargument of "What if my patent is only recognised in Liechtenstien? Where's my incentive?" So I included the bit which says "decide your international patent disputes yourselves." Meaning Brazil can just shrug and say "whatever" to the patent on Prozac, but give Big Pharma a "speak to the hand, bitch" when it comes to generic AIDS drugs. Or negoiate for US to drop agriculture subsidies, give them preferential trade, etc. in exchange.

- The technological monopoly thing actually is quite a big deal, and it's not just specific things. Patents can conceivably prevent improvements on existing inventions or developing on them and regrettably the simple fact that no one would really bother inventing something they know they can't sell because they think the patent holder wouldn't licence it means there aren't any concrete examples I'm aware of. But hypothetically, say you invent jet-skates by putting little rockets on rollerblades, but the holder of the rollerblade patent holder won't licence to you, or demands a very high percentage of your income from it. Not wanting to wait for several years, you'd likely trash the invention. There was the patent battle Henry Ford had to go through with a guy who patented a "road engine".

- There is also a diversionary effect of patents which comes from using the profit motive to reward innovation. "Third-world diseases" like AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, beri-beri, etc. are predominantly suffered by people who don't have a lot of money and aren't profitable to sell medicine to. Pharmaceutical company researchers hence spend more time on more profitable things like erectile dysfunction, which certainly is a great thing to cure, but you can't argue it wouldn't be better if they focused more on curing something which is really seriously life-threatening for millions of people.

- It's not just "suffering" which is the issue here, but deaths. Lots of fellas need the drugs to live and if they can't have them because of a patent, then money is being valued above human life. If that is what is needed for incentives for innovation to exist, then we need a new and different incentive system.

My starting suggestion would be not to rubbish your opponents as "Kists". You need to get people to agree with you, and - speaking from experience here - throwing around derogatory terms rarely lubricates that process of delicate insertion.

Also this - "RECOGNISES the right of nations to determine their own patent regulations or to abolish them entirely, and to establish an incentive system most appropriate to their needs," - is illegal. It's establishing new law, which a repeal can't do. Should probably read "ENCOURAGES the UN to recognise..."

That said, I'm pleased to see that note of sovereigntism. I agree, on matters like unions and workplace safety too. But, we will oppose this repeal: property is the most inalienable, and to some extent the only, human right, and removing the rights of citizens, no matter how "nice" the cause, is an act of intolerable tyranny.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

The UN Patent Law is necessary to maintain secure ownership among the international community. If a Vengrissian owns something in our nation, but it can simply be sent to Gretpr and be published to the rest of the world, then no one can have ownership over their own works.

I like this, I would support this. However Like Gruenberg said the RECOGNIZES clause is illegal to my mind, but feel free to get a mod ruling on it.

We do partly disagree with Gruenberg's statements about property. Ellelt recognizes the existence of two forms of property: Means of Production Property (for lack of a better term) and private/personal effects (produced goods).

Ellelt believes that means of production (commonly called factories and/or farms) belongs to those who do the actual producing (for example a car factory is managed by a soviet {worker's council} but is owned by the workers who work there), and we believe that people have the right to own produced items (like toothbrushes, and houses {but not the land the house is on, just the actual house} and shirts, and cars, and televisions, etc, etc, etc). This disagreement, I believe, has more to do with our different economic structures rather than a philosophical disagreement on the nature of international law.

However, I would like to say that I can feel good about this repeal knowing that it will have a positive impact on the right of nations to self-determination.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

None of anything you've just said has the slightest relevance to patents on so-called life-saving so-called drugs. Even if the workers in a factory own the patent, then it still belongs to them rather than the world commons.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Well, true, but with the repeal of this Ellelt could use its patent laws the way it wants to: in Regional, and bi- and multi-lateral agreements rather than by UN fiat. Which is what we want to do.

