NationStates Jolt Archive

After much fermentation, I've finally submitted it. Here is its final form.

Link for approval: http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=patent

RECOGNISING the desirability of harmonising international patent regulations; however,

CONVINCED that the harm of a patent should not be greater than the corresponding public benefit; and,

CONCERNED by the failure of the UN Patent Law to provide exceptions for vitally important 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 international patent system contains inherent flaws, that it poses impediments to the welfare of the people of the world and to economic efficiency, that other incentive systems besides monopoly profits are possible, and hence that it should not be uncompromisingly enforced upon the world;

NOW THEREFORE, the United Nations, in council assembled,

ABOLISHES the United Nations Patent Registry; and,

REPEALS Resolution 156, "UN Patent Law".

My Government considers that discoveries and research or industrial developments must belong to the public domain and thus supports entirely and with force the present proposal.

We find that preventing patents from being issued to medicinal inventions, such as drugs, that np-one bothers to invent them, as they spend a lot of money on research and get nothing back

Strongly opposed to this commie claptrap.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Yeah, what the good doctor said.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Naturally, my country supports this. I'd like to thank the representative of Kelssek from bringing this proposal to the General Assembly.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We find that preventing patents from being issued to medicinal inventions, such as drugs, that np-one bothers to invent them, as they spend a lot of money on research and get nothing back

This repeal will not prevent patents being issued, so that's a moot point. Furthermore, a great deal of research is not profit-motivated and is funded by universities, governments, and other institutions through grants. Profit-driven medicinal research also has its own problems since it encourages research into profitable drugs, and not into needed drugs, and may even divert research from the more needed drugs into the more profitable ones. For instance, impotence or hair loss drugs are great, but let's not pretend Viagra is more important than finding something to cure AIDS or drug-resistant TB. It's also worth noting that in many drug companies, marketing budgets are much greater than the research budgets, which does call into question the assertion that more profit means more innovation.

And since I might as well expand on the possible alternatives to patents anyway, it is possible to reward based on a "bounty" system. For instance, a prize was awarded not too long ago for the private construction of a ship able to enter space and return to earth safely twice within a certain period of time, and a famous billionaire is also offering a reward to the scientist(s) who come up with a way to remove carbon from the atmosphere. In a capitalism-based solution, governments could make a purchase guarentee with a pharmecutial company, which will assure a profit for the company doing the research.

While I could see a potential for a tightened time limit on patents, the idea of removing patents altogether strikes me as extremely dangerous to development of future technologies and counter productive to the development of the miricle drugs that are desired for the world's poor.

This repeal will not prevent patents being issued, so that's a moot point. Furthermore, a great deal of research is not profit-motivated and is funded by universities, governments, and other institutions through grants. Profit-driven medicinal research also has its own problems since it encourages research into profitable drugs, and not into needed drugs, and may even divert research from the more needed drugs into the more profitable ones. For instance, impotence or hair loss drugs are great, but let's not pretend Viagra is more important than finding something to cure AIDS or drug-resistant TB. It's also worth noting that in many drug companies, marketing budgets are much greater than the research budgets, which does call into question the assertion that more profit means more innovation.

And since I might as well expand on the possible alternatives to patents anyway, it is possible to reward based on a "bounty" system. For instance, a prize was awarded not too long ago for the private construction of a ship able to enter space and return to earth safely twice within a certain period of time, and a famous billionaire is also offering a reward to the scientist(s) who come up with a way to remove carbon from the atmosphere. In a capitalism-based solution, governments could make a purchase guarentee with a pharmecutial company, which will assure a profit for the company doing the research.

Is the weather nice on your world?

I knew I should've included this in the end...

THIS REPEAL WILL NOT REMOVE OR BAN OR NUKE OR DEFENESTRATE PATENTS

I knew I should've included this in the end...

THIS REPEAL WILL NOT REMOVE OR BAN OR NUKE OR DEFENESTRATE PATENTS

Would it not allow for corporations to reverse engineer any patented product outside the borders where an item was patented, and therefor sell any product internationally denying the royalties the original inventor has earned?

For instance, impotence or hair loss drugs are great, but let's not pretend Viagra is more important than finding something to cure AIDS or drug-resistant TB.Yes, because companies only research one drug at a time. It couldn't possible be that they finished the ED drug first. Or that ED is somewhat easier to cure than AIDS.

It's also worth noting that in many drug companies, marketing budgets are much greater than the research budgets, which does call into question the assertion that more profit means more innovation.I don't know about you, but if I spent fifty billion dollars and fifteen years to bring a drug to market, I'd promote the hell out of it.

And since I might as well expand on the possible alternatives to patents anyway, it is possible to reward based on a "bounty" system.I notice you have no examples of a bounty system working with pharmaceuticals. While a technological achievement, sending a glorified jet into very low orbit is nothing compared with what modern medicine does. The X Prize was what? 2 million dollars? Do I need to again remind you that modern drugs cost billions to make?

Quit trying to leech of countries that are actually willing to do the work and spend the money.


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Would it not allow for corporations to reverse engineer any patented product outside the borders where an item was patented, and therefor sell any product internationally denying the royalties the original inventor has earned?


Yes, that's precisely what it would do, which is why we stand firmly opposed to the repeal. We can't have the Kivistans figuring out how to reverse engineer and construct their own Eroti-Droids. CPESL's profits would take a huge hit.

Sincerely,
Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg)
Deputy Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Vice President of Marketing and Public Relations, CPESL

You can do that already, actually, if your nation is not a UN member. Also, you do not get royalties from patents. You might be thinking of copyrights, which are entirely different and deal with entirely different things.

Repealing this would not necessarily end the international recognition of patents either. Nothing will stop nations from recognising foreign patents, granted it would be more messy, but worldwide patents will still be alive and well. What is most preferable is a replacement which does not enforce a blanket patent regime, allows national governments more latitude in how they want to reward innovation, and takes into account the serious and important cases where patents are detrimental to the greater good, such as during an epidemic of a disease treatable only by a patented medication, or if an engine that runs on seawater were invented and the powers that be want to propogate this technology as fast as possible. These are hardly fantasy scenarios.

While a technological achievement, sending a glorified jet into very low orbit is nothing compared with what modern medicine does. The X Prize was what? 2 million dollars?

Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

OOC: I believe it was $10 Million, and I've heard estimates as high as the cost of the project being $2 Billion. So yes, you are right, the argument for bounties really does not hold up at all.

Yes, because companies only research one drug at a time. It couldn't possible be that they finished the ED drug first. Or that ED is somewhat easier to cure than AIDS.

I'm not suggesting that. But don't you agree that under this system, the more profitable drug will get more resources devoted to getting it to market than the one which is needed more? And that the profitable one may not necessarily be the one which people, especially those in the developing world, need to continue being alive?

I don't know about you, but if I spent fifty billion dollars and fifteen years to bring a drug to market, I'd promote the hell out of it.

But surely you agree that something is seriously wrong if you're spending more on promoting the drugs than actually researching them. And do you really think that doctors will somehow be unaware of a drug and won't prescribe to someone who needed it if they didn't see a lot of TV ads? You also have to question if encouraging people to "ask their doctor about this drug" and take more medication is necessarily wise.

I notice you have no examples of a bounty system working with pharmaceuticals. While a technological achievement, sending a glorified jet into very low orbit is nothing compared with what modern medicine does. The X Prize was what? 2 million dollars? Do I need to again remind you that modern drugs cost billions to make?

And the prize didn't even remotely cover the cost of building the spacecraft anyway, but it did get built because another of them billionaires financed it, not (necessarily) because he thought he could make a profit off space tourism, but for the sake of building it. If you're going to say no innovation would take place if you can't make money out of it, I think you'll find it hard to prove.

What about the purchase guarentee idea? If you have doubts about it we might as we go.

Quit trying to leech of countries that are actually willing to do the work and spend the money.

So it's the poor countries' fault they don't have the development level, infrastructure, capital, support systems and everything to be able to do their own research and come up with their own damn cures?

If this is the reality of the system, well, that's exactly the problem. But it would be a simple matter for a country wishing to preserve its own patent system to prevent the copies of the drug entering the domestic market. In any case, there is no real loss because it is profit that the drug companies would not get anyway, because the people who would benefit from the drug patent being ignored would not be able to afford it anyway.

OOC: I believe it was $10 Million, and I've heard estimates as high as the cost of the project being $2 Billion. So yes, you are right, the argument for bounties really does not hold up at all.

It's an idea. What's to stop a bigger prize being offered? But it does show you can get innovation for its own sake or for the prestige of it, rather than because people think they can make some money out of it.

It's an idea. What's to stop a bigger prize being offered? But it does show you can get innovation for its own sake or for the prestige of it, rather than because people think they can make some money out of it.

Prestige doesn't pay the bills or put food on the table.

Sincerely,
Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg)
Deputy Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Vice President of Marketing and Public Relations, CPESL

It's an idea. What's to stop a bigger prize being offered? But it does show you can get innovation for its own sake or for the prestige of it, rather than because people think they can make some money out of it.

What's to stop a bigger prize from being offered???

Are you serious???

You wanna know why one guy spent $2,000,000,000 to get into space?

Arrogance.

He wanted his name in the history books, and he wanted to go into space.

As for a bigger prize, how many of them do you want to offer???

Who get's to pay for them?

Welcome to the non-utopia Comrade.

And that the profitable one may not necessarily be the one which people, especially those in the developing world, need to continue being alive?Sucks to be in the third world, huh?

But surely you agree that something is seriously wrong if you're spending more on promoting the drugs than actually researching them.I might agree with that statement when you actually offer up some evidence. (ooc: I'm not aware of any company spending billions to advertise a single drug)

You also have to question if encouraging people to "ask their doctor about this drug" and take more medication is necessarily wise.It's not my fault you fail to understand the concept of marketing. Making drugs is expensive, remember?

but it did get built because another of them billionaires financed it, not (necessarily) because he thought he could make a profit off space tourism, but for the sake of building it.So, he either did it for a profit or as a stunt. I'd rather not have the development of live saving drugs be relegated to the realm of stunt.

If you're going to say no innovation would take place if you can't make money out of it, I think you'll find it hard to prove.Uh-huh. How many new drugs are created in nations with price controls compared to those created in nations without?

So it's the poor countries' fault they don't have the development level, infrastructure, capital, support systems and everything to be able to do their own research and come up with their own damn cures?Life in third world countries sucks. Shit happens. I fail to see how it's my problem.


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

As for a bigger prize, how many of them do you want to offer???

I am not advocating any of these ideas in isolation, and I'm willing to admit this isn't the best idea. However, I strongly believe the international patent regime does not provide the appropriate solutions. In actual practice, what I would advocate, and what some countries outside the UN, and within before the UNPL was passed, is for governments to compel the suspension of the patent in their own jurisdiction, and purchase at cost price. With the proper measures taken by the other governments to stop the generics coming into their domestic markets, impact to the patent holder will be relatively insignificant and the public benefit would be served. Is that so psychotic?

Prestige doesn't pay the bills or put food on the table.

So, he either did it for a profit or as a stunt. I'd rather not have the development of live saving drugs be relegated to the realm of stunt.

If it isn't worth it they won't pursue it. But let's be realistic here. Subsistence is hardly a concern to those at the forefront of researching technology, and in no way am I suggesting prestige or prize money alone would be enough of a motivator, but it helps. I'm not even suggesting abolishing patents. What I am suggesting is that being dogmatic about them isn't a good idea, and that just maybe human lives (or sentient lives, if you wish) or the propogation and advancement of technology may be more important than profit maximisation.

I might agree with that statement when you actually offer up some evidence. (ooc: I'm not aware of any company spending billions to advertise a single drug)

http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/offthecharts6475.pdf

A 2001 study entitled "Off the Charts: Pay, Profits and Spending in Drug Companies", the table on page 5 should provide the evidence you need. Via the footnotes in Stiglitz's Making Globalisation Work.

Life in third world countries sucks. Shit happens. I fail to see how it's my problem.

Forgive me. I was under the impression that a doctor, of any kind, would have some compassion for other people.

We'd ask our colleagues to look carefully at the text of this proposal. The author claims that the resolution in question "contains inherent flaws, that it poses impediments to the welfare of the people of the world and to economic efficiency, that other incentive systems besides monopoly profits are possible, and hence that it should not be uncompromisingly enforced upon the world". What inherent flaws? He doesn't say. What impediments? We're left to wonder. He claims that other incentive systems are "possible." True, but what evidence is there that they would work as well as the present system? Show us evidence.

The author puts forward one specific problem which he sees in the current system: its effect on the availability of medicines. That was a very savvy move: throwing an issue right up front that could tug at the heart-strings. He may be right in his assessment. We would carefully consider supporting a proposal which addressed this specific issue. But the representative doesn't want to do that. He wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. He wants to discard a proven system for a vague possibility.

We have great respect for the honorable representative of Kelssek. But we simply cannot buy his contention, specifically expressed elsewhere, that the patent system retards the progress of technology. As we look at the mythical world of RL, we see every indication that just the opposite is the case. We don't have a completely closed mind on the issue. But we don't care to tear down a working system on the vague promise that there's something better just around the corner.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

The inherent flaw of directing research towards what makes the most money rather than what would be needed the most is one example. This does not apply only to medicines, of course, but to other fields as well. It's possible that some businesses might even to go great lengths to stonewall an innovation which might render their products obsolete or unprofitable.

The other inherent flaw has to do with so severely tying the hands of governments in patent regulations and in the blanket enforcement of this regime. There is the potential for member nations to be held hostage by patent holders over some vital patented item, for which I would go back to the medicines example again. What would the honourable delegate suggest in the case of an epidemic of a disease for which the treatment is by a patented drug, whose holder refuses to allow independent production and engages in profiteering? Surely the massive public good for billions of people is compelling. This is the inherent problem in the inflexibility of UNPL, that it can fail in unanticipated, yet extremely possible situations.

I thought we had since agreed that the contention that it impedes innovation is not a very strong one, nevertheless, I should explain that this has to do with the ability of the patent holder to prohibit the production of a deriviative in the duration of the patent. This has the potential to slow down the development of new technologies, but I dropped this as a major argument since it is mainly hypothetical and I'm not aware of specific examples except largely unrelated cases involving patent disputes, which are best settled by the courts of member nations anyway.

Repealing the UNPL will not "tear down the system". Undoubtedly some governments will decide they don't want to recognise foreign patents or declare everything in their nation public domain, and some businesses' profit margins may suffer as a result, but I see no reason to believe that the vast majority of UN members would abolish the patent system or that they would suddenly refuse to recognise all your patents, if for nothing other than self-interest since doing so could severely compromise trade. What your innovating businesses gain from the domestic market and from selling in the countries which do recognise their patents should be more than enough to present a healthy profit.

As to the "vague promise", we hope that the Ausserland delegation will be open to working with us to make that promise less vague in the drafting of a replacement which will allow member nations much more flexibility in domestic patent law, while preserving the function of UNPL we find most desirable - an international framework for patents to be internationally recognised and respected by countries.

Well, to come back to the "medicines problem", for most of them, the active ingredient of a drug is discovered and first product by universities and other state or hospital laboratories. The pharmaceutical industry finds the way to put it in a drug that could be taken by patients.

In our country, universities get their money from the Government. So for us, it would be normal that medicines belong to the public domain.

In other examples such as technologies "environmentaly clean", the technology is expensive but extremely recommended to the use... so our Government must give some subsidies to the users to fill in the industrials wallet !!

So our Government finds normal to have the hability to declare some discoveries to belong to the public domain.

The inherent flaw of directing research towards what makes the most money rather than what would be needed the most is one example.

Say hello to basic economics. If something is greatly needed (or even if that need is just greatly perceived), it will make money.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Also basic economics: the definition of demand is willingness and ability to pay. If people are very willing but have no ability to pay, "demand" is nil. A need will also go unsatisfied if not backed up with ability to pay.

I'd also remind you that conventional economic theory assumes that firms desire profit maximisation. Given a choice between the more necessary and the more profitable, under the theory the more profitable will be chosen. There's a term for this, it's "market failure", and these failures need to be corrected.

So actually, you are not entirely correct. If something is greatly needed and people can pay for it, it will make money if the cost of production isn't too high. If that second critical ingredient isn't there, no. But the need doesn't go away just because it doesn't register as "demand".

After due consideration, the government of Altanar has decided to oppose this resolution. While we definitely sympathize with the plight of those nations which have difficulty affording patented medicines, we feel that there are better ways to address this concern without stripping the rights away from the researchers, companies and nations that have invested their hard work, money and effort into developing them. For example, interested nations could find ways to pool money and/or medicines to donate to those nations. Altanar would be willing to assist with such an effort, as we do not share the callous attitude some in this assembly seem to have towards less fortunate nations.

We do firmly believe, however, that it is essential to protect the rights of those who invent, produce and invest in new technologies, inventions and products to benefit from their hard work. And, aside from the example of medicine cited by the resolution author, we can't think of another example that would make us feel otherwise.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I might agree with that statement when you actually offer up some evidence. (ooc: I'm not aware of any company spending billions to advertise a single drug)

I might be wrong but I think once the side effects of a certain heart medication of otherwise questionable effectiveness was discovered I think more money was spent promoting Viagra than the research to verify that the side effect was effecive.

In any event I don't think the third world needs Viagra. They might desire it, but they don't need it.

There's a term for this, it's "market failure", and these failures need to be corrected.

Not through international legislative fiat is doesn't. Markets are perfectly capable of correcting themselves.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

This repeal has, for the moment, my qualified support. This is a delicate subject and, while supportive of may of the repeal's arguments, I am wary of the potential negative effects of removing UNPL.

Benedictions,

If it isn't worth it they won't pursue it. But let's be realistic here. Subsistence is hardly a concern to those at the forefront of researching technologyAh yes. That old saw. They have money, so they don't deserve any more. Typical commie blather. Tear down the successful and give their earnings to the jackals too lazy to do anything for themselves. I think not.

Companies go into business to make money, not to exist at subsistence levels. And if subsistence is so grand, why do you keep banging on about the poor, blighted third world? They're subsistence farmers, aren't they? If it's good enough for a CEO, it's good enough for some nameless nobody in the middle of the jungle.

propogation and advancement of technology may be more important than profit maximisation.Screw propagation. If people want something, they can bloody well pay for it. Why is it okay for governments to use the threat of deadly force to steal, but it's not okay for me?

http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/offthecharts6475.pdf
[ooc: Ugh, pdf. And from a politically biased group, no less. Had been hoping for tax returns or a prospectus, personally.

"Reported as “marketing, selling and administrative,” “marketing and administrative;” “selling, general and administrative;” “selling, informational and administrative expenses.”"

A lot of administrative costs bundled in to pad those marketing numbers, too...

"Reported as “research and development expenses.”"

...There's no R&D administrators? And all of this is beside the point anyway. A single drug costs billions of dollars and over a decade of work. If you want to compare marketing to R&D, compare the marketing budget for one drug to the total R&D costs of that same drug for the 15 or so years it took to bring it to market. And quit bundling administrative costs into your marketing costs. I mean, they weren't even subtle about this chicanery.

Anyway, enough of this.]

Forgive me. I was under the impression that a doctor, of any kind, would have some compassion for other people.Clearly you aren't familiar with my highly popular, and highly effective "Shut The Fuck Up!" method. If I don't have compassion for people who are paying me money, why should I have compassion for some nobody farmer in Economicdisasteristan who has a 20 year life expectancy?


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

OOC: Economicdisasterstan! http://209.85.48.8/9854/48/emo/roflma.gif

ooc: Wish I could take credit for that one, but it comes from the same mind as Moneylaunderingstan (http://www.nationstates.net/Moneylaunderingstan).

Markets are perfectly capable of correcting themselves.

Really? Care to explain how the market alone, which means no philantrophy, no regulation, no funny schemes or incentives or systems, will ensure people who cannot afford food will get food? Or in this specific case, how they will get medicine even though they cannot afford it? And no, you can't say they'll all die from starvation or disease - as they would. Well, you can say that but I don't expect a disregard for millions of lives will find many backers.

Ah yes. That old saw. They have money, so they don't deserve any more. Typical commie blather. Tear down the successful and give their earnings to the jackals too lazy to do anything for themselves. I think not.

What on earth are you talking about? I'm not saying that here. Hell, you want me to go on about how you consider people who don't have as much money as necessarily lazier, that somehow they got to control their own fate, or all the other things you say to drown out the voice of your conscience? I expected opposition, I expected that incentives for innovation would be sticky, but this uncaring attitude, if not outright disdain for people who probably work much harder than you just to survive another day is downright sickening.

If I don't have compassion for people who are paying me money, why should I have compassion for some nobody farmer in Economicdisasteristan who has a 20 year life expectancy?

Oh well, I tried.

I expected opposition, I expected that incentives for innovation would be sticky, but this uncaring attitude, if not outright disdain for people who probably work much harder than you just to survive another day is downright sickening.My heart bleeds for you. No, really.


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

That sounds quite serious. Better get that checked.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

"I don't think he means it literally, Eric." whispered one of the attaches.

The fact if the matter is that by repealing the law you would still not be helping the third world dying farmer, because instead of him not being able to afford the drug until the patent runs out and other people start manufacturing it and reduction in prices through competition (that's right, patents don't last forever, 17 years in the orignal resolution), there would be no medicine at all, as no-one would bother researching it as there would be no money to be made. It's all very well saying that the government or nice people could give the money, but let's face it, more drugs are going to be researched if there is financial incentive in the recovery of research costs and future profit.

Secondly, medicines are chemicals, and therefore could well be said to count as information (as it is a case of discovering which chemicals are needed) and NOT inventions, and are therefore not permitted patents in the original resolution. This is also the case in the Real World. You cannot patent a drug - you can only patent the process to manufacture the drug (industrial processes being patent-able).

