NationStates Jolt Archive

I held off on posting before because I have no time now, nor will I in the foreseeable future, to do the telegramming campaign which would be needed to get this to quorum. But since I did promise that I was working on a replacement, and since I don't want a draconian replacement authored by rabid right-wingers to pass on the basis of "we need this and there's no other alternative", here is my proposed replacement.

Subsection 3(3) is out of necessity a lift from Ceorana's repealed resolution. I would welcome any help rephrasing to avoid possible plagarism concerns.


WHEREAS the repeal of the UN Patent Law has left a gap in international patent legislation, and;

WHEREAS an international standard for patent recognition is desirable, and;

SEEKING to correct the inflexibilites of the UNPL while providing appropriate protection of patent rights, and;

REITERATING that the cost of a patent to society should not outweigh its benefits,

NOW THEREFORE, the United Nations enacts as follows:

1. (1) A United Nations Panel for International Patent Equivalence and Standards (UN PIPES) shall be created. UN PIPES shall have the authority to arbitrate international patent disputes and administer the framework for international recognition of patents.

(2) Member nations shall be responsible for administering and formulating domestic patent law and are not required have a domestic patent law, but will be required to recognise any patent granted under this resolution to a person or entity outside a nation's jurisdiction.

2. (1) A patent shall grant the owner the right, subject to the provisions of this resolution, to prevent third parties not having the owner's consent from making or selling the product.

(2) Patent owners shall also have the right to assign, or transfer by succession, the patent and to conclude licensing contracts.

(3) Any person or entity may submit an application for a patent to UN PIPES, which shall grant international recognition of the patent subject to the provisions of this resolution. Patents shall be recognised by all member nations for a period of not more than 17 years, after which the invention shall be free for all to use.

3. (1) Patents shall be available for any new innovations in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application.

(2) A patent application must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out.

(3) Patents shall not be granted for:

a) any innovation which is already in use;
b) computer code, information, or any non-tangible product;
c) plants, animals, micro-organisms, or any biological process;
d) specific designs for inventions, although a specific design must be covered in the patent;
e) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals, including any procedures to allow it to be carried out safely;

(4) Patents registered under the former United Nations Patent Registry shall be automatically granted international recognition by UN PIPES.

4. (1) Governments may compel a patent owner to provide a compulsory licence for the manufacture and sale of any product within that nation. UN PIPES shall set appropriate compensation for the patent owner, taking into account the circumstances of the action, the value of the invention, and the actual loss suffered by the patent owner, which shall not include lost sales due to the inability of persons to access the product for reasons only of price or inadequate distribution, but shall include any unfair profit gained from the compulsory licence.

(2) A person or entity who has made substantial modifications to a patented innovation which improves or expands upon its functions, but who is unable to secure an agreement with the patent owner, may apply to UN PIPES, which may grant a compulsory licence and award the original patent owner a portion of the earnings from the development, taking into account the degree of improvement and modification made to the original patent.

5. Member nations may provide exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, while also taking into account the legitimate interests of third parties.

1. Is it really necessarily to play the 'draconian...rabid right-wingers' card so early? People can disagree with you and still have red, rather than black, blood flowing through their veins.

2. I don't know a vast amount about patents, but isn't the basic idea that they function as incentives? In which case, have you not just completely destroyed the incentive to produce medicine? (And, given the national sovereignty arguments made at time of repeal, is not now enforcing that on a UN-wide basis just a little hypocritical?).

3. To the representative of Zyrwick, we don't accept this is a simple case of BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY EXTERMINATE RRRRRRRRRRRRR.

4. The qualifier in clause 5 would seem to give governments enough leeway they can override patent rights in almost any case. Given this is obviously the point of your proposal, why not make it a bit more explicit?

-- George Madison
Ambassador to the UN
Quintessence of Dust

3. To the representative of Zyrwick, we don't accept this is a simple case of BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY EXTERMINATE RRRRRRRRRRRRR.