Besides this should mean great improvements in Ellelt's weapons systems. I would love to expropriate some of that high tech gadgetry some nations have. Not to mention the progress we are making in the genetic engineering department, could become even more accessable.

Here let me introduce one of our latest Genetic Engineering sucesses...Sheep-boy.

*Demitri Petrovich the Elleltian Ambassador's Secretary is escorting a cross breed between a human and a sheep into the committee chamber*

"UN regulation is Baaaaaaaaaahd"

Yes thank you Sheep-boy, you may take him away now Comrade Petrovich.

VK

Well, true, but with the repeal of this Ellelt could use its patent laws the way it wants to: in Regional, and bi- and multi-lateral agreements rather than by UN fiat.
This is a multilateral agreement. You are under no obligation to join the UN - something you aptly demonstrate by your not being UN members.

In any case, the point is that you have your patent laws recognised by 28,000 other nations. No other multilateral agreement would come close to that.

Besides this should mean great improvements in Ellelt's weapons systems. I would love to expropriate some of that high tech gadgetry some nations have.
You want to repeal this so you can steal weapons technology. You've really convinced me there.

Not to mention the progress we are making in the genetic engineering department, could become even more accessable.
What does this mean?

"UN regulation is Baaaaaaaaaahd"
Yeah, good luck on that application to join the NSO.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Honestly Mr. Pyandran, do you not have any sense of humor?

A little tongue-in-cheek is needed about this place more often. How that could effect my membership status in the NSO, is to say the least beyond me. I would think i might have a more logical reason to worry about that, of course that depends on how often people in NS "cross the floor" to use the British parliamentary term.

As for stealing, I never said anything about stealing. I said Expropriate. Totally different. Also nothing no other thinking person would do. You cant tell me that if your intelligence service just happened to send a gadget home and it was more advanced than what you had, your military engineers wouldn't reverse-engineer it and try to copy it at the very least.

I do not think that patent laws are within the purview of the UN. They like most everything else are a matter for states to deal with.

As far as our economics goes that may be where our major differences lay. The Elleltian economy is not geared toward profit--the main reason that patents are "needed" in the first place.

Elleltian science has progressed faster without the drive for profit. Research and technology for need and for technology-sake has lead us from a backward feudal society to a soon to be space faring society in a short period.

We are Unconvinced that UNR 156 is actually beneficial to the advancement of technology or medicine or even consumer goods.

Further, I do not feel the need at this time to repeat Kelssek's arguments against the UN mandated patent law.

Vladimir Khernynko.
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

My starting suggestion would be not to rubbish your opponents as "Kists". You need to get people to agree with you, and - speaking from experience here - throwing around derogatory terms rarely lubricates that process of delicate insertion.

K is an accepted shorthand for "Capital". So K-ists = Capital-ists. I don't see anything derogatory about that; in private discussion I wanted to keep the tone less heavy, but I'm sorry if you took it as such.

I'm not sure how this repeal compromises property rights, but I suspect this would get us too deep into a digression over what you can really "own" and absolute rights and conflicting rights. Suffice to say that in my view the right to health and life is higher on my priorities than the right to property.

I'll rethink the "ENCOURAGES" clause. I could probably move it to the preamble, since the point of that is to suggest alternatives, although as I've already said I'm not expecting a massive global repeal of UN-foisted patent law.

The UN Patent Law is necessary to maintain secure ownership among the international community. If a Vengrissian owns something in our nation, but it can simply be sent to Gretpr and be published to the rest of the world, then no one can have ownership over their own works.

What you're talking about is copyright, which is different from patent and largely unrelated to this discussion.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/notagain.jpg

Yeah, good luck on that application to join the NSO.You have to apply? Lord, we thought all you had to do was crash the party...

I'm not sure how this repeal compromises property rights, but I suspect this would get us too deep into a digression over what you can really "own" and absolute rights and conflicting rights. Suffice to say that in my view the right to health and life is higher on my priorities than the right to property.
Right, but that doesn't legitimise stealing to pay medical bills. Overriding patents because some poor people are dying is just the same: theft. If they don't want to die, they should get a job and buy the medicines with their wages.