Thirdly, medicine manufacturers could well still retain a monopoly using the "coca-cola" method. Just don't tell anyone how you made it and what's in it and the proportions. It's near impossible to reverse engineer a chemical, so instead of patenting it and it being in the public domain after 17 years, they'd just keep it to themselves and have a monopoly forever. Not good for Mr third world farmer, or anyone, for that matter

ABOLISHES the United Nations Patent Registry; and,Y'know, all a repeal can legally do is repeal previous legislation. This line sounds suspiciously like introducing new law. Besides, Hack's "mystical creatures" spring into existence for the sole purpose of staffing these committees, and if there's no work left for a committee, wouldn't the gnomes simply dissipate on their own?

I sit opposed to this repeal pretty much for the reasons that were mentioned by the Ausserland delegation.

On another note, I don't buy the argument that people focus on less necessary drugs for the profit. I think it fairly likely that there is a great deal of money to be made off of the "necessary" drugs. Were someone to develop a medical cure for AIDS, Cancer, or somesuch, my guess is that they would be famous world-wide, and rolling in piles of money of almost every currency available within the year.

Cobdenia:

Your argument appears to be based on the premise that by repealing this resolution, patents would disappear entirely. That is not the case. I am confident that the profit gained from sales in their domestic markets and in the many, many countries which will still recognise patents would provide more than enough revenue to cover the costs and recoup a decent profit, as I am sure it did before UNPL was passed, or fire would be an exciting new technology and we'd be well on the way to perfecting the wheel.

Doesn't cut it. If other nations are free to reverse engineer products created in Cluichstan, produce that product themselves, and then sell it on the international market, they are taking unfair advantage of Cluichstani ingenuity. If the creator of a product is a Cluichstani, he has every right to expect something in return for those sales.

Doesn't cut it. If other nations are free to reverse engineer products created in Cluichstan, produce that product themselves, and then sell it on the international market, they are taking unfair advantage of Cluichstani ingenuity. If the creator of a product is a Cluichstani, he has every right to expect something in return for those sales.

I agree. That's all. We don't wish to support anything that tries to deal with modifying current patent law.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonadian Wazir and
Professor Emeritus of Political Sciences
University of Kent, Aki
"The original doctor in the UN."

After carefully reading through the current repeal proposed by the honorable
delegate from Kelssek, and also having read the first UN Patent Law (http://www.nationstates.net/pin=-1/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=155), the United States of Cookesland officially opposes this proposed repeal.

Lostelle Caelia (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Lostelle_Caelia)
UN Co-Ambassador Pro Tempore
The United States of Cookesland

Doesn't cut it. If other nations are free to reverse engineer products created in Cluichstan, produce that product themselves, and then sell it on the international market, they are taking unfair advantage of Cluichstani ingenuity. If the creator of a product is a Cluichstani, he has every right to expect something in return for those sales.

Yes, I agree too, but the problem is that the UNPL is far too rigid to serve this purpose and provide for instance when patents are a serious impediment to the well-being of people.

Furthermore, since you can easily do so outside the UN if it's such a great business, I'm sure this is already being exploited, and in my reading of it, it's also worth noting that the UNPL doesn't provide protection against the patent-infringing products being imported or sold in a UN member.

Y'know, all a repeal can legally do is repeal previous legislation. This line sounds suspiciously like introducing new law. Besides, Hack's "mystical creatures" spring into existence for the sole purpose of staffing these committees, and if there's no work left for a committee, wouldn't the gnomes simply dissipate on their own?

So repealing it would have that effect anyway, but it was just to make things clear and to prevent someone going "oh you only repealed the resolution and not the registry so it's all still registered and you all owe me 900000 trillion dollars pay now or i nuke you"

In retrospect it was probably a bad idea because some people will think repeal will abolish patents.

On another note, I don't buy the argument that people focus on less necessary drugs for the profit. I think it fairly likely that there is a great deal of money to be made off of the "necessary" drugs. Were someone to develop a medical cure for AIDS, Cancer, or somesuch, my guess is that they would be famous world-wide, and rolling in piles of money of almost every currency available within the year.

It's true that in the real world profit is not the only consideration and economic theory by and large doesn't take this into account. And it's true that many diseases suffered by the third world are also suffered by people who can afford the brand-name medicines. However, a tremendous distortion exists because of what I described earlier, that if you have an inability to pay, in the market it's as if you don't exist. While there is a great profit to be made in AIDS drugs, it does not reflect the real need for it and there is no monetary incentive to develop them over a less-needed, but equally profitable drug. This is practically a textbook example of market failure due to positive externalities leading to underproduction of a good.

Let me bring this back to the main reason why I am pushing for this repeal. In the case of AIDS, there is treatment. It's not a complete cure, but it effectively relieves the symptoms. The treatment is a cocktail of drugs which are patented and consequently quite expensive, putting the treatment out of reach of most of the sufferers. Governments of several developing countries have undertaken independent production of the drugs in order to provide it to their own people, and this measure has saved countless lives and helped their economies immensely - sick people can't work. Yet they cannot do this under the UNPL. They could exploit the loophole I pointed out earlier and import from someone else, but frankly I doubt it's something UNPL intended and it still doesn't solve the problem; what if the supply dries up for any number of reasons?

If anyone is thinking that just this issue alone is not a big enough reason for repeal, well, it is huge. Massive. Millions of people stand to benefit and developing countries will perform much better economically when their workforces aren't decimated by treatable diseases. I have other examples of other things that would be of great benefit and would be underproduced due to UNPL, but this in my view is the most real, current, and compelling and if that isn't enough I don't know what else would be.

or if an engine that runs on seawater were invented and the powers that be want to propogate this technology as fast as possible. These are hardly fantasy scenarios.

Speaks for itself... ;)

So repealing it would have that effect anyway, but it was just to make things clear and to prevent someone going "oh you only repealed the resolution and not the registry so it's all still registered and you all owe me 900000 trillion dollars pay now or i nuke you"

In retrospect it was probably a bad idea because some people will think repeal will abolish patents.



It's true that in the real world profit is not the only consideration and economic theory by and large doesn't take this into account. And it's true that many diseases suffered by the third world are also suffered by people who can afford the brand-name medicines. However, a tremendous distortion exists because of what I described earlier, that if you have an inability to pay, in the market it's as if you don't exist. While there is a great profit to be made in AIDS drugs, it does not reflect the real need for it and there is no monetary incentive to develop them over a less-needed, but equally profitable drug. This is practically a textbook example of market failure due to positive externalities leading to underproduction of a good.

Let me bring this back to the main reason why I am pushing for this repeal. In the case of AIDS, there is treatment. It's not a complete cure, but it effectively relieves the symptoms. The treatment is a cocktail of drugs which are patented and consequently quite expensive, putting the treatment out of reach of most of the sufferers. Governments of several developing countries have undertaken independent production of the drugs in order to provide it to their own people, and this measure has saved countless lives and helped their economies immensely - sick people can't work. Yet they cannot do this under the UNPL. They could exploit the loophole I pointed out earlier and import from someone else, but frankly I doubt it's something UNPL intended and it still doesn't solve the problem; what if the supply dries up for any number of reasons?

If anyone is thinking that just this issue alone is not a big enough reason for repeal, well, it is huge. Massive. Millions of people stand to benefit and developing countries will perform much better economically when their workforces aren't decimated by treatable diseases. I have other examples of other things that would be of great benefit and would be underproduced due to UNPL, but this in my view is the most real, current, and compelling and if that isn't enough I don't know what else would be.

Your logic is faulty; you cannot patent drugs in the real world

--snip--
--snip--
Secondly, medicines are chemicals, and therefore could well be said to count as information (as it is a case of discovering which chemicals are needed) and NOT inventions, and are therefore not permitted patents in the original resolution. This is also the case in the Real World. You cannot patent a drug - you can only patent the process to manufacture the drug (industrial processes being patent-able).
--snip--

While I may agree with Kelssek on many points, Cobdenia's post is mostly true - but not everywhere in RL. It depends on the laws of the country. In India, what is patented are the process, because that is what they are allowed to patent. In my country, what is patented are the chemicals, and I believe that's the case for many Western countries as well.

Let's look at chemical patents, economically speaking. Patented drugs cost as much as ten times that of those in India, and mind you living in my country is a hell lot cheaper than India - except for medicines.

Why are medicines expensive? It was found out that there was a big markup price - far more than is justifiable to recoup research costs. These humongous markups include those for advertising. (haha, you don't know how much freebies/junkets health professionals get from pharmaceutical companies just to promote their product. We have a rotten system here.)

So, technically, in giving that kind of patent (for chemicals), you are giving a monopoly, because you are the only one who can sell that product. And to my capitalist friends (yes, I am not a commie), aren't monopolies what we precisely detest? :)

I am not against giving incentives for researchers. What I am concerned with, and perhaps Kelssek too, is that we have gone too far in rewarding them, so much so to the detriment of others.

---

Cobdenia's suggestion (what I quoted above) is certainly good, and it is effective in reducing costs of medicines and in promoting innovation. With a process patent, folks can invent different processes to get the same product - and thus there won't be a monopoly of the product, since there is competition. But I am afraid it is not the case everywhere. Unless though, I am mistaken and I am not interpreting this section the right way:


UN Patent Law

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;

Your logic is faulty; you cannot patent drugs in the real world

You most assuredly can, depending on the country, and even if not directly, enough that it is near-impossible to produce the drug without violating the patent, as the honourable delegate from Brutland and Norden has pointed out. The effect would be the same, in any case, and it works out to the same thing.

Furthermore, a chemical which would in all likelihood be artificially created, rather than just waiting to be discovered, doesn't seem to fit the definition of "information" very well.

b. "information" as including all knowledge, both known and unknown, specifically genetic code of natural organisms, scientific theories, mathematical algorithms, etc.;

It's more so you can't patent gravity or Pythagoras's Theorem and make everyone studying physics or trigonometry pay you money, or patent a bacterium, or the human genome. Furthermore, UNPL goes on to lump "information" as an example of an "intangible object", and chemicals are very tangible.

Thirdly, medicine manufacturers could well still retain a monopoly using the "coca-cola" method. Just don't tell anyone how you made it and what's in it and the proportions. It's near impossible to reverse engineer a chemical, so instead of patenting it and it being in the public domain after 17 years, they'd just keep it to themselves and have a monopoly forever.

That's their choice if they don't want the patent protection at all; it wouldn't be a smart move. But then they'd already be doing that, UNPL or not. Why would anyone bother to patent at all?

The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that they have to disclose pretty much everything anyway in order for any health authority intent on doing its job to approve the drug. I don't believe this scenario is plausible since I don't think there's any way the relevant authorities would approve mystery chemicals produced by mystery processes in mystery proportions for use as medication by the general public.

Speaks for itself... ;)

Okay, hydrogen, biodiesel, and the sun. We happy now?

Seriously though, they might develop some electroylsis thingy that provides hydrogen as fuel and oxygen for combustion and it's efficient; who knows? Technology can go in unanticipated directions and I doubt the Wright brothers could have envisioned A380s and 747s when they were trying to get off the ground at Kitty Hawk.

With a process patent, folks can invent different processes to get the same product - and thus there won't be a monopoly of the product, since there is competition. But I am afraid it is not the case everywhere.

Indeed, and there's also the possibility that that one patented process might be the only safe way of making that chemical. I recall reading somewhere that "artificial" and "natural" almond flavouring is simply using different things to get the same chemical, however, the one using "natural" reactants can produce dangerous amounts of cyanide. It just gets too iffy when we start getting into complex compromises like this.

I am not against giving incentives for researchers. What I am concerned with, and perhaps Kelssek too, is that we have gone too far in rewarding them, so much so to the detriment of others.

Indeed, but not so much "gone too far" in rewards, more in that we have allowed the giving of that reward, in some important instances, to become counterproductive, proving detrimental to the ultimate purpose of creating this incentive to innovate in the first place.

Indeed, and there's also the possibility that that one patented process might be the only safe way of making that chemical. I recall reading somewhere that "artificial" and "natural" almond flavouring is simply using different things to get the same chemical, however, the one using "natural" reactants can produce dangerous amounts of cyanide. It just gets too iffy when we start getting into complex compromises like this.
That's the point of innovation, right? ;) Invent other safe processes to produce the same chemical. If the only other alternative is unsafe, then the stakes are much higher for you to either modify it to make that process safe or create an entirely new process.

Indeed, but not so much "gone too far" in rewards, more in that we have allowed the giving of that reward, in some important instances, to become counterproductive, proving detrimental to the ultimate purpose of creating this incentive to innovate in the first place.
I am curious as to what incentives you might give to those who had invented processes that can save lives. :) Well, I would like to see alternatives to this present system.

Seriously though, they might develop some electroylsis thingy that provides hydrogen as fuel and oxygen for combustion and it's efficient; who knows?

Maybe, but using seawater with all of its impurities rather than a purer supply?!?

No comment.

No comment.

Then why'd you post?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Then why'd you post?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

By posting it indicates I am aware of this repeal effort. It helps me track the topic. I support the discussion engendered by this repeal.

I'm not sure what our position is, so I haven't commented on that. Patent durations are lower then other IP resolutions, they might even be reasonable.

Maybe, but using seawater with all of its impurities rather than a purer supply?!?

Because it's abundant and renewable and I have a 12-inch globe next to my computer, so it was the first thing that came to mind...

That's the point of innovation, right? Invent other safe processes to produce the same chemical. If the only other alternative is unsafe, then the stakes are much higher for you to either modify it to make that process safe or create an entirely new process.

I take your point, but I'm saying that we have to be aware of the possibility that all the innovation in the world can't overcome chemistry.

I think a far, far more sensible suggestion if you want to keep the prices low and keep drugs from being manufactured is a UN subsidy. Remove patents, and fewer drugs get developed, as it's left in the hands of nice people and governments and chairites. I very much doubt any charitee can sustain the cost required to research drugs at the same rate as a profit making company, and given the choice between spending on drugs research and a new hospital, better education, or a shiny new destroyer, a new drug isn't going to be top of the list. By subsidising drug manufacture UN wide, it would not affect UN free tradists like myself, as the benefit would be the same UN wide, drugs would come down in costs (although the process could still be protected, it wouldn't matter too much), and it will costs governments/UN less then would be the case if they were forced to research. Win-win, as far as I can see. And the money comes from the magic fairy people, like all UN funds!

Well, once again, patents aren't being removed. And if repealing UNPL is going to so drastically reduce the amount of drugs being researched, what on earth was going on before it was passed? I just don't see patents completely vapourising, or research suddenly slowing, just because we repeal UNPL.

The thing is, I think that the core idea of UNPL - harmonising patent regulations and reducing the bureaucracy to protect an invention - is most fantastic. The problem is that it's inflexible. It doesn't, in my view, recognise that patents are tools rather than ends in themselves, and for what the NatSov element to this is worth, it forces everyone to have patents. Also the preamble makes me roll my eyes but I digress.

Nevertheless, the subsidy idea is indeed one I would highly approve of, as long as measures are taken to ensure it gets passed on to the consumers.

Kelssek, do you want to sticky this thread or do you want a new one?

I'm still undecided on this but have approved it to help ensure that it doesn't fall off quorum. I think it deserves to be voted on.

Kelssek, do you want to sticky this thread or do you want a new one?

Let's sticky this one, thanks.

Linard is lying on the floor of a room just a short distance away from his office. His eyes are closed, hands on his stomach, and entire body straight. It seems like he's sleeping...and until his secretary came speedily and audibly barging in, anyone who causally entered without disturbance would've thought exactly that.
Linard: Yes, Miss Carbank?
Alice Carbank was a newcomer to the Emporial Office, and not a familiar with the running of the place, nor the Emporer's habits.
Alice: A Mr Horgen Dush on the phone for you, Your Eminence. Should I tell him to call another time?
Linard: No, when he calss, it's usually for good reason. Pass him through to here.
Alice: But I don't--
Linard: Extension 5, Miss Carbank.
The secretary left the office rom, as Linard propped himself up in a seat, ready to recieve the call. The phone bell rang, and Linard immediately picked up.
Linard: Horgen?
Horgen: Good morning, Your Eminence. I didn't catch you at a bad time, did I?
Linard: No, not really.
Horgen: But I did catch you during a time of meditation, didn't I?
Linard: You know me too well. What's the problem?
Horgen: UN Patent Law, Sir. It's being put up for Repeal.
Linard: Oh...oh. Just hold up, I'll pull out the big book of Resolutions that's in here.
Horgen: Is it really that big sir?
Linard: Well, the current edition stands at about 156 pages, so yeah. It's beaten only by the Damanucan Law Records, which are thankfully printed in volumes. Okay. [flips to Patent Law] Right, what's the debate?
Horgen: They're debating that the resolution disalows exceptions for lifesaving medicines.
Linard: Okay. [looks up the definition for intangibility] Hmm, this is a tough on to call. What can be patented: the drug itself, the active ingredient, or the method of production of said items?
Horgen: Are you asking what I think you're asking, Your Eminence?
Linard: Yes, I am. If this repeal is stating that generic medicines, as well as non-generics, shouldn't be patented, then yes, we should repeal the decision; if it isn't, then we shouldn't. Abstain for now, and find out what you can. If you need to, I'll send a couple of additional advisors down for you.
Horgen: That won't be necessary, sir. Will you be meditating on it?
Linard: I don't think meditation will help in this case, might be a little too stress-inducing, but I'll certainly mull over it.
Horgen: Okay. Thank you, Your Eminence. [phone hangs up]
Linard drops the phone back on the hook, and returns to his position on the floor, to resume his meditation, but not before returning the Book of Resolutions to the shelf.

(OOC: Yes, I know the Resolutions take up about 156 pages so far, through methods of my own discretion.)

Yes, I agree too...

Nice to see you're only selectively anti-business.

...but the problem is that the UNPL is far too rigid to serve this purpose and provide for instance when patents are a serious impediment to the well-being of people.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. That wonderfully nebulous "well-being of people." Our people's well-being is just fine. If that's not the case in Kelssek, perhaps you need to take a look at your own national policies.

Sincerely,
Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg)
Deputy Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Vice President for Marketing and Public Relations, CPESL

I am voting for, on the basis that Cluich is against :)

I'm not sure how agreeing that an inventor deserves to be rewarded for his/her work means being pro-business but do you honestly think I go around all day waving The Communist Manifesto, yelling "DEATH TO CAPITALISM!!" and setting fire to the property of various multinational corporations? Don't be ridiculous. I only do that on special occasions.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. That wonderfully nebulous "well-being of people." Our people's well-being is just fine. If that's not the case in Kelssek, perhaps you need to take a look at your own national policies.

Thank you for your concern; they're being very well. We do happen to realise, however, that the population of the world isn't just us and we happen to care about what happens to other people.

I'm not sure how agreeing that an inventor deserves to be rewarded for his/her work means being pro-business...

Um...because businesses invest in the development and production -- not to mention marketing, sales, support, etc. Not all inventors are hacks in a basement, coming up with things ways to adapt windshield wipers for practical use on spectacles, y'know.

...but do you honestly think I go around all day waving The Communist Manifesto, yelling "DEATH TO CAPITALISM!!" and setting fire to the property of various multinational corporations?

Yes, yes I do.

Don't be ridiculous. I only do that on special occasions.

Like waking up in the morning?

Thank you for your concern; they're being very well. We do happen to realise, however, that the population of the world isn't just us and we happen to care about what happens to other people.

We do not represent the world. Our care is for the people of Cluichstan. We represent them. We do not represent the people of Kelssek, Kivisto, Karmicaria, or any other nation that begins with "K" -- or any other letter for that matter.

Sincerely,
Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg)
Deputy Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Vice President for Marketing and Public Relations, CPESL

Um...because businesses invest in the development and production -- not to mention marketing, sales, support, etc. Not all inventors are hacks in a basement, coming up with things ways to adapt windshield wipers for practical use on spectacles, y'know.

I suppose we just have different ideas of "pro-business". To me being pro-business means placing business interests above all or most other interests. A decent return on investment is just being fair.

Like waking up in the morning?

ERIC LATTENER
Is not waking up in the morn a most
Special time? Forsooth, it heralds yet
Another day upon this Earth! Our lovely world,
Despoiled by pollution, filled with disease
And beset by war and conflict, deteriorating
In a most rapid and most sick-making way.

[He waves The Communist Manifesto]

For capitalism must die,
Else we are gone astry.

Exeunt

I suppose we just have different ideas of "pro-business". To me being pro-business means placing business interests above all or most other interests. A decent return on investment is just being fair.

Being "pro" something doesn't automatically give it top priority. I'm pro-chocolate syrup, but that doesn't mean it takes precedence over everything else. I like whipped cream, too, y'know. ;)

Sincerely,
Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg)
Deputy Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Vice President for Marketing and Public Relations, CPESL

OOC EDIT: Dear gawd, why did that have to wind up being my 14,000th post? :(

Yeah, well, I guess to me, it usually gets used as a euphemism for business uber alles.

**

Eric Lattener bit his lip and struggled not to imagine eating both chocolate syrup and whipped cream off The Honourable Cluchistani Deputy Ambassador.


EDIT: Heh, if it's any consolation, I used my 1000th post to take some rather stupid racist flamebait over in NationStates.

"CONVINCED that the harm of a patent should not be greater than the corresponding public benefit"


...This is the part of the repeal that really turns me on to the idea. Although I am still a little concerned with the inventors themselves. What of everyone before who had all of the benefits the last resolution declared, what happens to them? Do the rules immediately come into play with those who already finished their patents? You have to look at everyone's side here. The last proposal gave the benefits to scientists but all of a sudden new scientists, inventors, those who actually have a promising contribution to the human race, will they now get less than those who have invented things like Viagra?

Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, I am only a little confused about the repercussions to those who actually have something important to patent.

Oh, for fuck's sake. This is probably like the fiftieth debate about intellectual property rights we've seen on this floor, and we're sick to death of hearing about it. Let me make my government's position on this repeal perfectly clear: WE DON'T FUCKING CARE!!! And to demonstrate just how much we don't care about this bullshit, I'll be withdrawing from these proceedings and bringing in a surrogate who can express our thoughts on this matter far better than I ever could.

Bessy?

[The sound of a lone cowbell and hoofs thumping against the hard floor can be heard (along with strains of Kelis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x27ZOVEiXr0)) as Ace and Rico lead Bessy down the aisle to Sammy's usual spot. The Kennyite special envoy stares vacantly at her new colleagues and bellows loudly into the mike: "Mooooooooo!!!!"

[Sammy smiles and pats her lovingly.]

There's a good girl.

Well, that's it for me. Enjoy your debate, fellas!

[Turns to Ace and Rico.]

C'mon, guys. Let's go frighten some Ariddian children. We're oughtta here!

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Oh, for fuck's sake. This is probably like the fiftieth debate about intellectual property rights we've seen on this floor, and we're sick to death of hearing about it.

And why is that, you think, Sammy? Because these commie fuckwits believe that they somehow have some right to reap the benefits of the hard work of others.

Screw them.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Let's sticky this one, thanks.

Done.

The Hard Working Colony of Lots of Ants is not in favor of the original resolution. However, after reading through the arguments here, I have to decide if I dislike the repeal more than I dislike the original.

And I am aware that a repeal makes no new law, only strikes out the existing ones. So I suppose it would still be possible for me to vote for the repeal not for the merits of the repeal, but for my own reasons against the original. There's still just that something that irritates me about adding my endorsement to wording of a repeal that I would repeal for differently stated reasons. Must think more about this one.

We are glad to see the nation of Lots of Ants contemplating this issue so thoroughly as opposed to falling for the knee-jerk reactions often taken over resolutions of this nature. We wish you luck in examining the matter further and hope the representative can make a confident final decision.

We would like to announce that while we are in a similar position we judge solely on the merits of the repeal rather than utilising it as a mechanism to get the result we want irrespective of argument.

Due to this we cast our vote against; we believe the impact on the overall health of the majority of member nations will be compromised for the sake of a minority of developing nations.

Further, reflection and thought provoked by the representative from Lots of Ants in another venue leaves us questioning the supposed expense of pharmaceuticals for these developing nations. Assuming that non-member nations are capable of reverse engineering drugs then surely there is already an abundant supply of cheap alternatives for poorer to select from?

If that proves to be correct then we would prefer not to add further chaos by suddenly catapulting approximately 26,000 member nations into a world where their nations are also capable of reverse engineering. The sudden detrimental impact on a no doubt already very competitive area would be disastrous in our opinion.

However, we are open to being convinced that our position is incorrect simply because we’d like the opportunity to take part in creating a replacement for UNPL.

Anravelle Kramer.
OOC: Against, I apologise if parts of this have been addressed or I'm simply wrong. Haven't slept yet.

We oppose.

In our reading of UNR #156, we came across this:

. 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;

We fail to see how the process of creating medicine does not fall under this category.

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;

Under the resolution, the patenting of a medicine would be incredibly wide in scope- it would take a committee staffed with the criminally insane to suggest otherwise.

Therefore, we must oppose.

Most courteously,

Yet another repeal...

After studying resolution #156 “UN Patent Law” carefully we come to conclusion that it gives to much power to holder of the patent. One thing is giving some monetary support to creator of important idea, and other thing is giving him absolute control over the use of his invention. If someone will invent weapon of horrible destructive power and choose to give or sell it to some aggressive and economically powerful UN country, nothing will stop it from using this weapon to conquer all other UN countries, they can’t even steal it’s idea because UN resolutions have absolute power. Of course there is always hope that other countries will have other powerful weapon systems that will allow them to prevent this, but we mustn’t throw away the probability of major scientific breakthrough that will made other weapon systems obsolete. If in mythical game “Real Life” USA patented nuclear bomb in this way, they have big chance to completely change the shape of the world before the end of 17 years. And what if Germany created nuclear bomb first? They can just patent it and have 17 years to do what they please with the world. We hope that this imaginary example demonstrate our concerns good enough.
The Soviet Socialist Republic of Citenka gives its full support to the resolution “Repeal UN Patent Law”.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

We'd like some of that reality-altering drug ol' Ivan there's on.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Im kind of confused. so, this will prevent the use of patents and let anyone copy anyones work, basicly? if so, thats kind of stupid, because there will be no motivation for anyone to work on anything... and lots of times, grants arnt a lot of money compared to what the actual sum could be. Please Explain.

Im kind of confused. so, this will prevent the use of patents and let anyone copy anyones work, basicly? if so, thats kind of stupid, because there will be no motivation for anyone to work on anything... and lots of times, grants arnt a lot of money compared to what the actual sum could be. Please Explain.

Yes, you've pretty much summed it up, sir. However, patents won't be prevented per se. They just won't be enforced across international borders. You'll be able to keep people in your own nation from copying the work of others, but if someone in Leftnutistan decides to copy the work of one of your citizens, there's nothing you'd be able to do to prevent it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You can enforce sanctions on this nation. Many of the UN countries will support you in this.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

As usual, the priorities of many governments in this Assembly are seriously messed up, and the right to make a profit is held as sacred, while the right to life is negated.

As stated previously, my country (obviously) supports this proposal. There is no logical reason not to do so.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

AGAINST.

Who the hell would spend the time developing anything when once you've made something the guy down the road copies it straight away?

As usual, the priorities of many governments in this Assembly are seriously messed up, and the right to make a profit is held as sacred, while the right to life is negated.

As stated previously, my country (obviously) supports this proposal. There is no logical reason not to do so.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Moralistic sanctimony aside, I dispute that the focus of this debate should be on economics and rights.

Consider that there can be many ways to make common medicines- basic acetominophen, for example. How can you patent something that has a unique chemical signature, that is not overly broad and unique?

I contend that medicine does not fall under the auspice of a patentatble item, because of the immensely broad nature of medicine itself. It's be like trying to patent gasoline, because it's a refined form of oil.

But to momentarily dwell on the subject of economics and the practice of medicine, it is of course abundantly clear that Ms. Zyryanov has no idea what she's talking about. Profits drive development- there is no way around that. Without some form of benefit, there would be no drive to even develop medicines in the first place. It takes trained doctors and reasearchers, technicians and scientists, to create new drugs. Are they just going to take their medical degrees and years of study and just do it for free?

Would you?

Most courteously,

Would you?


Yes, of course. But then, Ariddia is a lot more civilised than most countries.

The issue I'm trying to highlight is the irony in some persons in this Assembly invoking the sacrosanct principle of the "right" to make a profit, while in the same breath denying that there is any such thing as a right to life.

A viewpoint which I find particularly disgusting, and illogical.

There are ways for each nation to legislate to protect the rights of the researcher, while at the same time ensuring the far more fundamental right of all people to receive medical assistance, and to live.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

There are ways for each nation to legislate to protect the rights of the researcher, while at the same time ensuring the far more fundamental right of all people to receive medical assistance, and to live.

The medical assistance would not exist without patents to encourage their development. And all though there are ways for nations to legislate to protect the rights of the researcher, without international legislation there is no way I can protect researchers against foreign nations stealing their work.

Patents themselves are not all-empowering, they don't eliminate the possibility for competition, they limit it, as there are only so many possible alterations that can made made on a product. So the patent system doesn't at all harm competition, it just ensures that everyone who wants too can't start copying a product and lower prices to the point where innovation doesn't mean anything anymore.

May i also remind you that international patents aren't nearly as common as national ones, especially in the field of medicine.
and, in regard to that, might we just pass something like this eliminating only medicinal patents, so you can maybe accomplish something without being so unnecessarily extreme?

in short, this idea is friggin crazy, it prevents a natural need for basic competitive respect, negating the basic human right to credit for your actions, and, looking at the arguments of most of those who support it, is being unnecessarily broad in its unfairness.

Yes, of course. But then, Ariddia is a lot more civilised than most countries.

Which is why you identify as a third-world, undeveloped nation. Right.

The issue I'm trying to highlight is the irony in some persons in this Assembly invoking the sacrosanct principle of the "right" to make a profit, while in the same breath denying that there is any such thing as a right to life.

Preposterous. No one has denied that there is a right to life; only stated that without economic rights there can be no adequate support for other luxuries- and yes, Ms. Zyryanov, all other rights are a luxury conferred.


There are ways for each nation to legislate to protect the rights of the researcher, while at the same time ensuring the far more fundamental right of all people to receive medical assistance, and to live.

Enlighten me, then, and tell me what those ways are.

Most courteously,

Linard, now lying in his bed instead of the floor, hears the Government hotline ring beside his bed.
Linard: Hello?
Horgen: It's Horgen Dush, Your Eminence.
Linard: Ah, Horgen. [sits up] How has the information gathering going?
Horgen: Well, I've actually heard some of the other countries debates, Sir. They're dead against it too, on the subject that medicine represents too wide a scope.
Linard: Well, how about you?
Horgen: Well, I've been doing a little research as well, mostly along the lines of generic drugs. Apparently, many can't be produced without the patent expiring first.
Linard: Oh, oh dear. So how will we argue?
Horgen: I still have to make my mind up there, Your Eminence. I'll present my argument in the morning.
Linard: Okay, good night then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horgen sits quietly in his seat, listening to the various arguments that were being preseted to the floor. When they have died down, he finally stands, and presents himself.
Horgen: Ladies and Gentlemen of the United Nations, so far with this resolution, we have been arguing the effects on medicine, or if any exist. And while we agree with the Patent Act in its general intention, it does bring up a hitch when it comes to generic medicines, many of which cannot be manufactured without the patent expiring beforehand.
Mumbling occurs in the background as he finishes the statement.
Horgen: However, given the fact that this only effects one area of industry, and does not seem to affect any other, or so according to the repeal, we have decided to vote against the repeal, based on its narrowness of scope, and will submit, through my region's delegate, a Medical Patent Law draft for submission.
Horgen sits himself back down, pleased with himself: not bad for a first stand on the floor.

(OOC: I did some research guys, look up 'generic drug' or 'generic medicine' in any encyclopedia, and the answer shall be there.)

As usual, the priorities of many governments in this Assembly are seriously messed up, and the right to make a profit is held as sacred, while the right to life is negated.

I'm sorry, but where the fuck did this "right to life" garbage come from, Christelle? Patents have nothing to do with any "right to life."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Damanucus, i love you. i think that's a really good idea.

I did not support this resolution for a main reason;

Would you spend hundered of hours reasearching the cure for cancer if your only payment would be the one you get for selling the cure if you knew people could leagly copy and steal your cure?

NO! That would be countless hours wasted, this resolution would only discourage reasercher and medical advances would deteriate medical advaces and reacherch would nearly halt.

(OOC: I did some research guys, look up 'generic drug' or 'generic medicine' in any encyclopedia, and the answer shall be there.)

I didn't need to look it up. I'm in the industry. Kelssek's premise that huge sums are spent on advertising and giveaways don't take into account that 60% of a company's time and money goes into regulatory approval, or that 12 years of the 20-year lifespan of the patent are gone before the first patient pays for the first pill. He doesn't take into account the fact that we get about five viable candidates for every million compounds tested, or that only one or two of the five make the transition from candidate to product. He doesn't take into account that we have to correctly predict the state of medicine and our competitive industry with a spyglass that looks 20-50 years into the future. He doesn't take into account that most of the drugs under development are biologicals, not just simple compounds. You can't start a mine under Lake Michigan and start shoveling out buckets of recombinant DNAI think we get it that some of you think Profits are EVIL, but you've got a serious case of "baby versus bathwater" here. Medical patents are a time-adjusted compromise, just like most law, between the public's right-to-have and the corporation's desire to make money. It's incredibly pointless to come along and throw sand in the gears just because you see somebody making a couple bucks you don't think they deserve.

Consider that there can be many ways to make common medicines- basic acetominophen, for example. How can you patent something that has a unique chemical signature, that is not overly broad and unique?

Even if a country does not recognise a patent on a chemical, what is usually patented, as B&N pointed out, is the process, or the end product of the medication.

I contend that medicine does not fall under the auspice of a patentatble item, because of the immensely broad nature of medicine itself. It's be like trying to patent gasoline, because it's a refined form of oil.

A medicine is far, far more specific than gasoline.

Profits drive development- there is no way around that... Are they just going to take their medical degrees and years of study and just do it for free?

Where do you get the idea I want patents to be abolished completely? I do not. Patents are not the only way compensate and reward. Why can't you subsidise the research, or even fund it entirely, for instance? And before we even had patents, what possible incentive could there have been to invent the wheel?

The medical assistance would not exist without patents to encourage their development. And all though there are ways for nations to legislate to protect the rights of the researcher, without international legislation there is no way I can protect researchers against foreign nations stealing their work.

Unfortunately, that wouldn't be any different from the situation with UNPL as NotaUNmembersothereistan is already stealing everything you have. Maybe UNPL reduces it a little but look at it more realistically - are nations going to stop recognising foreign patents en masse? If only for the sake of their trade they probably will not.

Which is why you identify as a third-world, undeveloped nation. Right.

So you're saying just because they aren't as developed as you they're less civilised? Honestly, I'm surprised to hear such bigotry.

Enlighten me, then, and tell me what those ways are.

Compulsory licences? Purchasing agreements?

Kelssek's premise that huge sums are spent on advertising and giveaways don't take into account that 60% of a company's time and money goes into regulatory approval, or that 12 years of the 20-year lifespan of the patent are gone before the first patient pays for the first pill.
He doesn't take into account the fact that we get about five viable candidates for every million compounds tested, or that only one or two of the five make the transition from candidate to product.
He doesn't take into account that we have to correctly predict the state of medicine and our competitive industry with a spyglass that looks 20-50 years into the future.
He doesn't take into account that most of the drugs under development are biologicals, not just simple compounds. You can't start a mine under Lake Michigan and start shoveling out buckets of recombinant DNA


Wow, knowing that has certainly put a new spin on things. It still doesn't change that the repeal is containing flawed logic; on the contrary, it reinforces it. However, does't five years seem a bit long for a patent on a chemical medicine (biological ones are discounted in the original law) to expire (after the first patient buys the pill)?

if someone in Leftnutistan decides to copy the work of one of your citizens, there's nothing you'd be able to do to prevent it.

Unless you have a Death Star, or something roughly equivalent.


The issue I'm trying to highlight is the irony in some persons in this Assembly invoking the sacrosanct principle of the "right" to make a profit, while in the same breath denying that there is any such thing as a right to life.

Second time today that I'm going to dredge up this grave.

Excuse me while I laugh for a bit.

There, done.

Where do people get this "right to life" bull from? The only unalienable right you have is the right to die. It's the only thing that cannot be taken from you. About the only people with an unalienable right to life are immortals, and I don't exactly see that many around.

Life is not a right, just a luxury most people enjoy.


Probably one of my favourite quotes of all time.

I'm not declaring that anyone has a "right to profit". However...

fundamental right of all people to receive medical assistance, and to live.

I woudn't declare that universally, either.

No one has denied that there is a right to life;

I'll go on record as the psycho that denies that as being a universal and fundamental right for absolutely every living being in the universe.

However, much of this is greatly off topic. Should these "life-saving drugs" be so crucial for whatever reason, the patent is not what should be attacked, but the holder thereof. Appeal to their sense of decency or whatever you would care to appeal to and convince them that releasing this drug to save these lives is the right thing to do.

Realistically, if the pharmaceutical company or scientific organization that has managed to develop this drug is so mercantile that would happily watch millions of people die in the name of the almighty dollar, then they are not going to be overly swayed by UN legislation on the matter. If the product that they have created is at all difficult to produce, then they need only keep their process secret (which many of them do anyways) and it could still take months, years, or decades before any of their competitors managed to figure it out. And that is without the Patent protection. With patent protection, after a certain amount of time, the patented information becomes public knowledge, and can be readily reproduced by those with the necessary skills.

So....without patent protection, potentially decades before anyone manages to figure out and reproduce the product. With Patent protection, realizing that much of the patented time will be exhausted in initial development, after a set amount of time, the whole thing is free for public use.

From another angle, as has already been mentioned by another, many of these more complex pharmaceuticals involve biologicals, excluding them from the protection granted by UN Patent Law.

It's an absolute shame that this distinguished body is well on its way to abolishing UN Patent Law based on the inflammatory and fallacious arguments presented in the repeal.

Fris, you paint the picture of an industry faced with incredible costs and on shaky ground. Yet by all reports it is in fact very healthy, secure and profitable. How can we reconcile this? I don't doubt the veracity of what you're saying, but are you perhaps portraying it from a limited, insider perspective?

I think we get it that some of you think Profits are EVIL, but you've got a serious case of "baby versus bathwater" here.

Maybe if I were trying to abolish patents, but I'm not. But let's look at this specific cirucmstance. The people who can't afford the drugs are the ones who would benefit from patent-violating generics being produced. You would not make a profit from them anyway, because they can't pay you no matter how much they want your product. What loss would there be here?

Of course, it's broader than that. But again, I do not expect nations to abandoning patents en masse. The system will still be very much in place. I would say we aren't throwing out any bathwater at all.

It's incredibly pointless to come along and throw sand in the gears just because you see somebody making a couple bucks you don't think they deserve.

It's not that they don't deserve it. I doubt there are many of any ideological stripe who would say you don't deserve rewards for your work. It's that it comes at someone else's expense, someone else's life. If the system is valuing money above human/sentient life, we have a serious problem.

Assuming that non-member nations are capable of reverse engineering drugs then surely there is already an abundant supply of cheap alternatives for poorer to select from?

UNPL doesn't allow them to do it. There is a loophole in that imports of patent-infringing products are not explicitly banned, but this is more than likely a simple oversight and furthermore, importing not only holds the nation hostage to another, but adds to the cost since more transportation is involved, which is kind of counter-productive to what you're trying to achieve.

However, given the fact that this only effects one area of industry, and does not seem to affect any other, or so according to the repeal, we have decided to vote against the repeal, based on its narrowness of scope, and will submit, through my region's delegate, a Medical Patent Law draft for submission.

I focused on this because it seemed to me the most important, real, and compelling. But I would like to bring out another example. Say we were to invent a reliable, efficient, environmentally-friendly engine running on something extremely common and renewable. This is patented. An extremely high price is charged for it, but that's normal for a new technology. But the price doesn't come down, even after the cost is recouped, because keeping the price high is more profitable - and could very well be given the monopoly and enough affluent people willing to pay the high price. The effect of this, however, is that a technology which could be of immense benefit is underproduced, and delayed, because of patents. Maybe it's not for all those 17 years but with the dwindling supply and ever-increasing prices of fossil fuels, it artificially delays development and it's not the most economically efficient way of doing things.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that without repealing UNPL, your proposed law would likely be illegal as it may amount to amending existing legislation. I do have a replacement I'm floating around but given how little free time I'll have in the coming months I doubt I could spearhead a replacement effort, which is also why I kind of rushed this.

I don’t understand why everyone talks about money. The biggest problem of “UN Patent Law” is not that you must pay big money to patent holder but the fact that if she wants she may not sell it to you even if you pay enough money. Even 17 years of unregulated monopoly in some cases can lead to disastrous consequences. If you don’t care about the people then at least for the sake of free market system you must take away the ability of not selling product by the market price from patent holder. Even the very limited ability of free market system to self-regulation is working only in the situation without major monopolies. This resolution makes some harm to socialist countries by not allowing them to organize patent law in more honest, beneficial for the society way, but it is create much more harm to capitalist countries by completely throwing them in the hands of monopolists. We must stop this now and give regulation of the patent law in the hands of the national governments. Then at least they will have the chance to create more flexible patent regulation then it is allowed by the format of resolutions. And the thievery of intellectual property in most cases can be regulated through enforcing sanctions.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Your logic is faulty; you cannot patent drugs in the real world

OOC: Actually you can.

IC: In Mikitivity, it is legal in all cantons to patent drugs, both medicinal and recreational. Both the process of production and the name of the product both may be patented. Furthermore, companies outside of Mikitivity are free to file patents within Mikitivity to prevent domestic firms from stealing their ideas (naturally there are fees associated with filling the patent, and the government itself then has access to the production method). ;)

Many various blends of Spice Melange have been patented. The question really is in the enforcement of those patents. In the case of recreational drugs, one pharmaceutical company, A, would have to prove that another pharmaceutical company, B, used their, A's, technical for creating a drug. There have been some historical precedents in the 19th and 20th centuries where companies actually engaged in hiring chemists from one company to recreate a process at another which resulted in law suits in which the company that had patented the (process for making the) drug won.

In addition process patents, it is extremely common to patent a "product image".

look, everyone's focusing on medicine. so, you know what the logical thing to do would be? not pass such a broad resolution, and replace it with one that would limit international patents on medicine.

Damanucus, i love you.

Get a room. No, really. Get a room. CPESL's got a facility across the street. Hourly rates even. Although you'll probably only need a minute or two.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I focused on this because it seemed to me the most important, real, and compelling. But I would like to bring out another example. Say we were to invent a reliable, efficient, environmentally-friendly engine running on something extremely common and renewable. This is patented. An extremely high price is charged for it, but that's normal for a new technology. But the price doesn't come down, even after the cost is recouped, because keeping the price high is more profitable - and could very well be given the monopoly and enough affluent people willing to pay the high price. The effect of this, however, is that a technology which could be of immense benefit is underproduced, and delayed, because of patents. Maybe it's not for all those 17 years but with the dwindling supply and ever-increasing prices of fossil fuels, it artificially delays development and it's not the most economically efficient way of doing things.

Even so, Kelssek, the amount of time it takes wth tests, which may vary, depending on the invention, a good portion of the patency time is immediately eaten up (and this doesn't just hold with medicine here, either). It isn't made immediately available as soon as the patent is given.