I'll rethink the "ENCOURAGES" clause. I could probably move it to the preamble, since the point of that is to suggest alternatives, although as I've already said I'm not expecting a massive global repeal of UN-foisted patent law.
Bear in mind a repeal is all preamble: you can't make new law. One added clause encouraging something is usually deemed ok, but if you start packing in loads of others, I suspect people would raise questions. In any case, why are you talking about that clause, given no one has questioned it? I was talking about the one following it...

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/notagain.jpgRelax, amigo. This is patent law we're talking here, not copyright. :p

Is just uttering that last word enough to raise Disco? Or do you have to say it three times into a mirror?

We cannot agree with the basic contention of this proposal that patents stifle technology. Unfortunately, there isn't information available from the world of NationStates to either support or refute this claim. But from what we know of the mythical world of RL, both invention and technology have flourished in those nations with sound patent laws.

We do share the interest of the honorable representative of Kesslek in the issue of medical patents. But we believe that it would be quite possible to write a perfectly legal proposal which would prohibit or restrict the patenting of drugs and medical devices. Perhaps the representative should turn his attention to that. We cannot promise to support such a proposal, but we would certainly consider doing so.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

As we seek the absorption of all human and other knowledge into the Final Encyclopedia/Greater Synopticon of Entirty, we fully support the ending of patent laws, it will allow us to expand our understanding and absorption of technology exponentially.

Here is the related resolution:

#156 UN Patent Law
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.

Votes For: 7,084
Votes Against: 3,998
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=155

I really think patent are important and Love and esterel will not support this repeal.

Let's imagine that you invent something and want to create a busines selling it. If you cannot patent it, your incentive to go ahead will be very low, as big companies will soon enter the market with similar products and you will not be able to compete with them for long.

On the internet, this is really different, as everything is simplier and faster than in the physical world, so even if you cannot patent any computer code, as thi s proposal states, you will be able to compete against big companies(see Youtube, Myspace ....)

The only argument I found relevant is:

"CONCERNED by the failure of the UN Patent Law to provide exceptions for vital items such as lifesaving medicines, which has caused lives to be lost due to the unaffordability of patented medicines and the constraining of UN member nations from independently carrying out the production of such medicines, and;"

Love and esterel may support a repeal based on this sole argument, providing a replacement effort being engaged.

This repeal, should it be made legal by removing the problematic clause mentioned by others, will have the Republic's full support. We are quite in favor of eliminating a massive, expensive bureaucracy which serves a function better served by national governments.

Hellar Gray

We don't like the fact that the original resolution makes UN patent law supreme over national patent law. While we do feel there are certainly issues serious enough to be international in scope, and thus justify overriding national laws, this is not an issue we feel is serious enough to warrant that kind of intrusion. Furthermore, the original resolution seems excessively bureaucratic. Altanar would be in favor of this repeal.

Right, but that doesn't legitimise stealing to pay medical bills. Overriding patents because some poor people are dying is just the same: theft. If they don't want to die, they should get a job and buy the medicines with their wages.

I presume my colleague is not familiar with the concept of the cycle of poverty? They are unable to work because they have cancer, and so they cannot afford the drugs to cure cancer, so they die of cancer. Are seeing the end of Gruenberg's laudable dedication to curing cancer?

Furthermore I believe my colleague would have a difficult time justifiying their beliefs to the poor; instructing them that they should starve to death rather than commit theft, or telling them that it is better for the greater good that they die from their inability to afford medicine. The repeal will not abolish patents or intellectual property, which your government will be free to recognise and which the majority of nations, in my belief, will continue to recognise.