Furthermore, the time and throughness of testing varies between nations. Just as a hypothetical example (so this may or may not be true), Ohmigodtheykilledkenny may have a minimum testing period for any new item of seventeen years, in which time they could test this new invention for just about everything, including short- and long-term effects, durability, the works (depending on the item at hand). It doesn't seem, to me, like this has been considered at all, and that it has been taken at a very shallow level (not trying to mudsling or anything).

Still, my, and the Peoples of Damanucus', position holds; we are Against the Repeal.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Damanucus

Fris, you paint the picture of an industry faced with incredible costs and on shaky ground. Yet by all reports it is in fact very healthy, secure and profitable. How can we reconcile this? I don't doubt the veracity of what you're saying, but are you perhaps portraying it from a limited, insider perspective?

Or maybe because in the real world we actually have patents to protect researchers.

You proposed somewhere that the gov't could make up for the implosion of the private research market... be real. It took the gov't here years to admit that HIV even existed, by which time the pharmaceuticals had already trotted out several rounds of experimental treatment drugs. Had we left R&D up to the gov't you wouldn't be crying about drug prices being too high, because the drugs wouldn't exist at all.

Maybe if I were trying to abolish patents, but I'm not.

Really?

...cause from where I am sitting it sure looks like you are. There's one (count em) patent-related thing in this game: the UN resolution. You're trying to repeal that nor can I find anywhere where you have suggested replacing it with some other patent resolution.

But let's look at this specific cirucmstance. The people who can't afford the drugs are the ones who would benefit from patent-violating generics being produced. You would not make a profit from them anyway, because they can't pay you no matter how much they want your product. What loss would there be here?

The loss comes when the people who would have bought your product buy the cheap-as-sht one instead. Thus you make no money and go into debt and bankruptcy from the expense of researching the new product.

It's not that they don't deserve it. I doubt there are many of any ideological stripe who would say you don't deserve rewards for your work. It's that it comes at someone else's expense, someone else's life. If the system is valuing money above human/sentient life, we have a serious problem.

Everything in the world comes at someone's expense. It's called an economy. It costs nearly a billion dollars on average for a pharmaceutical company to develop one, single drug. That's before manufacturing costs by the way - just development. You think they can recoup those costs without doing so at anyone's expense? May I ask you how? Various NS leaf-related currencies aside, money does not actually grow on trees.

UNPL doesn't allow them to do it. There is a loophole in that imports of patent-infringing products are not explicitly banned, but this is more than likely a simple oversight and furthermore, importing not only holds the nation hostage to another, but adds to the cost since more transportation is involved, which is kind of counter-productive to what you're trying to achieve.

Cry away. Or maybe you could fix it with a resolution? I can see it now: "UN Declares that Transporting Goods Between Nations Will No Longer Cost Money, Because It Makes Things Cost More And That's Not Fair!"

So what does this have to do with repealing UNPL?

Realistically, if the pharmaceutical company or scientific organization that has managed to develop this drug is so mercantile that would happily watch millions of people die in the name of the almighty dollar, then they are not going to be overly swayed by UN legislation on the matter.

That is precisely why I would like nations to have the power to suspend a patent and allow independent production.

If the product that they have created is at all difficult to produce, then they need only keep their process secret (which many of them do anyways) and it could still take months, years, or decades before any of their competitors managed to figure it out. And that is without the Patent protection. With patent protection, after a certain amount of time, the patented information becomes public knowledge, and can be readily reproduced by those with the necessary skills.

So....without patent protection, potentially decades before anyone manages to figure out and reproduce the product. With Patent protection, realizing that much of the patented time will be exhausted in initial development, after a set amount of time, the whole thing is free for public use.

We talked about this already. This was my response:

That's their choice if they don't want the patent protection at all; it wouldn't be a smart move. But then they'd already be doing that, UNPL or not. Why would anyone bother to patent at all?

The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that they have to disclose pretty much everything anyway in order for any health authority intent on doing its job to approve the drug. I don't believe this scenario is plausible since I don't think there's any way the relevant authorities would approve mystery chemicals produced by mystery processes in mystery proportions for use as medication by the general public.

And as to your other point, isn't that a strike against patents as being so great at rewarding innovation?

It's not that they don't deserve it. I doubt there are many of any ideological stripe who would say you don't deserve rewards for your work. It's that it comes at someone else's expense, someone else's life. If the system is valuing money above human/sentient life, we have a serious problem.


I think this might be the heart of the misunderstanding over the UN Patent Law. One point that Frisbeeteria and other nations are attempting to make is that without an international guarantee to companies that they can recover their investment that it is likely that there would be fewer drugs to "save lives" with.

To put this another way, if Mikitivity were not at grave risk of flood or climate change, then my nation would not have invested so much of our resources into improving our weather forecasts and emergency response systems. For an organization or individual to do something the benefit of that activity must exceed the cost -- even in planned economies the concept of balancing costs and benefits is critical in when deciding how to allocate our limited resources.

I would not go as far as to claim that capitalist nations are based on the belief that money is more important than sentient life, but instead on the belief that by rewarding those that work the hardest that they others can benefit to some degree in the fruits of their labors. We see this very model working in the UN. Nations that submit proposals and actively campaign for their proposals get the opportunity to see their ideas voted upon by the general membership (your repeal is an example of such an effort). Other nations that do not campaign for their ideas, but instead take a much more relaxed attitude, are less likely to benefit from the rewards of their lesser degree of work (my government's own Alcohol Tariff Reduction proposal is just such an example).

Howie T. Katzman

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild opposes this repeal.

We find this resolution ill-conceived, poorly written and vague. A repeal in our nations opinion must have a compelling argument to support or justify the action.

This repeal does not meet that bar.

Regards,

Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB, KCMG
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

I think this might be the heart of the misunderstanding over the UN Patent Law. One point that Frisbeeteria and other nations are attempting to make is that without an international guarantee to companies that they can recover their investment that it is likely that there would be fewer drugs to "save lives" with.

More than that, I think we're going both at recovering the cost and what a suitable reward is, at the same time, which is muddling things a little. I don't see how it was so insanely difficult to recoup costs and turn a good profit in the massive global market that patent-recognising countries represent before UNPL, and ditto after a repeal of it. In my mind there is no question that a good profit will still be made and the incentive will still exist.

The challenge seems to be rooted in the idea that this isn't good enough and only the maximum profit will suffice, which to me seems quite perverse as the mechanism to maximise the profit comes at the expense of a very large number of people who frankly have very little going for them as it is. Is it any wonder that the third world looks upon the first with such cynicism and even hostility?

As the Hack has a sizable pharmaceutical industry, we are strongly opposed to this proposal. Should it pass, we will immediately cease all shipments to all UN nations pending individual agreements to protect our intellectual property. Since that necessitate all sorts of unpleasant red tape and require us to hire some more lawyers, I can't promise that the terms will be especially favorable.

But, hey, you'll be helping the poor people. Or some such rot.

I hate having to do this sort of thing, but we really don't have a choice. I hope rational minds prevail and defeat this anti-business, fuzzy-headed nonsense.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

So you're going to cripple your sizable industry's outside business by banning exports to UN nations before you get bilaterals done? I can't imagine the companies are very pleased by this news. I'm sure competing pharmaceutical companies worldwide are collectively tenting their fingers and pronouncing this decision by the Hack government as "exxxcellent".

As the Hack has a sizable pharmaceutical industry, we are strongly opposed to this proposal. Should it pass, we will immediately cease all shipments to all UN nations pending individual agreements to protect our intellectual property. Since that necessitate all sorts of unpleasant red tape and require us to hire some more lawyers, I can't promise that the terms will be especially favorable.

Threatening to withhold medicine from UN nations (under the guise of "protecting intellectual property") if this resolution passes is a reprehensible response. We do not support this resolution, but we are frankly disgusted by strong-arm attempts that will most likely encourage people to vote for, rather than against, this flawed legislation.

Once again, we feel that the issue of medicines is overshadowing the greater issue - that this repeal would threaten property rights. There are better ways to meet the challenge of bringing needed medicines to disadvantaged populations. One way we have suggested is for interested nations to pool medicines and resources to obtain them, and provide them to those populations. We have offered to assist with such an effort, which was drowned out in the emotional rhetoric.

Also, a much narrower resolution aimed at medical patents would have a better chance of passage than this will.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

So you're going to cripple your sizable industry's outside business by banning exports to UN nations before you get bilaterals done?Pfft. You're only a third of the world market. We have bilateral agreements with non-UN nations. The patent law simply meant we didn't need to worry about such things with your lot. This is simply a return to how things were before the repeal. Funny how that works.

Once again, we feel that the issue of medicines is overshadowing the greater issue - that this repeal would threaten property rights.Of course it threatens property rights. It was written by communists. Everyone focuses on the medicine because that's the truncheon being used to guilt people into voting for this pap.


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

There are better ways to meet the challenge of bringing needed medicines to disadvantaged populations. One way we have suggested is for interested nations to pool medicines and resources to obtain them, and provide them to those populations. We have offered to assist with such an effort, which was drowned out in the emotional rhetoric.

We do hope that this offer, which we gladly applaud, will stand regardless of the eventual outcome of the vote. However, our legal staff interpret your suggested proposal to create exceptions for medicines as a violation of the rules against contradicting existing UN legislation if UNPL is not repealed. If you view this differently do explain this to us.

As to the threat to property rights, we would like to point out that the nations which would stop recognising patents because UNPL is repealed probably don't place great value on private property anyway, and little is really lost in that regard. Furthermore, patents are an extremely small part of the whole concept and we question how this repeal can really threaten private property itself. We would be happy to hear your honourable delegation elaborate on what are their concerns in this regard.

The medical industry is mentioned because it's the most dramatic case, but patents also harm the software industry. Unlike drugs, there is a very good chance of a small software company independently coming up with an idea that is already patented. Patents clearly hurt innovation in software, and lead to monopolistic companies locking everything up.

UNPL exempts computer code from being patented, fortunately. And coming up with an idea already in use, well, that's really just too bad. It wouldn't be fair to the first one to think of it either.

As the Hack has a sizable pharmaceutical industry, we are strongly opposed to this proposal. Should it pass, we will immediately cease all shipments to all UN nations pending individual agreements to protect our intellectual property. Since that necessitate all sorts of unpleasant red tape and require us to hire some more lawyers, I can't promise that the terms will be especially favorable.

But, hey, you'll be helping the poor people. Or some such rot.

I hate having to do this sort of thing, but we really don't have a choice. I hope rational minds prevail and defeat this anti-business, fuzzy-headed nonsense.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Strange thing to do, at least if you really hate having to do such things. Economically powerful, well-respected nation like yours can create very big trouble to anyone who will not protect your intellectual property. But you choose to punish everyone before they do something wrong, and even lose big money in the process. Why?


Of course it threatens property rights. It was written by communists. Everyone focuses on the medicine because that's the truncheon being used to guilt people into voting for this pap.


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

If you care so much about property rights than why you are support resolution that will give away patented inventions for free to everyone? Before resolution #156 “UN Patent Law” you have the ability to punish everyone who seizes intellectual property of your patent holders. And now after 17 years every patent will automatically becomes free to everyone, and you don’t have the ability to do anything with this because of the gnomes.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

More than that, I think we're going both at recovering the cost and what a suitable reward is, at the same time, which is muddling things a little. I don't see how it was so insanely difficult to recoup costs and turn a good profit in the massive global market that patent-recognising countries represent before UNPL, and ditto after a repeal of it. In my mind there is no question that a good profit will still be made and the incentive will still exist.

The challenge seems to be rooted in the idea that this isn't good enough and only the maximum profit will suffice, which to me seems quite perverse as the mechanism to maximise the profit comes at the expense of a very large number of people who frankly have very little going for them as it is. Is it any wonder that the third world looks upon the first with such cynicism and even hostility?

I wouldn't say profit maximizations, but rather investment recovery is the motivation. The representative from Frisbeeteria was talking about the costs his own nation's companies incurred, and I believe the same is true in many nations. Even governments are not at liberty to blow away money. Let's pretend Mikitivity wanted to build a massive dam ... do we not have to offset the water storage and hydroelectric benefits with the cost of environmental and hydrologic dam *and* (this is key) the risk of additional damaged caused by a sudden failure? Of course we do ... to not do this would be abusing the government's mandate.

What a patent does is really allowing somebody who makes something focus their resources on the development and marketing of their product instead of on the security of the process, and in doing so, it is widely accepted that they can sell and (another key point) make more for less.

Sadly I think the answer falls to the fact that we are talking about an international market. Why should my government devote resources away from say weather forecasting if we believe we can *take* for cheaper the hard work used by others (nations or companies) to develop viable medicines. In theory this belief would pan out for anything that we do not feel is an immediate threat.

Mikitivity obviously voted in favour of the original resolution, but my government does understand that UN members have vastly different economic systems and beliefs. I personally am finding this discussion worthwile.

Howie T. Katzman

As usual, the priorities of many governments in this Assembly are seriously messed up, and the right to make a profit is held as sacred, while the right to life is negated.

Can we tone down the bleeding heart liberal rhetoric Christelle? I have a heart, I have feelings, but I also have a modicum of common sense. The right to life (if such a right exists at all which I’m sure a lot of nations would strongly argue about) is a matter for nations to be concerned about, not corporations.

Before I begin, I would like to present my argument as a classic story.
One day as the Little Red Hen was scratching in a field, she found a grain of wheat.
"This wheat should be planted," she said. "Who will plant this grain of wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

Soon the wheat grew to be tall and yellow.
"The wheat is ripe," said the Little Red Hen. "Who will cut the wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was cut, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will thresh the wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was threshed, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will take this wheat to the mill?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

She took the wheat to the mill and had it ground into flour. Then she said, "Who will make this flour into bread?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

She made and baked the bread. Then she said, "Who will eat this bread?"
"Oh! I will," said the Duck.
"And I will," said the Cat.
"And I will," said the Dog.
"No, No!" said the Little Red Hen. "I will do that." And she did.

Well at least she didn’t say “you can eat cake” instead. But that’s a different story with a different and very unhappy ending. How do you think modern medicine is created? Well first you have to come up with the idea. Then you have to test it. Like making bread that requires a whole lot of work and effort. Contrary to popular liberal thinking, people don’t make life saving drugs at great personal expense because of high noble principles. They too have families to feed you know. They make it because they need to make a profit in order to make a living.

It is not the responsibility of the little red hen, or the maker of the life saving drug to do without so that others might live. The laborer is due their just wage and profit. It is the duty of nations to ensure that others can live, and shirking off that duty to those who are making the drugs in the first place is dereliction of duty!

Now there are two proper problems one can have with the patent system. The first is the notion of excessive profits. Normally excessive profits are handled through the simple but national system called “tax.” The second is when a company uses a patent to effectively “kill” a product. Generally neither is the case with life saving drugs. More importantly the same argument can be used for anything.

The solution to those problems is not to simply scrap the current patent law and create one with an excessive convenient loophole. The inconvenient truth is that we the member nations of the United Nations must pay to ensure that everyone has proper medical care. The duck, the cat, and the dog must take the responsibility and not simply take the fruits of the labor of the little red hen!

Therefore we strongly oppose the repeal of UN patent law for the reasons stated in this repeal.

The duck, the cat, and the dog must take the responsibility and not simply take the fruits of the labor of the little red hen!

OOC: Fixed. Aside from that one little mistake, that may well be your best post ever, my friend. :cool:

Can we tone down the bleeding heart liberal rhetoric Christelle?

Careful with your political labels there. Ariddia may be quite open socially but I doubt they even use currency.

The right to life (if such a right exists at all which I’m sure a lot of nations would strongly argue about) is a matter for nations to be concerned about, not corporations.

So wouldn't that mean the "decision", if you will, should be taken away entirely from the companies and made by the nations? Wouldn't that mean... not allowing the company to have a 17-year monopoly? I must admit your post is rather unclear and I'm not too sure what you're getting at.

Contrary to popular liberal thinking, people don’t make life saving drugs at great personal expense because of high noble principles.

Now this just makes no sense. I am not aware of anything like this being a popular political belief, let alone one advocated by an bunch of free-marketers.

They too have families to feed you know. They make it because they need to make a profit in order to make a living.

As I have said many times, I have no objection to their employers getting a fair profit and giving them what is hopefully a fair wage. Neither am I convinced that repealing UNPL will compromise either one and I have explained why several times already.

It is not the responsibility of the little red hen, or the maker of the life saving drug to do without so that others might live.

In no way, shape, or form have I even suggested that. And I don't think you can show that pharmas will all go bankrupt and their employees will starve just because UNPL gets repealed.

It is the duty of nations to ensure that others can live, and shirking off that duty to those who are making the drugs in the first place is dereliction of duty!

...but so would allowing people to die of treatable diseases because they can't afford the drugs, right? I think this is going in a circle here.

The solution to those problems is not to simply scrap the current patent law and create one with an excessive convenient loophole. The inconvenient truth is that we the member nations of the United Nations must pay to ensure that everyone has proper medical care. The duck, the cat, and the dog must take the responsibility and not simply take the fruits of the labor of the duck!

It's heartening that we can agree proper medical care for everyone is a worthy goal. But let me put this to you. What if patents are a serious obstruction to this because it makes the treatments very expensive? Even if the governments pay, even if rich nations do it as foreign aid, the artificially high expenses could compromise such an attempt. So what would be more important, health care for everyone, or an uncompromising international patent law?

Further to that, you seem to imply that people not researching the drugs should not "just take" the drugs, the fruit of the researchers' labours, and for the sake of not getting into a pointless debate, I will include the pharma companies in that group. Fair enough. But how do you expect them to properly compensate the researchers for the effort when they don't have anything to compensate them with? And despite the implication in your barnyard animal story, it's not as if they're doing nothing and expecting to get something; we're talking about people on subsistence incomes having a hard enough time surviving; it's not as if they have the opportunity to become medical researchers even if they wanted to.

You simply can't reconcile the two in this way and hope to be consistent, something has to give.

And now after 17 years every patent will automatically becomes free to everyone, and you don’t have the ability to do anything with this because of the gnomes.The Hack is not a UN member. None of this has any practical effect on that nation, apart from trade.


What nobody seems to be considering is that intellectual property will be (must be!) regulated by somebody. In a patent system under capitalism, it is regulated by the markets. In Communism, it is regulated by the central government. In anarchies, it is directly regulated (probably by not being regulated) directly by the peepul. The operative question here is "who do you trust to regulate it most fairly and efficiently?"

The author appears to think that by removing existing regulation (and presumably replacing it later with a more citizen-friendly version), the rights of the citizen will be better protected. This appears to necessitate the creation of a government bureaucracy to replace the corporations who currently produce medicine, as he is removing the corporation's incentive to produce. Will this create a more efficient process? Hard to say until it's been tested, but history says that a larger, more centralized organization is not as efficient as smaller, more nimble org units.

it's not as if they're doing nothing and expecting to get something; we're talking about people on subsistence incomes having a hard enough time surviving; it's not as if they have the opportunity to become medical researchers even if they wanted to.
Apples and oranges, Kelssek. We're not talking about the consumer coming in and stealing the intellectual property. We're talking about the government taking it away. You want the process to improve. Somebody must do the work and pay for it. In the current model, it's for-profit companies. The only other model that can operate on the necessary levels of scale are govenrments or government-financed NGOs. The money has to come from somewhere, and your appeals to emotion don't eliminate that need.

Strange thing to do, at least if you really hate having to do such things. Economically powerful, well-respected nation like yours can create very big trouble to anyone who will not protect your intellectual property. But you choose to punish everyone before they do something wrong, and even lose big money in the process. Why?

It's not a punishment. It's protection. In many nations, people are not allowed to operate motorized vehicles until they reach a certain maturity level and prove they are capable of handling them. In many nations, people are not allowed to own or operate firearms until similar points. These are not intended as punitive acts, but protective of those who will be operating them, as well as all the people around them.

What Dr Leary is demonstrating is some of the measures that will be employed by the Hack to protect their citizens from being robbed of their hard efforts.

The medical industry is mentioned because it's the most dramatic case,

No, it's just the one that will get the most reaction.

but patents also harm the software industry. Unlike drugs, there is a very good chance of a small software company independently coming up with an idea that is already patented. Patents clearly hurt innovation in software, and lead to monopolistic companies locking everything up.

Something already patented has already been thought up. Thinking it up again is hardly innovative. That statement works across all industries.

OOC:Missed this earlier post, sorry.
That is precisely why I would like nations to have the power to suspend a patent and allow independent production.

You wish nations to have the power to simply take whatever they wish from private citizens instead of following the basic regulations that are in place. That's marvelous. We'll just send in the government storm troopers to wrest control instead of negotiating a deal with the company in question. That kind of logic is begging for a proof of Godwin's law.

And as to your other point, isn't that a strike against patents as being so great at rewarding innovation?

I'm more concerned with protecting the innovation than rewarding it. Frankly, some of them aren't worth rewarding, but the person or people who created it are still the ones that deserve the credit and ownership of it.

We'll just send in the government storm troopers to wrest control instead of negotiating a deal with the company in question.

We'd lend you some of ours (http://www1.whdh.com/images/news_articles/389x205/star_wars_rose_parade.jpg), but they're too busy preparing to invade Kelssek.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Careful with your political labels there. Ariddia may be quite open socially but I doubt they even use currency.

So wouldn't that mean the "decision", if you will, should be taken away entirely from the companies and made by the nations? Wouldn't that mean... not allowing the company to have a 17-year monopoly? I must admit your post is rather unclear and I'm not too sure what you're getting at.

This is not about the “decision” it’s about the “cost.” The purpose of patent law is to allow a person or company (treated as a person in corporate law) the right to receive a fair recompense for his effort in making the item to be patented. If the world needs his product (or in this case the United Nations) then they (or the United Nations) should be responsible for that fair recompense.

Let’s go back to the little red hen. Who, would you say is responsible for feeding the hungry? Should governments buy food from the farmers and distribute it to the poor or should they steal it from the farmers and give the stolen goods to the poor? Farmers grow food, companies make medicines and both are entitled to their fair share.

As I said there are two exceptions to this; when profits are exceptionally excessive or when patents are being used to prevent a good from being sold at all. The former is a judgment call, the later I fundamentally hate with a passion but the later also applies to more things than drugs. (OOC: The patent for the NiMH battery is currently owned by Chevron/Texaco and is currently only licensed to Toyota and only for hybrid cars. The pure electric car is literally made impossible because of this – such is the massive difference between NiMH and Lead Acid battery technology.)

If profits are reasonable, then yes the drug company should be able to get their proper share. I should point out that if demand outstrips their ability to supply I am not opposed to persuading them to franchise their operations … as long as they are getting just compensation.

Fellow UN Member Nations:

Initially, I voted FOR this Repeal effort as I was seeing the repeal of UN power/authority over the sovereign rights of our individual nations as a positive thing however, the existing UN Resolution actually protects the sovereignty of individual UN nations against other more predatory UN nations. :eek:

We already have to guard ourselves from non-member nations. If we vote in favor of this resolution, we enable UN member nations to exploit other UN nations by stealing the ideas of our inventors and scientists. We allow and condone the production of cheap imitations of no-longer patented goods. It really is that simple.

If this resolution passes then the UN has again passed a resolution which allows them to trample on the laws of all UN member nations, ignore national sovereignty... and make a profit from it! The real issue here is one of protecting the rights of nations from the interference and exploitation of other nations via patent infringements.

Lermany's position: AGAINST :mad:

I have already voted against this repeal, despite my socially liberal stance.

If this repeal is being used to bludgeon a socially liberal point of view onto a world, I most respectfully will not participate. Just because it works in my country does not mean it will work on the world.

My nation has a regulated free market, I am certain my nation's corporate CEO's would prefer an unrestricted free market, it would allow them to maximize profits and point to the old saw "in an unrestricted free market, companies respond to market forces, the consumer punishing that company should be sufficient to keep them in check." Utter hogwash. A multi-national corporation does not feel it when 50,000 consumers cease buying their shoddy, ill-conceived product, you need much higher numbers for such an entity to feel it.

Patents do not only protect those big companies, they protect the innovations of individuals who then may negotiate the use of their patented idea with the larger entity, in a "dog eat dog" situation, without patent law, who has the most to lose? The big company with huge amounts of resources or the small innovator who wants a seat at the table with the big boys to make a reasonable return on their intellectual toil?

I see no better option. Repealing as wishful thinking is intellectually dishonest and this is clearly wishful thinking. Come back to me when you actually have a fair replacement in mind, I will author the repeal on the strength that you are committed to getting a superior resolution passed.


Lynniston

The Hack is not a UN member. None of this has any practical effect on that nation, apart from trade.

Sorry, I don’t know this.

It's not a punishment. It's protection. In many nations, people are not allowed to operate motorized vehicles until they reach a certain maturity level and prove they are capable of handling them. In many nations, people are not allowed to own or operate firearms until similar points. These are not intended as punitive acts, but protective of those who will be operating them, as well as all the people around them.

What Dr Leary is demonstrating is some of the measures that will be employed by the Hack to protect their citizens from being robbed of their hard efforts.

Because The Most Glorious Hack is not the member of the UN the resolution #156 “UN Patent Law” cannot help them in any way. But then why break useful trade agreements and lose big money if this repeal will be implemented? And if they patented inventions in some UN nation then after 17 years everyone in the UN nations will have full rights on them. Is this is really the best way to protect property rights of patent holders?


What nobody seems to be considering is that intellectual property will be (must be!) regulated by somebody. In a patent system under capitalism, it is regulated by the markets. In Communism, it is regulated by the central government. In anarchies, it is directly regulated (probably by not being regulated) directly by the peepul. The operative question here is "who do you trust to regulate it most fairly and efficiently?"

The author appears to think that by removing existing regulation (and presumably replacing it later with a more citizen-friendly version), the rights of the citizen will be better protected. This appears to necessitate the creation of a government bureaucracy to replace the corporations who currently produce medicine, as he is removing the corporation's incentive to produce. Will this create a more efficient process? Hard to say until it's been tested, but history says that a larger, more centralized organization is not as efficient as smaller, more nimble org units.

Apples and oranges, Kelssek. We're not talking about the consumer coming in and stealing the intellectual property. We're talking about the government taking it away. You want the process to improve. Somebody must do the work and pay for it. In the current model, it's for-profit companies. The only other model that can operate on the necessary levels of scale are govenrments or government-financed NGOs. The money has to come from somewhere, and your appeals to emotion don't eliminate that need.

The most important question is not who will regulate this, but how it will be regulated. Resolution #156 “UN Patent Law” is just created one rule for all situations. There is one situation with the patents on the basic necessities; another situation with the patents on the luxury goods; and even more different situation with the patents on weapon technologies. If we will try to enforce one approach in all situations this will just lead to disaster.

At present time, because of this “UN Patent Law” gnomes is just doesn’t allow spies to steal patented weapon technologies from your direct enemy. Is this was the intended result of the “UN Patent Law”? I don’t think so. Can there be the single patent resolution that will not create analogical problems? I'm fear not. The only way to prevent such situations is to take more flexible approach. It can be done by the national governments or through the multiple resolutions with less wider scope each. But throwing all our eggs in one basket can only lead to terrible loopholes.

This is not about the “decision” it’s about the “cost.” The purpose of patent law is to allow a person or company (treated as a person in corporate law) the right to receive a fair recompense for his effort in making the item to be patented. If the world needs his product (or in this case the United Nations) then they (or the United Nations) should be responsible for that fair recompense.

Let’s go back to the little red hen. Who, would you say is responsible for feeding the hungry? Should governments buy food from the farmers and distribute it to the poor or should they steal it from the farmers and give the stolen goods to the poor? Farmers grow food, companies make medicines and both are entitled to their fair share.

As I said there are two exceptions to this; when profits are exceptionally excessive or when patents are being used to prevent a good from being sold at all. The former is a judgment call, the later I fundamentally hate with a passion but the later also applies to more things than drugs. (OOC: The patent for the NiMH battery is currently owned by Chevron/Texaco and is currently only licensed to Toyota and only for hybrid cars. The pure electric car is literally made impossible because of this – such is the massive difference between NiMH and Lead Acid battery technology.)

If profits are reasonable, then yes the drug company should be able to get their proper share. I should point out that if demand outstrips their ability to supply I am not opposed to persuading them to franchise their operations … as long as they are getting just compensation.

But you can’t do this. Resolution #156 doesn’t allow you to persuade them ;) even in the most horrible case. It just didn’t flexible enough.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

This appears to necessitate the creation of a government bureaucracy to replace the corporations who currently produce medicine, as he is removing the corporation's incentive to produce.

Not unless you decide to abolish all your patent laws and so many do the same the whole international system collapses. And I can tell you that is just not going to happen.

Apples and oranges, Kelssek. We're not talking about the consumer coming in and stealing the intellectual property. We're talking about the government taking it away. You want the process to improve. Somebody must do the work and pay for it.

Surely this is a decision for national governments if UNPL does get repealed? You know, I intend to keep my patent laws. I think in most cases patents are fine. But when it isn't going fine, when the cost is greater than the benefit, when the system has failed you can't just say "you're not allowed to contravene the system, deal with it".

In the current model, it's for-profit companies. The only other model that can operate on the necessary levels of scale are govenrments or government-financed NGOs. The money has to come from somewhere, and your appeals to emotion don't eliminate that need.

And lots of the money is already coming from them. Universities do a lot of research and have produced some of the most important developments, like synthesised insulin and pacemakers.

The whole point you seem to be making is that repealing UNPL is going to destroy the profitability of businesses so badly they'll never do research ever again. This just is not true. If your company cannot make a profit in the vast markets that patent-recognising countries will continue to represent they have a problem anyway.

Let’s go back to the little red hen. Who, would you say is responsible for feeding the hungry? Should governments buy food from the farmers and distribute it to the poor or should they steal it from the farmers and give the stolen goods to the poor? Farmers grow food, companies make medicines and both are entitled to their fair share.

Ideas, of course, do not diminish meaning "stealing" it doesn't mean there's less of that idea to go around, rendering that comparison a little inaccurate. It's more like a farmer refusing to allow anyone else to grow food. And of course in a perfect world everyone will get their "fair share". I hope some reasonable compensation will indeed be given when a government decides it's time to sod the hideously expensive drugs and make their own. I hope companies will agree to purchase guarentees and compulsory licensing and cost-price purchases. But if they won't for what would frankly be selfish reasons, you are left with no real solutions if you don't repeal UNPL.

If profits are reasonable, then yes the drug company should be able to get their proper share. I should point out that if demand outstrips their ability to supply I am not opposed to persuading them to franchise their operations … as long as they are getting just compensation.

To do that you need to repeal UNPL, or they can just say "no thanks" and that will be the end of the matter.

Patents do not only protect those big companies, they protect the innovations of individuals who then may negotiate the use of their patented idea with the larger entity, in a "dog eat dog" situation, without patent law, who has the most to lose? The big company with huge amounts of resources or the small innovator who wants a seat at the table with the big boys to make a reasonable return on their intellectual toil?

Tell that to the nations that will abolish their patent laws. Which do not include me, by the way.

You wish nations to have the power to simply take whatever they wish from private citizens instead of following the basic regulations that are in place.

"Whatever they wish" is kind of a gross exaggeration, no? Seeing as all that is being repealed is a standardised patent recognition applying in less than 1/3 of the world, the removal of which will have almost no effect on the domestic patent laws which will re-take precedence.

And what if the holder of the patent monopoly refuses to accept anything less than the full price, or to allow that independent production? What then? Are we supposed to rely on their goodwill or their kindness? I think we've already seen in this thread just how well moral suasion works.

I'm more concerned with protecting the innovation than rewarding it. Frankly, some of them aren't worth rewarding, but the person or people who created it are still the ones that deserve the credit and ownership of it.

I am not and have not been saying they don't. Neither do I object to protecting them. But I do object to giving it greater value than it is due and I do object when the benefit the patent gives to society is vastly outweighed by the cost of maintaining it.

At their heart patents are really a correction of a market failure. They create an artificial monopoly, allowing a temporary monopoly profit, because the market by itself does not reward or incentivise the development of new technology. They are a tool to correct a problem. But when a tool creates an even bigger problem, you shouldn't use it.

A drill's good if you're hanging a picture, making furniture or looking for oil under your porch, but drilling holes won't help you fix a leaking pipe; it'll probably make the leak worse. That doesn't mean you should throw out the drill since it's still useful for a lot of other things, but that also means you can't use just a drill to fix everything.

Tell that to the nations that will abolish their patent laws. Which do not include me, by the way.

Keeping your own patent laws in place won't prevent someone in another country from bypassing them should UNPL be repealed. Hope you're happy screwing over your own people.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Keeping your own patent laws in place won't prevent someone in another country from bypassing them should UNPL be repealed. Hope you're happy screwing over your own people.

Problem is that they can already do that.

Remember that the UNPL works only for the UN. If someone really wants to go and copy drugs, they can base it in, say, ALL THE OTHER nations that are anti-UN. You know those fasicst countries that want to wage total war and take over the world while begging to the international community for arms and money? They can easily accept any company in their borders and let them copy the drugs. All they need is one drug, and then volia, they easily win!

If we get rid of the UNPL, we can get rid of this 'illusion' that the system is working. It isn't.

Problem is that they can already do that.

Remember that the UNPL works only for the UN. If someone really wants to go and copy drugs, they can base it in, say, ALL THE OTHER nations that are anti-UN. You know those fasicst countries that want to wage total war and take over the world while begging to the international community for arms and money? They can easily accept any company in their borders and let them copy the drugs. All they need is one drug, and then volia, they easily win!

If we get rid of the UNPL, we can get rid of this 'illusion' that the system is working. It isn't.

We can't control what those outside the UN do. Your argument that the resolution doesn't affect non-UN members is just plain silly. No UN resolutions do. Using your "logic," why should we have any resolutions?

We pass resolutions to affect what we can -- UN members. UNPL does that, so it's at least accomplishing its goals with a sizable segment of the world. But no, because it's not affecting the entire world, we should scrap it. That's just nonsense. If that were a legitimate argument, we might as well repeal all UN resolutions, pack in and go home.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

P.S. By the way, by your poor excuse for logic, your own proposal for UN influence in preventing war is useless, too. Care to rethink your remarks here?

Keeping your own patent laws in place won't prevent someone in another country from bypassing them should UNPL be repealed. Hope you're happy screwing over your own people.

My God! We didn't realise that repealing the UNPL might actually affect us! No! Call it off! Stop!! We want to hoard all our damn inventions! More profit!! More!!!

We pass resolutions to affect what we can -- UN members. UNPL does that, so it's at least accomplishing its goals with a sizable segment of the world. But no, because it's not affecting the entire world, we should scrap it. That's just nonsense. If that were a legitimate argument, we might as well repeal all UN resolutions, pack in and go home.

But it is legit when people want to ban UN nations from having nukes or armies, is it not? And what about all the banging on about how the 40-hour work week made UN nations less competitive?

It's a limitation we have to deal with. Yes, we shouldn't say "don't bother passing this because it doesn't affect non-UN members". But your argument that suddenly patent laws will be completely ignored and this would be catastrophic, because of the repeal, is undermined by the reality that 2/3rds of the world gets to completely ignore them anyway.

My God! We didn't realise that repealing the UNPL might actually affect us! No! Call it off! Stop!! We want to hoard all our damn inventions! More profit!! More!!!

Yes, yes...continue yammering away with your leftist claptrap about how profits are evil... :rolleyes:

Profits are what drive innovation. Once you recognise that, we'll be more than happy to welcome you to the wonderful land we call reality.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We can't control what those outside the UN do. Your argument that the resolution doesn't affect non-UN members is just plain silly. No UN resolutions do. Using your "logic," why should we have any resolutions?

We pass resolutions to affect what we can -- UN members. UNPL does that, so it's at least accomplishing its goals with a sizable segment of the world. But no, because it's not affecting the entire world, we should scrap it. That's just nonsense. If that were a legitimate argument, we might as well repeal all UN resolutions, pack in and go home.

There is a difference between trying to get UN members to conform to resolutions, like banning biological weapons, ensuring that genocide occurs and such...and preventing nations from stealing products. It does not matter WHOM steal the product, the fact remains that they are doing it anyway.

Thing is, there is not much incentive for people to produce already. There are thousands of other nations, trillions of other people...all it takes is one citizen outside of the United Nations who just reverse-enigneer your product and patent it in his nation. This means that citizen has stolen the drug and now gets to use it, and SELL it!

There is a sizable number of countries that follow the UN patents, yes...but if the majority does not, then it is obivous that there is no incentive to produce, the UN patents becomes meaningless in that regard. What if a country reverse-engineer a product, patents it, and later sells that to UN nations? It can happen.

I'm just saying these patents has no meaning. Hey, I do agree with you on this point...but I think we need to ENFORCE the power of patents. Prehaps an international agreement with non-UN member states in that regard?

P.S. By the way, by your poor excuse for logic, your own proposal for UN influence in preventing war is useless, too. Care to rethink your remarks here?

...Doesn't actually. The NSUN thing is supposed to deal with both member and non-member states. And if it only deal with member states, well, then good job. Members of the United Nations won't blow each other up...which is actually pretty nice. We just stopped a sizable portion of the world from nuking each other, which is a nice accomplishment. :)

Profits are what drive innovation. Once you recognise that, we'll be more than happy to welcome you to the wonderful land we call reality.

But isn't it a good reason that non-UN nations can start plundering patents and ideas from UN Nations? It boosts THEIR profit margins.

...Doesn't actually. The NSUN thing is supposed to deal with both member and non-member states.

Um..no, it's not, not at all. The UN has no power of non-member states whatsoever.

And if it only deal with member states, well, then good job. Members of the United Nations won't blow each other up...which is actually pretty nice. We just stopped a sizable portion of the world from nuking each other, which is a nice accomplishment. :)

It'd be a good thing, too, if UN member nations weren't stealing intellectual property from one another's citizens. Oh, wait...they aren't, because this resolution you bleeding-heart clowns are trying to repeal prevents them from doing so.

But isn't it a good reason that non-UN nations can start plundering patents and ideas from UN Nations? It boosts THEIR profit margins.

It's a good reason? What? That makes no sense. Got into Larebil's old stash, didn't you?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Profits are what drive innovation. Once you recognise that, we'll be more than happy to welcome you to the wonderful land we call reality.


For the last goddamn time, yes profit is a powerful motivator, but that does not mean you have to squeeze every single cent of profit you can possibly get or no one will ever bother inventing anything.

For the last goddamn time, yes profit is a powerful motivator, but that does not mean you have to squeeze every single cent of profit you can possibly get or no one will ever bother inventing anything.

Who says that's being done? Care to throw out some evidence to back up your claim?

Hmmm...thought not.

That's pretty much what your argument is, right? You're the one who has essentially been saying that the whole "advancing technology" thing is going to implode because UNPL gets repealed. You prove it. If profit is the only motivator, if UNPL is the only reason that innovation is happening and new technologies are profitable, that must be why in slightly less than a year since it came into effect, we have perfected Fire and are now highly anticipating the exciting new Wheel.

That's pretty much what your argument is, right? You're the one who has essentially been saying that the whole "advancing technology" thing is going to implode because UNPL gets repealed. You prove it.

Your proposal. The burden of proof's on you.

If profit is the only motivator, if UNPL is the only reason that innovation is happening and new technologies are profitable, that must be why in slightly less than a year since it came into effect, we have perfected Fire and are now highly anticipating the exciting new Wheel.

We congratulate your nation on perfecting fire and coming close to the wheel. Good on ya! Once you're done with that whole wheel thing, maybe you can try looking into common sense. Now that would be a discovery your nation could really use, it seems.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

It's a good reason? What? That makes no sense. Got into Larebil's old stash, didn't you?

Let me explain. Profit is the only motivator, right?

Well, it's less expensive to steal someone's work and pass it off as your own than it is to actually create something new. So, captialists from non-UN nations would naturally steal other countries' patents from UN nations. After all, it's good for big business, no?

Doesn't really matter however. I don't want to get in an argument with a fellow delegate over this issue. Really, it's not for us to decide, but the voters...and, I hear it's going to get reintroduced YET again in this body, to be voted on or against.

"After hearing everything that's been said and careful consideration, the Great Commonwealth must oppose. We prefer if ALL our patents are respected by the widest body in which it is possible to enforce them, that being the UN Member Nation body thing."

Ausserland has voted AGAINST the repeal.

The effect of repealing the resolution would simply be to allow people and corporations to rip off the just proceeds of inventors who have patented their inventions in other nations. We've seen no evidence of these horrendous flaws in the resolution that are supposed to require its repeal. We have no intention of throwing away a tried and proven system of promoting technological development in favor of some pie-in-the-sky possibility that there's something better just around the corner.

And we'd urge our colleagues not to be sidetracked by the focus of this discussion on medical patents. If the author truly wanted to address this problem, he could have approached it from another angle, e.g., permissive licensing, without repealing the standing resolution. He did not.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Ausserland has voted AGAINST the repeal.

The effect of repealing the resolution would simply be to allow people and corporations to rip off the just proceeds of inventors who have patented their inventions in other nations. We've seen no evidence of these horrendous flaws in the resolution that are supposed to require its repeal. We have no intention of throwing away a tried and proven system of promoting technological development in favor of some pie-in-the-sky possibility that there's something better just around the corner.

And we'd urge our colleagues not to be sidetracked by the focus of this discussion on medical patents. If the author truly wanted to address this problem, he could have approached it from another angle, e.g., permissive licensing, without repealing the standing resolution. He did not.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

In theory, he can't. There is a resolution, he can't make another UN resolution concering that one only...that would be a House of Cards violation.

...Unless you are calling for nations to go and TAKE OVER the organization in question to get the premissive licensing for the medical patents. That might be a good compromise.

In theory, he can't. There is a resolution, he can't make another UN resolution concering that one only...that would be a House of Cards violation.

...Unless you are calling for nations to go and TAKE OVER the organization in question to get the premissive licensing for the medical patents. That might be a good compromise.

Sorry, that's not correct. It would be perfectly possible to write a proposal covering licensing which would be independent of the specific source of protection. A subsidized licensing scheme would be one example. No House of Cards violation need be committed. Nor would such a proposal have to run afoul of the Contradiction or Duplication rules.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Sorry, that's not correct. It would be perfectly possible to write a proposal covering licensing which would be independent of the specific source of protection. A subsidized licensing scheme would be one example. No House of Cards violation need be committed. Nor would such a proposal have to run afoul of the Contradiction or Duplication rules.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Ah, okay. I just would like to see it in writing...If it would apply to all form of patenting, then I'll assume it would, implitclty, apply to the current UN Patent office as well.

Your proposal. The burden of proof's on you.

And it's your argument, not mine. If I'm misreading you, say so.

maybe you can try looking into common sense. Now that would be a discovery your nation could really use, it seems.

Common sense would tell you that innovation is plenty incentivised and profitable, UNPL or not. Common sense would tell you that nations aren't going to go on a rabid patent-abolishing spree and that it's ridiculous to suggest everyone will stop innovating because some nations might abuse things and cause the profit margin to have a little blip. Common sense would tell you that inflexible measures may not be the best idea. Oh hang on, I have to conclusively prove everything while everything you say is just common sense. Right.

No House of Cards violation need be committed. Nor would such a proposal have to run afoul of the Contradiction or Duplication rules.

But it would have to be entirely voluntary to avoid contradiction. That wouldn't solve the problem, and voluntary-ness might even be illegal itself. That's in my interpretation, of course. Nevertheless, I certainly wish you'd had this idea earlier.