Bear in mind a repeal is all preamble: you can't make new law. One added clause encouraging something is usually deemed ok, but if you start packing in loads of others, I suspect people would raise questions. In any case, why are you talking about that clause, given no one has questioned it? I was talking about the one following it...

What if I changed it to RESTATES or REITERATES? I figured that even RECOGNISES would be fine because that's the effect the repeal would be having, anyway.

Let's imagine that you invent something and want to create a busines selling it. If you cannot patent it, your incentive to go ahead will be very low, as big companies will soon enter the market with similar products and you will not be able to compete with them for long.

I agree that incentives and rewards for invention are important, but the granting of monopoly is not the only incentive system which is possible. I have suggested innovation funds and tax credits to fund and reward research; many governments and companies already give grants to research they find promising anyway. Alternatively, things like the X Prize, which rewarded the building of a spacecraft would hypothetically be able to take passengers into space regularly, could be set up.

The big companies coming in and ramping up production may even be quite a positive step if the invention has a lot of positive externalities (a fancy economic word for effects on third parties not involved in production or consumption, i.e. people without TB benefiting from TB drugs because people with TB are cured and won't spread TB to them).

In the second post I also detailed what I felt was wrong with the patent system. Its incentives are not necessarily the best way to promote research and innovation in the areas they are most sorely needed.

The only argument I found relevant is:

"CONCERNED by the failure of the UN Patent Law to provide exceptions for vital items such as lifesaving medicines, which has caused lives to be lost due to the unaffordability of patented medicines and the constraining of UN member nations from independently carrying out the production of such medicines, and;"

Love and esterel may support a repeal based on this sole argument, providing a replacement effort being engaged.

I would not be opposed if a replacement retained 1, 5, 6 and 7 from the UNPL, but really, in my view this international patent system has to go. The main issue is the serious harm that a 17-year monopoly on a product can do, as we see in the case of vital medicines. While I am opposed to patents themselves, I would also not object in the context of the UN should key provisions be put in for them to be overridden in cases such as lifesaving technologies. My preferred course of action would really be to make these kinds of amendments rather than repealing the whole shebang, but you can't do that here.

Ceorana opposes this repeal, although I'd hope that would have been obvious. ;)
The repeal will not abolish patents or intellectual property, which your government will be free to recognise and which the majority of nations, in my belief, will continue to recognise.

But, given the sheer magnitude of NS, this wouldn't work so well. If someone patented something in Ceorana, one could easily escape the patent by running off to Discoraversalism or wherever and reselling them back to Ceorana. The system becomes unenforceable if the laws don't stretch across borders. Also, a Ceoranan patent may not be equal to a Gruenberger patent, creating an even bigger bureaucratic tangle of laws than with this legislation if people wanted to trade between the two nations. Tangles of laws tend to favor huge corporations with correspondingly huge legal teams to figure out how to duck around them, and you're trying to avoid corporate dominance, right?

Also, I'd like to point out that in an emergency situation with an impending epidemic or whatever, the government can always just take control of the company or mandate it to produce lots of medicines. I know it goes against some economic philosophy, but it could be used where there's a huge emergency. Governments could also give grants but with the stipulation that corporations taking the money won't patent the products if they didn't want patents to be overused.

We find ourselves in agreement with the representatives from Ceorana.

The sheer logistics of patent relations in the NS world makes the absence of UN patent law untenable. Were the UN to remove patent laws, we would face a veritable wellspring of illegal activity once national laws are made premier.

Most courteously,

What if I changed it to RESTATES or REITERATES? I figured that even RECOGNISES would be fine because that's the effect the repeal would be having, anyway.
I'd simply change it to RECOGNISING.

Alright then. Thanks, Greun.

But, given the sheer magnitude of NS, this wouldn't work so well. If someone patented something in Ceorana, one could easily escape the patent by running off to Discoraversalism or wherever and reselling them back to Ceorana.

No, Ceo, no!!! Don't draw his attention!!