But you choose to punish everyone before they do something wrong, and even lose big money in the process. Why?Can't afford the risk.

And now after 17 years every patent will automatically becomes free to everyoneDo I need to explain the difference between seventeen years and zero years to you? Our agreements with non-UN nations are for a period of twenty years. We were willing to cut UN nations some slack and give them three years for free because we didn't need to bother with individual agreements; the UN's patent law bound them up all nice and easy-like for us.

However, if this repeal passes, we will suddenly find ourselves with no protection in UN nations (as we were relying on the UNPL to do that for us, you see), so we'll need to set up individual agreements. That's a lot of work and can't be done instantaneously. Hence the shipment stoppage until agreements can be created. The only punitive act in all of this is that the terms will be less than fully favorable. We'll probably lock things up for thirty years or so. Gotta pay those lawyers, you see.

Because The Most Glorious Hack is not the member of the UN the resolution #156 “UN Patent Law” cannot help them in any way.Not following along, are you? Nothing in the UNPL forbids non-members from registering products with the UNPR. This allowed us to register our medicines (and other items) and gain the protections of the UNPL when trading with UN nations. With that protection eliminated (and the UNPR abolished), we lose those protections.

But then why break useful trade agreements and lose big money if this repeal will be implemented?The money lost from stolen intellectual property far outweighs the money lost from canceled shipments.

Besides, we understand the concept of priorities. A nation like yours would probably have to wait quite some time before we get around to you. A nation like, say, Ausserland would be fast-tracked.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Let me make this perfectly plain.

Folks around here know how much I detest repeals, and I have been known to chase a few windmills here and there, but I know a bad idea when I see one.

I was hoping folks would take the hint after DEFCON proposed a repeal and had worked on a well crafted replacement that was presented as a promise if the repeal was passed. We just succeeded in passing that replacement.

I see no logical or sensible reason to repeal UNPL, especially if the argument presented is rabidly anti-capitalist. All I have read is about the evil of a person or corporation turning a profit, I have no problem with either profiting as long as they are reasonable and are not gouging the public AND are paying their fair share of taxes.

Repealing UNPL will not injure those corporations seriously. Nope, it screws the little guy really hard. My national patent laws are solid and aggressive, but they are no good if there is not International Patent law there to backstop them.

The supremely delicious irony is that the repeal will strike a blow against the small company and individual inventor...the ones we are ostensibly trying to "protect" with this half-assed repeal.

We do hope that this offer, which we gladly applaud, will stand regardless of the eventual outcome of the vote. However, our legal staff interpret your suggested proposal to create exceptions for medicines as a violation of the rules against contradicting existing UN legislation if UNPL is not repealed. If you view this differently do explain this to us.

As to the threat to property rights, we would like to point out that the nations which would stop recognising patents because UNPL is repealed probably don't place great value on private property anyway, and little is really lost in that regard. Furthermore, patents are an extremely small part of the whole concept and we question how this repeal can really threaten private property itself. We would be happy to hear your honourable delegation elaborate on what are their concerns in this regard.

In regards to the proposal we are considering drafting to pool funding and medicines for disadvantaged nations, such a proposal would not have anything whatsoever to do with patents. Nations that wanted to participate would be free to do so, without being forced to. They would provide the medicines and/or funding, or perhaps lower prices for disadvantaged nations, without having to see their intellectual property rights jeopardized at all. It would be strictly a voluntary effort, and would even enable companies (potentially) to see some profit where they might not do so otherwise. We fail to see where a strictly voluntary effort to donate medicines (not the patent rights to those medicines), money and effort would violate existing UN legislation. If we are in error, please correct us.

In regards to our belief that repealing the UN Patent Law would violate intellectual property rights, we simply feel that it stands to reason that removing an entire layer of legal protection for those rights threatens them, due to the weakening of those protections. While we do recognize that unscrupulous countries would ignore patent laws anyway, UN members cannot, because they are required to abide by UN legislation to remain members. UN members, therefore, cannot ignore the patent rights of their fellow UN members as long as the original legislation is in place. Therefore, we feel that the argument that some nations don't place great value on private property is a moot one within the sphere the UN can legislate in - the conduct of member states.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

All I have read is about the evil of a person or corporation turning a profit

I see, so all the times I said I have no problem with a fair profit and a fair reward, I was actually yelling "death to capitalism!" and smashing Starbucks windows.

Repealing UNPL will not injure those corporations seriously.

Gah. Finally someone gets what I've been trying to say.

Nope, it screws the little guy really hard. My national patent laws are solid and aggressive, but they are no good if there is not International Patent law there to backstop them.

The supremely delicious irony is that the repeal will strike a blow against the small company and individual inventor...the ones we are ostensibly trying to "protect" with this half-assed repeal.

Er, no. That was never my intention. And perhaps you're reading an anti-capitalist side to this where there is none. You might want to consider that patents are themselves not innately capitalist, in fact they disrupt the free market and give artificial government-granted monopolies. They are a tool to correct a failure in capitalism.

The individual inventors can still obtain patent protection if their nation wishes to continue to have patents. They can still obtain it in most other countries they think they can make money from selling it in. Yes, the invention might be copied by someone else, and that would be unfair. That alone is not enough to keep an inflexible regulation like UNPL around, not that it is so effective in preventing copying of inventions anyway.

We fail to see where a strictly voluntary effort to donate medicines (not the patent rights to those medicines), money and effort would violate existing UN legislation. If we are in error, please correct us.

No, it wouldn't, but it seemed you were suggesting we should have instead gone for a resolution exempting medicines from being patented, which would amount to a contradiction on UNPL, would it not?

No, it wouldn't, but it seemed you were suggesting we should have instead gone for a resolution exempting medicines from being patented, which would amount to a contradiction on UNPL, would it not?

It would, and if we left that impression, we apologize. We don't wish to invalidate patents over any particular item. We do recognize, however, that the issue of affordable medicines is a major concern to economically disadvantaged nations, and wish to find a solution to that concern without affecting patent rights.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

We are glad that we agree on this, while we might differ on the best solution. The Kelssekian government would be interested in making a large contribution this effort, regardless of the result of this repeal, and look forward to collaborating through our embassy with the honourable Altanar government.

I see, so all the times I said I have no problem with a fair profit and a fair reward, I was actually yelling "death to capitalism!" and smashing Starbucks windows.

Oh well that's different then. The empire of Dr. Evil must be opposed! :p

Actions speak louder than words. Your words may talk about a fair profit, but your actions tear apart the whole fabric that ensures those fair profits in the first place. And for what reason? Because you want cheep half effective drugs? So you can dump them on poor countries that can't afford the real deal?

Yes my good sir you are yelling "death to capitalism" at the top of your lungs. Capitalism isn't about multi national mega corporations. It's about people, ordinary people like you and me. (Well I'm a famous rugby player so perhaps just you.) It's like those two brothers who owned a bycicle shop and invented a new method of transportation. It's like that guy who shouted into a bizzare invention because he spilled acid on himself. It's that guy who invented warp drive. That's capitalism! And you want to destroy that!

When I go to a shopping mall and see security guards riding whatever those odd things are I see patent law at work. When I go to the parking lot and I see all thse hybrid things I see patent law at work. Would people invent brand new ideas if they knew that everyone and their brothers all across the world would instantly copy their idea and deprive them of reaping any benefit whatsoever because being bigger than they are they can do everything cheeper and with slave labor? I more than think not, I know not!

Actions speak louder than words. Your words may talk about a fair profit, but your actions tear apart the whole fabric that ensures those fair profits in the first place. And for what reason? Because you want cheep half effective drugs? So you can dump them on poor countries that can't afford the real deal?

So they can produce them themselves, actually. Also, you don't seem to know what generic medicines are. It's very easy to find out.

It's like those two brothers who owned a bycicle shop and invented a new method of transportation. It's like that guy who shouted into a bizzare invention because he spilled acid on himself. It's that guy who invented warp drive. That's capitalism! And you want to destroy that!

No, that's a non sequitur. You have not made the link evident, in fact you appear to be saying no invention would take place without capitalism which is clearly absurd since what we know of as capitalism wasn't even really formalised or put into practice before the 19th century. And the saga that your airborne bicycle shop owners got embroiled in doesn't speak very highly of patents as promoting innovation and technological advancement, by the way.

Would people invent brand new ideas if they knew that everyone and their brothers all across the world would instantly copy their idea and deprive them of reaping any benefit whatsoever because being bigger than they are they can do everything cheeper and with slave labor? I more than think not, I know not!

And you were going on about other people toning down the rhetoric...? "Tearing up the whole fabric" is a little misleading, considering that in all likelihood the vast majority of UN members will retain their patent laws and the repeal would in fact do very little to destroy patents. And repealing UNPL is suddenly a threat to capitalism?... Anti-capitalists only wish it were so easy.

So, other than medicine, is there any other reason to repeal this legislation?

Rang Erman
Advisor

No, that's a non sequitur. You have not made the link evident, in fact you appear to be saying no invention would take place without capitalism which is clearly absurd since what we know of as capitalism wasn't even really formalised or put into practice before the 19th century. And the saga that your airborne bicycle shop owners got embroiled in doesn't speak very highly of patents as promoting innovation and technological advancement, by the way.

"So, just out of curiosity... I don't know whose '19th century' you're talking about, but if you're referring to that funny RL dimension, do you not believe that the most whopping great advances that dimension's citizens have made actually happened from the 19th century onward?"

There is very little my one vote can do to alter an untenable state of affairs. Thus, the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild takes the following steps.

We declare the legation of Kelssek persona non grata and withdraw all business and diplomatic relations with the Government of Kelssek. Upon the repeal of UNPL we immediately and in perpetuity close off trade with Kelssek. Finally, all Kelssekian products will taken off the shelves and put in a bonded customs warehouse where the goverment may reclaim it's products for a nominal fee, or take the loss and let the products rot.

Our trade envoys will be busy for years trying to get fair terms for our products and aggressive patent enforcement for our patent holders, all because the Government of Kelssek is naive. The cost of this resolution is staggering to my government and others.

As a side note to the honored delegate to Cluichistan, we have observed as we get older we have fewer and fewer reasons to care if he uses Deathstar technology on the ignorant, or engages in defenestration on those that richly deserve the 25 story fall.

Regards,

Geoffrey Allen Gosford, KGCB, KGCMG
Prime Minister of Schwarzchild

If the UN law has some flaws it is better to alter it than abolish it altogether.

Patents are needed because you need a security that all your research will bring you something and thus gives an insentive to keep on doing research.

I hate to see that, if there is no public regulation, the industry will invent their own kind of protection of their inventions. Or do you think that companies as Microsoft won't find a way to impose a kind of ptotection to their inventions?

The world will look like something ugly if there is no public regulation on this.

OOC: It is IMPOSSIBLE to amend things. That is NOT POSSIBLE under the current rules. If you wish to change a resolution, you must repeal the original and pass a replacement. Welcome to the madhouse, by the way.

Your use of the word "abolish" is misleading, too. Patents will not be abolished. They simply won't be universally and automatically enforced across UN-member's borders.

Wouldn't a lot of the discovery-piracy issue be avoided if the UN built what would basically amount to a communal world lab? Why have countries working in their separate corners of the world, when you could bring all the brilliant minds together in one place to work on the important medical advances and whatnot?

Wouldn't a lot of the discovery-piracy issue be avoided if the UN built what would basically amount to a communal world lab? Why have countries working in their separate corners of the world, when you could bring all the brilliant minds together in one place to work on the important medical advances and whatnot?

Ohhhhhh boy...

As a side note to the honored delegate to Cluichistan, we have observed as we get older we have fewer and fewer reasons to care if he uses Deathstar technology on the ignorant, or engages in defenestration on those that richly deserve the 25 story fall.

Duly noted, mr. Gosford. ;)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Ohhhhhh boy...


"I think it would be an interesting concept. Independent development would have to continue, but some kind of UN research and development group would be interesting. Useless, but interesting."

The repeal of this legislation brings up a difficult dilemma- what will happen in the interim, if a replacement is not immediately entered into the law books?

The UN community will face a period where international patents are no longer valid or protected by UN law. While I doubt that this would create a flood of espionage or plagiarism, the implications are actually quite frightening, and Mr. Gosford is arguably correct in shutting off any connections with Kelssek- how else will the Schwarzchilder protect their patents when someone from another coutry could very easily waltz right in, buy a patented eugolflangelizer, take it back to his country and start making his own?

In this instance, the bilateral/multilateral agreements suggested by the Kelssekers is ineffective- it takes some time to set up a diplomatic agreements of that sort, and to ensure that all business entities involved are in compliance would be staggering. The cost of policing and enforcing national patent laws and anti-piracy conventions would be unduly heavy on smaller nations.

Do not doubt, either, that those malcontent pirates whose labor is currently illegal under UN law would not jump at the chance to legally steal another person's work if it became legal to do so.

The arguments from the delegation from Kelssek have failed to sway us.

Most courteously,

The Wolf Guardians;12481807']"I think it would be an interesting concept. Independent development would have to continue, but some kind of UN research and development group would be interesting. Useless, but interesting."

I don't think it's as useless a concept as it first appears to be; the point of medical advances (or any advance for that matter) is not to pump a given country up with pride at its discovery - it's to better the world society as a whole. You eradicate AIDS, everyone benefits. You cure cancer, everyone benefits.

Secondly, why stop at a world lab for just medicine? Why not have a lab dedicated to technological/communication/transportation advances as well? Think of the boost the world economy, as well as the world's standard of living as a whole, would receive if countries started sharing their ideas instead of keeping them to themselves.

Granted, to pull something like this off, you'd need scientists who, at the core, contain a good deal of philanthropy and humanitarianism, but then again, are scientists who are just trying to make a quick buck REALLY the kind of people you want to employ to solve the world's problems?

- Pathetic Romantics

I don't think it's as useless a concept as it first appears to be; the point of medical advances (or any advance for that matter) is not to pump a given country up with pride at its discovery - it's to better the world society as a whole. You eradicate AIDS, everyone benefits. You cure cancer, everyone benefits.

Secondly, why stop at a world lab for just medicine? Why not have a lab dedicated to technological/communication/transportation advances as well? Think of the boost the world economy, as well as the world's standard of living as a whole, would receive if countries started sharing their ideas instead of keeping them to themselves.

Granted, to pull something like this off, you'd need scientists who, at the core, contain a good deal of philanthropy and humanitarianism, but then again, are scientists who are just trying to make a quick buck REALLY the kind of people you want to employ to solve the world's problems?

- Pathetic Romantics

"I wasn't referring to only medicine, and I realize that such advances help the Multiverse, but you have to realize that such a group would likely not actually get much done. Bureaucracy and cultural differences would likely stall a great deal of their work. I like the idea, but don't think it'd work in reality, as per your third point there. It'd require good people, which are increasingly rare in the Multiverse."

The Wolf Guardians;12481988']"I wasn't referring to only medicine, and I realize that such advances help the Multiverse, but you have to realize that such a group would likely not actually get much done. Bureaucracy and cultural differences would likely stall a great deal of their work. I like the idea, but don't think it'd work in reality."

Damn the bureaucracy!

Isn't that what everyone wants to do anyway?

Umm.....

That is, damn every bureaucracy EXCEPT THIS bureaucracy, most esteemed head of the UN, should you ever stoop to read this post.



hehehehehehe. "Stoop to read this post." What a sucker.

That is, damn every bureaucracy EXCEPT THIS bureaucracy, most esteemed head of the UN, should you ever stoop to read this post.


"Head? There is no head of the UN. All bureaucratic matters are covered by the Gnomes."

Well whoever runs it, they're suckers, and just because I'm in the UN doesn't mean I have to like 'em.

With that said....

Damn the bureaucracy!

Granted, to pull something like this off, you'd need scientists who, at the core, contain a good deal of philanthropy and humanitarianism, but then again, are scientists who are just trying to make a quick buck REALLY the kind of people you want to employ to solve the world's problems?

Techincally, those scientists ARE the gnomes you are talking about here.

If you are worried they might demand a lot of money, you could merely ask for nations to donate money. ...Or, more importantly, PATENTS to help out said organization. Somehow, I don't think that would be necessary, gnomes are very good creatures.

I think that may be the only useful thing that we can do.

On a related note, I will be forced to vote "NO" against this appeal. However, we must remind that this Patent Office did, in fact, do nothing except regulate the conduct of UN nations. It does not matter who copy the product (UN nation or not), the fact that it can be copied is not exactly good, and profits are going to be eaten no matter what.

(Still, we would understand having poor people illegally use pirated goods, IF they come from non-UN nations who do not respect patents to begin with. These poor people have to live you know...)

The Wolf Guardians;12482010']"Head? There is no head of the UN."Of course there is (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sovereign_UN_Territory#Important_People). :p

You'll be able to keep people in your own nation from copying the work of others, but if someone in Leftnutistan decides to copy the work of one of your citizens, there's nothing you'd be able to do to prevent it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

How dare you sah! I challenge you to a duel! *slaps with a glove*

My people take great offence at being called slithering no good thieves when it is patently obvious that we don’t steal patents! We have great respect for the innovations of mankind and just because your people are duplicitous charlatans doesn’t mean we are!

We have honour sah! Honour! A concept it is clear members of this organisation don’t have! You need parents to keep you on a leash like pets!

Sudfra Varn,
Glove slappin’ representative,
The United Socialist States of Leftnutistan

But it would have to be entirely voluntary to avoid contradiction. That wouldn't solve the problem, and voluntary-ness might even be illegal itself. That's in my interpretation, of course. Nevertheless, I certainly wish you'd had this idea earlier.

The representative of Kelssek seems not to understand the difference between the granting of patents and restrictions or requirements that might be placed on licensing of rights under those patents. A resolution affecting licensing would not have to be voluntary. It could be quite handily written with no contradiction involved.

And as for our having this idea earlier.... The representative seems to have a conveniently faulty memory. On 24 Oct 2006, we posted the following comment in your thread concerning the draft in a public forum at another site:

Sorry, but I couldn't support this repeal. I simply don't buy the "patents stifle creativity" line of argument at all. That being said... If we could work out something on the medical aspect, I think I'd go for that. Would be a tricky piece of business, but it might be do-able.

On 16 Feb 2007, we posted the following in the same thread:

Yeah, I mentioned a while back that I could go for something along that line. Maybe not a total ban on medical patents, but something to broaden availability. Maybe a total ban is the only way to do that. I dunno. But I'd like to see some discussion of it.

In both cases, you ignored our comment on medicinal availability. Logic demands that we conclude you weren't interested in addressing the issue separately. We would have been more than happy to explore alternatives with you and try to help draft a proposal specifically addressing availability of medicines. But why should we have beaten our heads against the stone wall of your eagerness to repeal "UN Patent Law"?

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Our reasons for opposing this are as follows:

1. We do not believe the repeal offers any real arguments. It hints that there are ways in which "UN Patent Law" is problematic, and we would have been interested to find out what these were, but does not actually enumerate them.

2. In debate, these reasons have turned out to be little more than incessant and annoying appeals to emotion. Now, we look upon the plight of individuals afflicted by poverty and disease as compassionately as anyone - only recently our government authorized a new aid package in return for reciprocal lowering of barriers to direct investment - but the spectre of poor little children is not enough to convince us to vote a particular way.

3. We're not convinced the issue of medicinal patents couldn't have been resolved without a repeal, and as much out of spite as anything, are inclined to oppose the repeal on grounds of the complete unwillingness of its sponsor to investigate this possibility.

4. We are concerned that there will not be an adequate replacement (we would ideally desire something as close to the original as possible).

5. We are sick of having everyone who disagrees with the supporters besmirched as evil capito bastards ha ha ha.

6. My friends told me to.

7. Finally, we greatly fear the residual effects of the passage of this repeal. While our vote has been cast against, it is likely we will be simply grouped alongside 'the UN commies' by nations who enact embargoes or trade penalties in response to fears of patent violations by UN nations. And then we'll have some dying children of our own to come crying about.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

The Wolf Guardians;12482010']"Head? There is no head of the UN. All bureaucratic matters are covered by the Gnomes."At that moment the large video screen that usually displays the current vote totals switches over to showing an image of William Smithers sitting behind his desk. "And of course, the day to day operations of the UN Building itself are expertly handled by us in the UN Building Management." As soon as he finished speaking, all the lights in his office went out, "DAMN IT, who's running the microwave while the coffee maker is on! You know that that combination always blows the damn breaker!"

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Building Management

Well whoever runs it, they're suckers, and just because I'm in the UN doesn't mean I have to like 'em.

With that said....

Damn the bureaucracy!

Note to self, "misplace" Pathetic Romantics' application for office space.

Nils leaned back letting out a long, exasperated sigh. He stared ahead, unblinking as his ears were filled with an incessant buzzing. Or at least that's what the unending arguing that filled the UN had started to sound like. He crossed his arms and slumped down, hoping his thoughts would drown out the noise.

"Geeze, they're still going at it. What the hell am I doing here? I don't know anything about patents. I must have missed that lecture in college. Feh."

Growing uncomfortable, Nils sat up and leaned over the table in front of him, resting his chin his his hands.

"Capitalist, communist; liberal, conservative who cares!?" He groaned inwardly as another comment on moral integrity was shouted near his ear.

"I never even wanted to be the UN Delegate. I should have been a podiatrist like Mom said. Or a comedian like my father was. No, I had to get into politics. Oh, who am I kidding. I'm not funny. Morticians are funnier than I am. And feet make me ill."

Nils mulled over the repeal for a while. He listened to other delegates argue and finally he reached a conclusion. He concluded that he was sick of everyone.

With a dramatic flair he shot up and slammed his hands down on the table in front of him causing a small group near him to momentarily pause and stare at him.

Taking a deep breath, he leaned his head forward and shouted at the top of his lungs,

"AGAINST."

He then quickly left the room and made for the elevator. The group shrugged to each other and continued their discussion. No one saw Ambassador Nils again until the next proposal.
~
Nils Kiravot Nitsere Werit Nevilk Kliventire Werestin Tovarikslin
Ambassador of the Nation of Aduross

Note to self, "misplace" Pathetic Romantics' application for office space.

No offense (except the whole "damn the bureaucracy" thing - you can take that as an offense if you want), but while most delegates would grovel and beg for forgiveness at the very thought of potentially losing office space, I must admit that no such action would bother me.

You see, in the land of Pathetic Romantics, it is our custom for citizens to go nude at every opportunity - it's how our country was named. You see, as with all countries, some citizens are incredibly ugly, and some are incredibly pretty. The ugly ones obviously look pathetic in the nude, while the gorgeous ones look romantic. At least, it PUTS you in the mood for romance. Pathetic, romantic...Pathetic Romantics. See? It's simple. Not many people know that little tidbit of information. Consider yourself educated.

All that to say: I, being their High Sultan (and also the most romantic-looking of the bunch) am not bothered by the loss of a potential office; for who would want to cover up such rugged handsomeness behind the doors of a dreary old office? No, I am afraid your petty threats hold no weight here, misguided bureaucrat. Ply your paperworking somewhere else.

Saucy Jack
World's Sexiest Man
High Sultan of Pathetic Romantics

We declare the legation of Kelssek persona non grata and withdraw all business and diplomatic relations with the Government of Kelssek. Upon the repeal of UNPL we immediately and in perpetuity close off trade with Kelssek. Finally, all Kelssekian products will taken off the shelves and put in a bonded customs warehouse where the goverment may reclaim it's products for a nominal fee, or take the loss and let the products rot.

We have no trade with you, since we do not trade outside the IFTA, and a quick check (http://kelssek.tripod.com/foreign.html) of our diplomatic relations list indicates you have no diplomatic relations to withdraw. Have fun.

A resolution affecting licensing would not have to be voluntary. It could be quite handily written with no contradiction involved.

I understand what you're getting at but they can always refuse to licence under section 7 of UNPL; the problem of absolutism would not be solved. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but licensing is something a patent holder grants, and forcing them to grant it would compromise the patent, would it not?

In both cases, you ignored our comment on medicinal availability. Logic demands that we conclude you weren't interested in addressing the issue separately.

I had reviewed the thread before making that comment so I am aware of what you said. And as you yourself would see, while you did suggest an alternative angle you were not more specific about how to accomplish it, you certainly did not mention licensing and I saw you as being speculative more than offering a solid alternative. So please let's not get into petty accusations here. I have been perfectly frank with my motives and if you or other people choose to think that I for some reason hate patents and I'm trying to destroy capitalism and people having money fills me with hatred by all means do so, but you would be wrong.

In this instance, the bilateral/multilateral agreements suggested by the Kelssekers is ineffective- it takes some time to set up a diplomatic agreements of that sort, and to ensure that all business entities involved are in compliance would be staggering.

Is that so different from having UNPL? So the bureaucracy does increase a bit, but don't you have any of these agreements with your non-UN trading partners? Don't you have the pre-existing agreements from before UNPL to fall back on? If you tore them up and shredded and burned and eradicated any evidence of them thinking no one would ever try to repeal UNPL well, surely that's your own problem.

The cost of policing and enforcing national patent laws and anti-piracy conventions would be unduly heavy on smaller nations.

...so wouldn't repealing this free up some cash for them? That is a loss or burden they'd bear anyway, whether it's the UNPL or bi/mutlilateral agreements you expect them to police.

Do not doubt, either, that those malcontent pirates whose labor is currently illegal under UN law would not jump at the chance to legally steal another person's work if it became legal to do so.

All that changes is people don't have to go out of the UN to do that. It's always going to be a problem. That's no reason not to try doing something about it, of course, and we should do what we can to solve the problem, but it will exist no matter what we repeal or pass.

Well that makes things a lot easier. <chuckle>

All I have left then is to declare you, your products and citizens thoroughly unwelcome, and close our borders to you and your citizens. PNG is PNG, after all.

Oh, and consider the dumping of your nations products onto your lawn that we are in the process of rounding up, personal service.

The Wolf Guardians;12481299']"So, just out of curiosity... I don't know whose '19th century' you're talking about, but if you're referring to that funny RL dimension, do you not believe that the most whopping great advances that dimension's citizens have made actually happened from the 19th century onward?"

They were built upon everything that had gone before. You can't run before you learn to walk, or make airplanes before you've invented steel (let alone managed to refine aluminium).

All I have left then is to declare you, your products and citizens thoroughly unwelcome, and close our borders to you and your citizens. PNG is PNG, after all.

A lone backpacker in the "citizens and residents" queue at Malton International, his trip disrupted, shakes his fist at the portrait of the President, muttering "Wait till we overthrow you stupid commie government bitches..."

A customs officer with a beagle approaches him to check for food items and turns up a pear from the plane. "You'll have to bin this at customs, sir."

"Stupid commie government bitches."

"Sorry, sir?"

"Nothing."

Meanwhile, immigration officers offer to give Schwarzchild passport users the stamp on a seperate piece of paper, just in case they get in trouble.

We are glad that we agree on this, while we might differ on the best solution. The Kelssekian government would be interested in making a large contribution this effort, regardless of the result of this repeal, and look forward to collaborating through our embassy with the honourable Altanar government.

We look forward to working with you as well. We have always firmly believed that nations can work together and be civil, and accomplish great things, even if they disagree on certain aspects of how to do that.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

(OOC: I'm going to post a draft over on Reclamation for advice once I think I have a suitable one written up.)

They were built upon everything that had gone before. You can't run before you learn to walk, or make airplanes before you've invented steel (let alone managed to refine aluminium).


"And all that was built on things before it and so on. But, in the span of time in which you are referring, all of those (by comparison) simple operations were being combined into amazing things. Nothing spawns from nowhere, but complex devices and processes accelerated greatly in the time period you're talking about. I know this correlation doesn't necessarily indicate cause, but..." Wolfgang shrugs.

The nation of Teleios Logos strongly opposes this resolution.
The repeal of patent laws would put an end to all innovation and R&D as we know it. The laws of economics should make it obvious that a certain incentive is needed to promote innovation that has positive externalities that a single firm cannot wholly benefit from. I rest my case.

How dare you sah! I challenge you to a duel! *slaps with a glove*

My people take great offence at being called slithering no good thieves when it is patently obvious that we don’t steal patents! We have great respect for the innovations of mankind and just because your people are duplicitous charlatans doesn’t mean we are!

We have honour sah! Honour! A concept it is clear members of this organisation don’t have! You need parents to keep you on a leash like pets!



Duplicitous charlatans? On behalf of all Cluichstanis, I take great offense at that remark. We are not charlatans! If you can slither your way there, Varn, I'll see you on the field of honour!

Respectully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

P.S. Uh...what's it going to be? Pistols? Swords? Whiffleball bats?

I shotgun being referee for this!

And as referee, I have decided that you both shall use cheap replica batarangs for said duel, because heck - why not?

I shotgun being referee for this!

And as referee, I have decided that you both shall use cheap replica batarangs for said duel, because heck - why not?

Silence! This quarrel is between the vile Leftnut and myself.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE can I be referee?

No?

Damn.

P.S. Uh...what's it going to be? Pistols? Swords? Whiffleball bats?

A weapon only a true master can employ, the weapon proudly used in our gruelling right of passage to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest… a herring! A herring sah! Huzzah! For your no good comments we shall fight here, the entire world will watch! The entire world sah! Huzzah!

*Sudfra closes his eyes, proudly taking one stiff step after another away from the Sheik*

1…2…3…4…5!…6!!...Ahhh!

Sudfra Varn,
Self-defenestration extraordinaire.

We wish to remind the representatives that it is inadvisable to leave windows open after a completed defenestration. At least no windows were smashed...

On a more serious note:
UNPL doesn't allow them to do it.
Clearly your next statement contradicts this.

There is a loophole in that imports of patent-infringing products are not explicitly banned, but this is more than likely a simple oversight
We would suggest the method is irrelevant, the ability is still there is it not?

furthermore, importing not only holds the nation hostage to another
We find this hard to believe; given that over 2/3rds of the world are capable of reverse engineering products beyond the influence of this body there are potentially limitless sources poorer members could import goods from. In a market with such competition we would suggest that if a nation finds they are a “hostage” then they can simply change supplier.

Adds to the cost since more transportation is involved, which is kind of counter-productive to what you're trying to achieve.
We find this highly questionable; we would suggest that transport costs would not be sufficient enough to entirely negate the discount from having such an abundance of competing cheap suppliers available.

We apologise but we cannot understand why this body is ignoring such a vast number of nations not bound by this law, they are a large contributing factor.

Anravelle Kramer,
The Evil Mistress of Ithania.

Silence! This quarrel is between the vile Leftnut and myself.

That is the point ... the Romantics are trying to place themselves between the the two ... ahem ... [censored].

Well, that was easy...

That is the point ... the Romantics are trying to place themselves between the the two ... ahem ... [censored].

Touché, Mikitivity, touché.

I regret that I have not arrived to this debate sooner to avoid slogging through many pages of debate. However, the nation of Athanian will be voting AGAINST this repeal simply because we appreciate the widespread effectiveness of international patents.

Also, had we the power to do this, we would like to amend the original legislation to accommodate certain situations, but alas, we cannot. As it stands now, the current resolution seems to perform its job admirably.

Sincerely,
Alexander Kerro
UN Representative for Athanian

Our reasons for opposing this are as follows:

1. We do not believe the repeal offers any real arguments. It hints that there are ways in which "UN Patent Law" is problematic, and we would have been interested to find out what these were, but does not actually enumerate them.

If your nation lead the war with another UN nation that is use newly patented weapon technology, you now can’t acquire this technology using espionage or military force. Non-UN nation now can steal the most recent weapon technology from anyone in the UN and use it against you and you don’t have the right to acquire it from her in the process of war. Is this really right? “UN Patent Law” gutted the ability of the UN nations to defend against each other and the non-UN nations. This is obvious violation of the right of the nations to self-defense.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Can't afford the risk.

Do I need to explain the difference between seventeen years and zero years to you? Our agreements with non-UN nations are for a period of twenty years. We were willing to cut UN nations some slack and give them three years for free because we didn't need to bother with individual agreements; the UN's patent law bound them up all nice and easy-like for us.

However, if this repeal passes, we will suddenly find ourselves with no protection in UN nations (as we were relying on the UNPL to do that for us, you see), so we'll need to set up individual agreements. That's a lot of work and can't be done instantaneously. Hence the shipment stoppage until agreements can be created. The only punitive act in all of this is that the terms will be less than fully favorable. We'll probably lock things up for thirty years or so. Gotta pay those lawyers, you see.

If your time limit is so close to the time limit given in the resolution then this is of course change the situation. But why not just use the agreements that you have before the “UN Patent Law”, at least with the nations that trade with you long enough?


Not following along, are you? Nothing in the UNPL forbids non-members from registering products with the UNPR. This allowed us to register our medicines (and other items) and gain the protections of the UNPL when trading with UN nations. With that protection eliminated (and the UNPR abolished), we lose those protections.

I’m talked about the possibility of this, although I don’t know then that you are using time limit so close to given in the resolution.


Besides, we understand the concept of priorities. A nation like yours would probably have to wait quite some time before we get around to you. A nation like, say, Ausserland would be fast-tracked.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We are never trade with capitalist radicals, so we are not losing anything here.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

This is obvious violation of the right of the nations to self-defense.

No, what is obvious is that Mr. Cabaladze is grasping at straws. Either that or he's on crack. Gotta be one or the other.

We are never trade with capitalist radicals, so we are not losing anything here.

We, on the other hand, aren't so blinded by ideology. We trade with nearly everyone (CPESL is everywhere, remember). Enjoying lagging behind economically while those of us who believe in and reap the benefits of a free market prosper, you silly commie twit.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The Holy Republic of Kenkoica would like to express our disgust at our more boorish and less intelligent capitalist member nation's free use of the term Communism as if it were a bad word. It should be noted that Socialism and Communism are not the same thing, and I would expect that someone so brash to confuse the two terms without any education on the matter not to speak for an entire nation.

No, what is obvious is that Mr. Cabaladze is grasping at straws. Either that or he's on crack. Gotta be one or the other.

"Isn't it possible he's doing both? We don't particularly have the use of such substances in the Commonwealth, but I seem to understand that straws can be quite useful in the intake of some of them."

Amen to that!

*snort*

To all Nations who are serious about patent protection:

We suggest that you join up with a new Allaince devoted to actually protecting patents, by cracking down on pirates.

If a UN resolution is going to get repealed, then pirates are free to basically steal our work. If we want our patents to mean something, we may have to do so via force, by cracking down on these pirates. Even if you do not have any military strength, please join, prehaps as a symbolic measure, so that patents can somehow gain meaning if the Repeal wins.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=522407

Seeing as how the proposal is going to pass, we need to begin work on a new proposal that fixes the flaws noted in these appeals. I can work on it, but i will need more ideas on how to fix it.

OOC: You know that there are currently two replacements being drafted already?

Repeal or no, I want to shake the hand of the man who holds the patent for crack cocaine.

*snort*

No, what is obvious is that Mr. Cabaladze is grasping at straws. Either that or he's on crack. Gotta be one or the other.

Your words are full of passion, but sadly, not very informative. Maybe if you give me some more specific opinion it can help me to understand were is the flaw in my logic.


We, on the other hand, aren't so blinded by ideology. We trade with nearly everyone (CPESL is everywhere, remember). Enjoying lagging behind economically while those of us who believe in and reap the benefits of a free market prosper, you silly commie twit.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Prosperity of the exploiters do not mean the prosperity of the whole society.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Somebody needs to come up with a way to convert political platitudes into fuel. Screw Resolution #4 - we could fund the organization at ten times the current budget by selling the effluent from this room alone.

Repeal or no, I want to shake the hand of the man who holds the patent for crack cocaine.

*snort*

Cute.

We apologise but we cannot understand why this body is ignoring such a vast number of nations not bound by this law, they are a large contributing factor.

I think because Cluich called it an invalid argument so people got scared off.

But if you look at it that way, why bother to have any UN resolution about it at all? Why bother to have any UN resolutions? Moreover, a flaw in the resolution has never really been a reason not to repeal it.

OOC: Ahem... pardon while I repeat myself.

IC: "We want our patents to be applicable to the largest possible body, which is the United Nations."

But if you look at it that way, why bother to have any UN resolution about it at all? Why bother to have any UN resolutions? Moreover, a flaw in the resolution has never really been a reason not to repeal it.

We’re afraid that we aren’t concerned with methodology. While it may be caused by a “flaw” the desirable effect is there. It is a potential bypass for poorer members.

Further, we agree with the representative from Wolf Guardians in that we wish to harmonise and bind the largest community possible. As we have noted elsewhere, we are aware that non-members are capable of reverse engineering such products but we do not wish to add 26,000 nations suddenly thus causing unimaginable chaos.

Anravelle Kramer.

I'm new, and very political. - Trandaga
For all those who are debaters on NationStates, the first step to analyzing a vote is to understand the arguments and it's logical flaws.

[Argument: RECOGNISING the desirability of harmonising international patent regulations; however, ]
This means the producer of this proposal wants patents in effect, to an extent (however)

[CONVINCED that the harm of a patent should not be greater than the corresponding public benefit; and, ]
This means he/she knows the pros and cons of patents, because behind the definition of what can get patented, once it is a monoply is created in the market of the 'invention', and the pros [I]should[I] outweigh the benifits. The only ones that can control the benifits are the 'inventors', and governments only have reasonable control over them.

[CONCERNED by the failure of the UN Patent Law to provide exceptions for vitally important 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, ]
As an advocate of personal responsibility, I don't believe anything is unaffordable.
But this means that patent laws are causing more harm than good (as stated in the section below)

[BELIEVING that the international patent system contains inherent flaws, that it poses impediments to the welfare of the people of the world and to economic efficiency, that other incentive systems besides monopoly profits are possible, and hence that it should not be uncompromisingly enforced upon the world; ]
Only because patent laws are allowing harm to come to the world does not mean the negative costs outweigh the benifits. I personally, would like more evidence on the pros and cons, of any proposal, before it becomes a resolution. The main argument (this last passage) is that monoply profits, enforced upon the world, are causing economic deffiency. Although this may be true, I know no evidence that it is the most substantial cause. Having stated that, I believe the benifits of patents are a right a government gives to it's people that is advantageous as it:
1 Provides and incentive for innovation
2 Provides protection from individual entrepenerus that would otherwise be unavalible to the level of government effiency

Because both of these are needed to continue technological growth (incentive and protection) we should keep the patent laws in UN nations.

Having voiced my opinion, I will respond to the most popular argument on Drugs.

Drugs are created for the good of the people taking them. Drug companies know this and use large advertising budgets to convince people they need the help their drugs give. The problem in Nations that cannot afford drugs is that drug companies, like any other industry, are looking for the most profit. This issue is a moral issue that should be resolved individually according to economic and demographic needs, and not affect a large body (the UN) as a whole.

I am always open to responses, and feel free to contact me for further information or questions.

- Pres Scottamus Trandaga

If your time limit is so close to the time limit given in the resolution then this is of course change the situation. But why not just use the agreements that you have before the “UN Patent Law”, at least with the nations that trade with you long enough?You know, we're pretty cool and all that, but we don't have bilateral agreements with over one hundred thousand nations, nor did we have individual agreements with all twenty-some thousand UN nations.

Obviously, nations where previous agreements existed, we can go back to those agreements with minimal difficulty. So, yes, previous agreements will take care of... oh... twenty nations? One hundred tops. That still leaves thousands of nations.

But, as has been mentioned before by others, this really just screws the little guy. Economicpowerhousestan probably already has an agreement with us. Economicdisasterstan... not so much.

We are never trade with capitalist radicals, so we are not losing anything here.I'm going to assume that "are" was superfluous.

I was waiting to hear this, really. Blah blah blah, you don't trade with us. Chances are, you're still using medicine we've developed that's filtered to you, and it's very likely that technological advancements we've made are used in your nation, seeing as how we are a world leader in that field.

Actually, now that I think about it, you probably just stole our shit. Damn commies.


Doctor Denis Leary
Capitalist Pig-Dog
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We’re afraid that we aren’t concerned with methodology. While it may be caused by a “flaw” the desirable effect is there. It is a potential bypass for poorer members.

Further, we agree with the representative from Wolf Guardians in that we wish to harmonise and bind the largest community possible. As we have noted elsewhere, we are aware that non-members are capable of reverse engineering such products but we do not wish to add 26,000 nations suddenly thus causing unimaginable chaos.

Anravelle Kramer.


Well, that's the gun barrel we are all staring down courtesy of Kelssek, I suggest most strongly that we get down to the business of getting the correct replacement resolution in place before Mr Wrecking Ball and his high school economics talks the multitudes into yet another misguided resolution that has little going for it other than wishful bloody thinking.

I never in my wildest dreams thought I would be on this side of the argument.

Gosford

You know, we're pretty cool and all that, but we don't have bilateral agreements with over one hundred thousand nations, nor did we have individual agreements with all twenty-some thousand UN nations.

Obviously, nations where previous agreements existed, we can go back to those agreements with minimal difficulty. So, yes, previous agreements will take care of... oh... twenty nations? One hundred tops. That still leaves thousands of nations.

Are you really having such agreements with everyone in the UN before the passing of “UN Patent Law”? It is very hard to believe in this. Actually, I don’t think that even the economically powerful nation like yours have the ability to trade with such great number of nations.


But, as has been mentioned before by others, this really just screws the little guy. Economicpowerhousestan probably already has an agreement with us. Economicdisasterstan... not so much.

Simply use the same type of agreements that you are using with the others. Most of the economically weak nations will agree on anything to not lose the trade with you, so there is no need in long negotiations.


I'm going to assume that "are" was superfluous.

Thank you for correcting my mistake


I was waiting to hear this, really. Blah blah blah, you don't trade with us. Chances are, you're still using medicine we've developed that's filtered to you, and it's very likely that technological advancements we've made are used in your nation, seeing as how we are a world leader in that field.

Actually, now that I think about it, you probably just stole our shit. Damn commies.

Of course we are using the technologies created in your nation. We just wait before you stop protecting them and then using them. With such approach we can carefully research all side effects of the new technologies and then choose what we really want to use.

Doctor Denis Leary
Capitalist Pig-Dog
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I’m sorry if my previous words is insulted you. Citenka just can’t allow itself economic dependence on the nations with adamantly pro-market policies. This will be the betrayal of our ideals.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Are you really having such agreements with everyone in the UN before the passing of “UN Patent Law”?No, of course not. I never claimed that we traded with every nation in the world, or every nation in the UN. We do however trade with nations in the UN that don't have previously existing trade arrangements with. Hell, there's quite a few nations that didn't exist prior to the passage of this resolution that we trade with. It's a dynamic world.

Simply use the same type of agreements that you are using with the others.Not all nations are the same. And treaties take time to pass, you know.

Most of the economically weak nations will agree on anything to not lose the trade with you, so there is no need in long negotiations.True. But they aren't a priority, now are they? We're evil capitalists, remember?

I’m sorry if my previous words is insulted you.I wasn't insulted in the slightest. I'm proud of being a capitalist.

Citenka just can’t allow itself economic dependence on the nations with adamantly pro-market policies. This will be the betrayal of our ideals.Amusingly enough, the Hack was formed from the rubble of a communist nation.


Doctor Denis Leary
Vive the Corporate Rebellion!
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Amusingly enough, the Hack was formed from the rubble of a communist nation.

Rubble of communist nations...tends to be a lot of that.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The resolution is not written properly, how can we expect the outcome to be any better if the document is not written to UN standards.

A vote for this Document is a vote against national security, business, and national pride.

Technically, nobody has a right to patent anything. After all, let look at the idea of the medience.