I'd suggest, then, that your government make this a violation of your patent law and illegal. It's not too unreasonable, either, in fact I was under the impression that this was already the case.

The system becomes unenforceable if the laws don't stretch across borders. Also, a Ceoranan patent may not be equal to a Gruenberger patent, creating an even bigger bureaucratic tangle of laws than with this legislation if people wanted to trade between the two nations.

This is valid, but then this is also a matter of what patents your government will be recognising and vice versa. Governments will have to pick up the slack, as they did before, and if it becomes a trade issue, seek agreements on how patents are going to be recognised across their borders.

Tangles of laws tend to favor huge corporations with correspondingly huge legal teams to figure out how to duck around them, and you're trying to avoid corporate dominance, right?

Well, one problem at a time, bud. But I'd think it's not really going to be that difficult, some information services could be done by your Ministry of Justice, International Trade, Commerce, or what have you to help your businesses in this regard. Frankly, sorting out the patent differences and what you'll recognise, not recognise, etc. would be a job for your bureaucrat gnomes.

I hate to bring this angle up because it's something that can easily be misused over other issues, but since you brought it in first, here goes. You're having to cope with the red tape and bureaucracy anyway since even while I imagine many non-UN nations adapted the UNPL for ease of trade with UN members, countries are still dealing with a writhing mess of patent laws anyway. I accept UNPL does simplify things, but I'm not pursuing the repeal because I have some sadomasochistic love of red tape, it's because in the end I don't feel its merits outweigh what I feel are very serious demerits.

Also, I'd like to point out that in an emergency situation with an impending epidemic or whatever, the government can always just take control of the company or mandate it to produce lots of medicines. I know it goes against some economic philosophy, but it could be used where there's a huge emergency. Governments could also give grants but with the stipulation that corporations taking the money won't patent the products if they didn't want patents to be overused.

The problem here is when the patent for the medicine you need is held by a foreign entity, as will very often be the case. I don't believe this can be a solution to an epidemic, let alone the day-to-day denial of medicines to people who cannot afford them or who have little access to them due to patent monopolies, whether it's a price or lack of supply issue, or both.

I fail to see how encouraging technological developement through patents is bad for technological growth. Let us take the well known Cobdenian inventor Frederick Pinguson. He spent five years inventing a much admired contraption that he called "Arnold, the magic flying mechanical pony express" and that everyone else called a wireless. He worked day and night in his shed, nearly bankrupting himself in the process. However, when he finished, he was able to sell his wirelesses exclusively under patent and make back all the money he spent, as well as build the base to allow him to operate competitively when the patent expired.

Had it not been for patent laws, the wireless would never had come into existance, for Pinguson, knowing that as soon as he invented the thing large conglomerates such as Yeldan Cheeses (tm), the Southern Railway of Cobdenia and CPESL would pinch the idea, export the bally things into Cobdenia and leave Mr Pinguson and depressed bankrupt old man with a repossed shed

And again, I recognise very well the need to support and reward research and innovation. But patents are not the only way to do this, and no nation would be made to drop its patent laws. Furthermore, as under the previous patent order, nations would be well within their sovereign rights to uphold their patent rights domestically and refused to allow the "stolen" product to be sold within their borders.

Mr. Pinguson could have benefited from tax credits/deductions and funding to support him and help offset the costs he incurred. Furthermore such a hypothetical outcome, unless of course the delegate means to tell us that Cobdenia only had "wireless" beginning in the middle of this year, did not occur in a world without UNPL. It is also perfectly possible to recognise intellectual property without so severely constraining the usage and development of ideas and inventions.

But, given the sheer magnitude of NS, this wouldn't work so well. If someone patented something in Ceorana, one could easily escape the patent by running off to Discoraversalism or wherever and reselling them back to Ceorana. The system becomes unenforceable if the laws don't stretch across borders.

If that's the case then the laws are already unenforceable, as a great many nations are not in the UN.