You rely on the knowledge of medical experts...but, wait, you are stealing their ideas. You have to patent them, and you have to ban the medience, since he is stealing from them! But those ideas were made by other ideas, and they stole those ideas, so...well, everything has to be patented, and therefore, no innvoation happens at all, since nobody really owes everything (they steal information to make the invention...and stealing is wrong).

I have to say it.

Calling it Commie junk? Of course it is, Karl Marx came up with this idea against patents. Luckily, we're Socialist, and therefore for patents.

Totally off-topic...but who saw the proposal "Attack the Sun!" proposed by MoltenRobots?

Hilarious, and I so wish it had come to vote!

We need more pictures of Tarquin...

Totally off-topic...but who saw the proposal "Attack the Sun!" proposed by MoltenRobots?

Hilarious, and I so wish it had come to vote!

OOC: We have a separate thread on silly proposals, y'know...

The resolution Repeal "UN Patent Law" was passed 6,336 votes to 4,660.
We'd support almost any replacement that doesn't involve its sponsor playing the rusty violin until I want to vomit dying babies.

-- George Madison
Director of Unpleasant Imagery
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

On "Earth" or in science fiction terms sometimes referred to as "Terra" there is a country called South Africa. Despite the pharmaceutical companies that would have denied this nation cheap access to combination therapy drugs to help combat Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) this nation on "Earth" decided that eff this, we have more money and influence than a lot of "African" nations ( Africa being a continent, very poor for the most part on "Earth") and "South Africa" had access to the technology and the drug production methods, despite patents and other nations' companies insisting that many people die much earlier because "South Africa" did not have the money to treat some millions with this disease.

This nation did so...used the technology, "illegally".

And...

The pharmaceutical companies on this world were forced to back down in the face of international pressure. The companies had to accept that people were dying, and the international community did not accept that pharma-profits came before untold lives. On this fictional planet, generic production of these drugs became de rigueur for any nation with balls (or ovaries) who dared to tell these companies that human lives came first, not patents.

I voted yes, for this repeal, in the hope that in our world, compassion and respect for life be upheld. I look forward to the alternate resolution, allowing much-needed drugs be available to our poorer nations.

Iain. (Minyos - International Communist Union UN Delegate, Defense/Foreign Minister, World Left Wing Alliance [WLWA] Global Moderator)

Thank you for giving your support to this repeal, comrade.

Now, when this repeal was passed, my government expresses his sincere gratitude to everyone who supported it, and especially to the government of Kelssek for the writing and tirelessly advocating it.

True. But they aren't a priority, now are they? We're evil capitalists, remember?

How sad that your capitalists choose to be evil. I’m hope that someday they will understand how much better it is to be good.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Thank you for giving your support to this repeal, comrade.

Now, when this repeal was passed, my government express his sincere gratitude to everyone who supported it, and especially to the government of Kelssek for the writing and tirelessly advocating it.



How sad that your capitalists choose to be evil. I’m hope that someday they will understand how much better it is to be good.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

After compiling much research, I have come to the conclusion that communists do not possess the ability to detect sarcasm.

We think it's because they can't afford any humour books or cable television, but we're not sure. I'm still doing research, although it's hard to conduct studies when people steal your shoes while you sleep.

Amin Al-Satal
Ph.D
Advisor

After compiling much research, I have come to the conclusion that communists do not possess the ability to detect sarcasm.

Some capitalists also have the same problem, sadly. :rolleyes:

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Some capitalists also have the same problem, sadly. :rolleyes:

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Oh no, I think you're a bit mistaken. I had my sarcasm bladder removed when I was a teenager.

You did mean me, didn't you? I can't tell, on account of, y'know, the bladder and all...

Amin Al-Satal
etc.

I voted yes, for this repeal, in the hope that in our world, compassion and respect for life be upheld. I look forward to the alternate resolution, allowing much-needed drugs be available to our poorer nations.

I too am a poor and new nation, with my economy Developing. I was part of the developing world, a Socialist nation.

As soon as the repeal passes...my Economy has dropped from Developing...to Weak. You made my poor nation more poorer, meaning we can't afford any drugs, pirated or not. You have harmed the poor person more than you harmed the rich capitalist. You have accidently harmed me...

I want a resolution back on the books, but provide an exemptions for much-needed drugs. Just add in banning patents on drugs. Whatever, get a law back on the book to stop the pirates...and rebuild my economy.

Oh no, I think you're a bit mistaken. I had my sarcasm bladder removed when I was a teenager.

You did mean me, didn't you? I can't tell, on account of, y'know, the bladder and all...

Amin Al-Satal
etc.

Oh, I’m so sorry. I didn’t know about this. Please, accept my the most sincere apologies, Dr. Al-Satal.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Some capitalists also have the same problem, sadly. :rolleyes:

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

It is perhaps a flaw in the medium (text).
:)

Your economy plummeted? Well, that's a shock. It was pretty much the goal of the author of the repeal and its supporters to drag us all closer to poverty. Only once we are all poor will we all be equal, comrade.

Or some sorta communist garbage like that.

Now, the Cluichstani economy is large enough to take a hit like this (hell, CPESL alone is large enough to take this kinda hit, though not happily, so I think some assassainations can be expected), but what about you poor saps who, like those in SilentScope001, saw your economies drop into the "weak" category, or even worse? Happy now? No? Not happy? Well, take it up with the nation of Kelssek and those nations that supported this pinko piece of trash.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Your economy plummeted? Well, that's a shock. It was pretty much the goal of the author of the repeal and its supporters to drag us all closer to poverty. Only once we are all poor will we all be equal, comrade.

Or some sorta communist garbage like that.

There is a difference between economic wealth and quality of life. I can understand my comrade's view that if everyone has the right to different inventions, then the quaility of life improves, as everyone has access to pirated stuff legally.

Of course, economic wealth is tied directly to quailty of life as well, which means that poverty will make it harder for my people to live.


Now, the Cluichstani economy is large enough to take a hit like this (hell, CPESL alone is large enough to take this kinda hit, though not happily, so I think some assassainations can be expected), but what about you poor saps who, like those in SilentScope001, saw your economies drop into the "weak" category, or even worse? Happy now? No? Not happy? Well, take it up with the nation of Kelssek and those nations that supported this pinko piece of trash.


I do think that repeals only remove most of the effect of the previous resolution, some residual remains. So, not all of the economic damage of the Resolution that you predicted will occur. If a new resolution is passed, we can recover from the Weak economy and in fact recover some extra economic growth.

Still, this means that we need to introduce a new resolution as soon as possible, prehaps leaving exemptions to drugs to sastify the socialists that you de-ride. They still are a part of the UN as well, and if you go and give them the drug exemption, you can get them to back off from this resolution and keep my country and other socialist countries from being harmed by our own comrades. Or at least get rid of most of the momentum that leads to the passing of this repeal...leading a few nations remaining who will be isolated from the international community.

Bessy lows angrily at the vote count result: "Mooo!!"

Just then, Sammy appears beside her to relieve her: "Were you a good girl, Bessy?" he asks, patting her.

"Moo."

"No? What did you do?"

"Moo."

"Hey! That's not very nice. I mean, he may be an insufferable gasbag, but that's no reason to kick him! Now you apologize!"

Bessy turns to Amb. Lattener and gives him a compliant "moo."

"There's a good Bessy! Now go with Ace and Rico; they're gonna take you to the Strangers' Bar for some hay! Go on!"

More mooing and hoof-clopping and a clanging cowbell can be heard as the Kennyite special envoy is led out of the General Assembly hall. Sammy stays behind for a moment.

"And I just wanted to congratulate you all for the Workers' Revolution you pulled here today! Viva la Revolucion! Viva!" He raises a defiant fist to his colleagues, smiling insolently at the Kelssekan delegation.

As promised, the Hack is officially suspending all transports of, well, most everything still under patent to all UN nations starting... now. We'll start sifting through our databases to find those of you where previously existing treaties will allow for temporary shipments until we can get real agreements in place. Or until some semblance of sanity returns to this body.


Rubble of communist nations...tends to be a lot of that.Well, yeah. Of course, we helped to create that rubble, but the Union was pretty damn commie. Did you know we got our name from the opening attack in the Corporate Rebellion? Yup. Fascinating stuff.


How sad that your capitalists choose to be evil. I’m hope that someday they will understand how much better it is to be good.Sigh. See above about sarcasm.

Then again, since we value rewarding people for their hard work, you'd probably still consider us evil.


We think it's because they can't afford any humour books or cable television, but we're not sure.Probably the government blocks. Can't have people saying anything other than the party line, after all.


Now, the Cluichstani economy is large enough to take a hit like this...Oh, that reminds me, Sheik... seems we won't have to be suspending your shipments. Seems somebody signed some treaties somewhere about the time we obtained observer status in DEFCON. Indeed, it looks like most DEFCON members will simply have a slight hiccup in their shipments of various... things.

And, aparently, CSPEL had it's own agreement, so they won't even have a hiccup. How the hell did that happen?

Ahem. Anyway. The rest of you are gonna have to wait.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Oh, that reminds me, Sheik... seems we won't have to be suspending your shipments. Seems somebody signed some treaties somewhere about the time we obtained observer status in DEFCON. Indeed, it looks like most DEFCON members will simply have a slight hiccup in their shipments of various... things.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Another victory for DEFCON!

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

As promised, the Hack is officially suspending all transports of, well, most everything still under patent to all UN nations starting... now. We'll start sifting through our databases to find those of you where previously existing treaties will allow for temporary shipments until we can get real agreements in place. Or until some semblance of sanity returns to this body.

Why not let the private sector decide if they want to continue to ship Flubbies to Mikitivity?

Why not let the private sector decide if they want to continue to ship Flubbies to Mikitivity?They have. It's easier for me to give an umbrella statement then to parade thousands of business owners through the UN building to say the same thing. And remember the structure of the Hack. There isn't a government per se anyway, so I pretty much have to be speaking for industry.

So, yes, there may be a couple widget companies that will continue shipments, but in general, shipments from the Hack have been suspended. Sheej.


Doctor Denis Leary
Etc.
Etc.

Sigh. See above about sarcasm.

OOC: Now I see why you are using this smilies. Because remark of the Hack was so obviously sarcastic I’m wrongly considered that my strange answer will be considered sarcastic even without the smilie. Sorry for this misunderstanding, everyone. In the future I will always use smilies with jokes.

"Ah, George: do take a seat." George Madison pulled up a chair a little uncertainly, and sat down across from his ambassador, Coriolanus Digweed.

"The Quintessential Congress is extremely troubled by the passage of this repeal."

"Yes, I think we all are. What are they going to do? Anything?"

"Absolutely. Several Committees have worked together to produce a resolution that was voted in by special session this morning."

"Excellent. Are we temporarily suspending our UN membership?"

"No."

"We're dispatching a team of IP lawyers to draft a replacement."

"No."

"So...we're going to preemptively boycott nations we suspect of -"

"No."

"What exactly does the resolution say, then?"

"It notes with deep concern the passage of the repeal."

"Yes."

Digweed studied his director thoughtfully.

"Wait...that's it?"

"Oh, I think there are a few appropriations amendments, but yes, that the jist of it."

"We're responding to this potentially recession-inducing international crisis by passing a motion of concern?"

"'motion of concern', that's what the damn thing's called!" Digweed looked very pleased with himself for a moment; Madison continued not to, and stood to leave.

"I'll have the latest draft of our proposal later, sir."

Outside the office, he passed a uniformed officer and a bunch of Quodite flags. Patriotic music played from the secretary's radio.

"I hate this fucking country."

Might I recommend to the distinguished ladies and gentlebeings of this esteemed body...

Oh to hell with the polite language!

All shipments of Schwarzchilder products ceases today until new agreements are in place, but we have a special export for Kelssek starting today. I've been needing a new dumping ground for my nation's garbage, I have found an eligible candidate. I suggest we all follow suit with it.

Imagine all of the lovely aircraft flying overhead dropping bags of easily torn garbage onto the nation of Kelssek's government center, ah, bombing him with last week's banana peels and other rubbish that is at the peak of it's ripeness and vile smell, and it couldn't be simpler, keep sending enough aircraft with loads of rubbish and his air force won't be able to intercept or handle the incoming influx.

No bombs, just the rubbish he so richly deserves.

So let's see what this POS of a repeal has done for Retired Werepenguins.

GDP Per capita down from 30K Tokens to 24K Tokens. (-20%)
Unenployment up from under 5% to 7.36% (+47%)
Exchange rate devistated from T$1 = NS$1.38 to T$1 = NS$1.08 (-15%)

Death and Destruction's "I got me my holy hammer" went from #1 in the pop charts to #5. (Wait this wasn't related to the UN resolution ... nevermind)

Needless to say that since the repeal did not in any manner whatsoever increase our taxes you won't see any cries in our congressional council to go to war over this. (The anti-Tax party is exceptionally popular ... followed by the "sexy sushi" party.) However I have been informed that all UN patents formerly owned by nationals of the nation of Kelssek has now been locally registered under the name of Faithful Navigator Marian Red. Redcorp expects to start producing these products within the month. We would also remind the body that any future UN pattent law would apply only to new pattents and not to existing ones.

Might I recommend to the distinguished ladies and gentlebeings of this esteemed body...

Oh to hell with the polite language!

No bombs, just the rubbish he so richly deserves.

For authoring a repeal that was voted by a 58% margin? My government voted against the repeal but holds nothing but respect for the people (and representatives) of Kelssek.

But we still are worried that the private industry in the Hack might try to use this repeal as an excuse to mark up Flubbies.

Thing is, according to UN politics, unless a resolution REALLY is bad, you are likely to get people that vote AGREE for anything they read. It's known as the "fluffy vote". It's basically a tyranny by the 'fluffies', who are known for not being...as well-informed about the debates that occur in this Hall.

Due to the fact that the body changes constantly, and what is popular now may be hated 1 year later by a different population of UN nations that votes, it seems democracy has no true role in the UN.

(EDIT: Oh, and it's also not a true democracy due to the delegate system. If you become regional delegate, you get a ton of votes that can aid you in voting down resolutions. A majority of nations may vote for a resolution, but if a majority of regional delgates with tons of endorsments, they can vote down a resolution. Seen it happen before, and seen many people scream about how the UN wasn't democratic.)

(EDIT: Oh, and it's also not a true democracy due to the delegate system. If you become regional delegate, you get a ton of votes that can aid you in voting down resolutions. A majority of nations may vote for a resolution, but if a majority of regional delgates with tons of endorsments, they can vote down a resolution. Seen it happen before, and seen many people scream about how the UN wasn't democratic.)

OOC: It is still democratic. Democracy does not mean one person, one vote. It does not even mean "equal" votes or direct votes. The easiest example is the United States: you vote for a Representative, a Senator, and shockingly an elector (not a President). Your Representative will usually have much less influence than your Senator, but your Senator is less likely to take an interest in your requests. Your President is not going to pay you any attention and isn't even elected by the people ... instead each state has different laws instructing the electors how to vote. In some states, the electors can do whatever they want after the popular election, but there is a recent historical example of a US President being elected without receiving over 50% of the popular vote. This does not disqualify the United States from being a democracy ... it just means that somebody in a "Red" state has more influence than somebody in a "Blue" state.

OOC: It is still democratic. Democracy does not mean one person, one vote. It does not even mean "equal" votes or direct votes. The easiest example is the United States: you vote for a Representative, a Senator, and shockingly an elector (not a President). Your Representative will usually have much less influence than your Senator, but your Senator is less likely to take an interest in your requests. Your President is not going to pay you any attention and isn't even elected by the people ... instead each state has different laws instructing the electors how to vote. In some states, the electors can do whatever they want after the popular election, but there is a recent historical example of a US President being elected without receiving over 50% of the popular vote. This does not disqualify the United States from being a democracy ... it just means that somebody in a "Red" state has more influence than somebody in a "Blue" state.

OOC: The USA isn't a democracy. It's a Representative Republic. The Congress is elected democratically. And AFAIK, the electors do vote the way their constituents want, but because the number of electors isn't quite in proportion of the number of voters (small states have more influence than their numbers justify), a President can lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote *cough*2000*cough*

It's similar with the NSUN. The nations get one vote, but the Delegates (elected democratically) represent the whole region, so they get extra votes, which can cause the same situation as with the Presidential election.

OOC: It is still democratic. Democracy does not mean one person, one vote. It does not even mean "equal" votes or direct votes. The easiest example is the United States: you vote for a Representative, a Senator, and shockingly an elector (not a President). Your Representative will usually have much less influence than your Senator, but your Senator is less likely to take an interest in your requests. Your President is not going to pay you any attention and isn't even elected by the people ... instead each state has different laws instructing the electors how to vote. In some states, the electors can do whatever they want after the popular election, but there is a recent historical example of a US President being elected without receiving over 50% of the popular vote. This does not disqualify the United States from being a democracy ... it just means that somebody in a "Red" state has more influence than somebody in a "Blue" state.

(OOC:

/sigh.

The United States was never a democracy. It is a republic. The difference?

In a democracy, the people vote on the issues. In the republic, the people perdiocally vote for politicians, and it is these politicians that vote on the issue. Some people usually say the US is a "represenative democracy", but for all intents and purposes, America is just a Republic.

Democracy means "rule by the people". Republic is simply, according to the Romans who invented it, the combination of three different government systems at the time: Aristocracy (senate), Monarchy (consuls), and Democracy (Tribunes). Nobody wanted democracy because of fear of mob-rule, so the Republic has been chosen. You could make an argument that the world is moving towards democracy, but it is still a Republic, with a democratic element [people voting], the Aristorcacy [the Senate that the people vote for], and the monarchy [The President].

It had to be said. And in the NSUN where many countries don't even vote for their governments, it is surely not fair to call it a "democracy" at all.)

OOC: ... This does not disqualify the United States from being a democracy ...OOC: A bit of nitpicking...the United States isn't a democracy, as rule of the majority isn't a foundational principle. As a republic it has certain democratic characteristics, but those aren't enough to make it a democracy.

IC:

The high whine of the General Assembly drew Leetha's attention from both her migraine and the communique from the Prime. The Rubinan economy seemed to be holding its own in light of the repeal. Good.

She was of a mind to rise to tell the Hack where they could put their poorly made plastic widgets and to remind the Schwarzchilder delegate that dumping garbage on the Kelsseks would be childish, an act of war and violative of several environmental resolutions in one fell swoop.

But honestly, what good would it do? Better to snag a drink and get some sleep before the next kerfluffle breaks out on the floor.

OOC: A bit of nitpicking...the United States isn't a democracy, as rule of the majority isn't a foundational principle. As a republic it has certain democratic characteristics, but those aren't enough to make it a democracy.


OOC: Democracies need not have direct representation.

This is an age old debate, which is in part screwed up by games like Sid Meier's Civilization I, II, and III -- Sid got it wrong and continues to mess it up, but please read Wiki's discussion on the topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#.22Democracy.22_and__.22Republic.22). Basically the way the terms are used today and not by Plato from so many years ago, is a "Republic" is a democracy in which the head of state is elected, while other democracies (England for example) exist without their head of state being elected.

I'm pulling this out of my Random House Dictionary:
"government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

This is relevant to NationStates *because* UN Delegates might have additional UN votes, but that is because as UN Members we *choose* to give or not give those additional votes to our UN Delegates. Few people realize that you can unendorse your UN Delegate at any time. If you were to unendorse your UN Delegate (on the grounds that he/she did not vote the way you wanted) hours prior to the close of the UN vote, his/her influence (number of votes) would decrease, and you'd be making a direct influence on the UN vote.

Let's say you are in a region where you are forced to endorse your UN Delegate and you want to claim that the UN is not democratic because you don't get to say how your UN Delegate votes ... suck it up and found a new region. Essentially the NSUN acts as a democracy. A weird one to be sure, but it even the moderators (the only people who could tweak things) don't screw with the system. It is coded to be a democracy and only a few times have server crashes interrupted the process.

Now in real life, California and Switzerland are said to be direct democracies, because not only can citizens of both places elect their leaders, but they also can: (1) remove them, and (2) write their own laws. In California we recently saw this happen when Governor Gray Davis was removed from office for gross incompetency (good thing too -- Davis was a boob) and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

OOC: (or in, not sure there's a diff with this tangent :) )

We could play dueling definitions, for example, Miriam-Webster defines 'democracy' as "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority" and a republic as "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law" (second defintion; the first being merely a nonmonarchial, elected leader, which doesn't seem to get to the meat).

I adhere to the classic definition (as referenced in the Wikipedia article), if only because of the clarity. Common usage, which in this case allows liberal use of the term 'democracy' as descriptive of governments, isn't necessarily correct.

As it relates to NS, I totally agree. NS is structured as a democracy, no question. (I might even concede California. ;) )

This though was amusingUsing the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy, or to representative democracy without checks on the power of elected officials, retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles.Me? A conservative libertarian? Never in a brazillion years. :-D /threadjack

Never in a brazillion years. :-D /threadjack

That's a lot of bras.

(OOC: I'm pulling this out of my Random House Dictionary:
"government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

Representive Democracy is to me, the same as a Republic. Why? You elect your leaders. Then your leaders do whatever he wants.

So, if the people elected a President and then the President goes and fight the war, the people may love the President's policies and conserative stances, but may also dislike the President's war. But they can't vote against the war. They can't go and organize a Congress to get out of the war. They have to elect new leaders to get out of that war, but once they get elected, the leaders are unaccountable until the next election.

True democracy, is, to me, the Athenian/town hall form of democracy. 1 person, 1 vote, and where the mobs ruled the day. Is it pratical? Of course not. So, most "democracies" are actually Republics. But it is important, since it is not the people who decide what happens to a nation...it is the people's representive who decide what happens to a nation. And if that representive decides no longer to actually represent the people, well?

We'd just have to agree to disagree on this issue. And get off this topic.)