Actually we think that Ambassador Madison might be surprised by our thoughts on this subject.

While the Democratic Republic does not have a patent law, inventions and process improvements are considered National communal property, just like all other property is considered National/Regional/or Soviet communal Property with the exception of consumable goods. However, we do see the need for this resolution for those nations with patent laws.

Thus far I have two nits to pick, and one issue of substance. We will deal with the issue of substance.

(3) Any person or entity may submit an application for a patent to UN PIPES, which shall grant international recognition of the patent subject to the provisions of this resolution. Patents shall be recognized by all member nations for a period of not more than 17 years, after which the invention shall be free for all to use.


Section 2.3 should have the "not more than 17 years," revised to "not more than 10 years," If an invention is so world changing that it brings about a whole new age, like say the steam and internal combustion engines did. We should want this technology to not be hampered from international production on a large scale for nearly 20 years, by which time it is possible for the technology to become obsolete--particularly if one is dealing with electronic hardware.

By having a patent internationally effective so long it could have the consequence that the more backward nations never get a chance to catch up to the more advanced ones.

3. (1) Patents shall be available for any new innovations in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application.



Our suggestion would be to change section 3.1 to read:

3. (1) Patents shall be available for any new innovations in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial and/or commercial application.

In the mythical land of the real world the mythical McDonald's Corporation actually holds patents on their hamburger production processes. In fact this patent is so important to them that signing a employee-employer agreement to not discuss, or reveal this process to an outside entity is a requirement of employment. I would call that commercial rather than industrial in nature. But I could be wrong as it deals with production. It depends on how the GA decides to define industrial really.


1. (2) Member nations shall be responsible for administering and formulating domestic patent law and are not required have a domestic patent law, but will be required to recognize any patent granted under this resolution to a person or entity outside a nation's jurisdiction.


I don't know of its possible. But to section 1.2 I would like to add the following sentence:

Provided that the outside person or entity is required to reciprocate patent recognition either under the basis of their home country's national law or under this resolution.

Other than that....as long as it doesn't conflict with any other resolutions I say go for it.

...and since I don't want a draconian replacement authored by rabid right-wingers to pass...That cinches it for me: unalterably opposed.

Nice going, slim.

Kenny...I didnt like the rabid comment either. I'm not a right winger as you know. But I'm definately rabid.

Too bad this thing might actually be necessary, but unfortunately I cant come up with a National Sovereignty argument against it if my suggestions are implimented. Particualarly with the patent recognition.

Hopefully after this is been nicely drafted, not that it isnt already good work, I can go back to foaming at the mouth, and chewing the carpet.

That cinches it for me: unalterably opposed.

Nice going, slim.

We agree for this and other reasons, though I'm not going to scream "NatSov!"

~Dr. Jules Hodz

I'm not a patent expert, but I was under the impression that patents applied to processes, not products. If that's true, a fair bit of the language of the proposal needs changing, even if the intent's still sound. All the same, I have a few points to bring up.

I can't believe I'm saying this of a loophole I'd want to exploit, but 2(3) is insufficient as is. All it requires is that we accept international patents as having force for not more than 17 years. The way it's phrased implies that we could, as individual nations, decide that international patents had force for (say) five minutes, or something equally ridiculous.

I'd also like 3(1) to be more forthright about newness. I'd like it written in that reasonable efforts must be made to ascertain that the patent is new, of the level that most responsible national patent offices undertake as a matter of course. I'm uncomfortably aware that there are more than a few patent offices out there that pass anything to come in front of them without doing any kind of search whatsoever. Equally, there needs to be some allowance for overturning a patent if prior art is found.

I have to agree that 5 is very unclear. Either it means nations can ignore any bit of the resolution that they fancy, or it means that they can change anything they like so long as they don't change anything!

By having a patent internationally effective so long it could have the consequence that the more backward nations never get a chance to catch up to the more advanced ones.
Congratulations, you have just spotted the raison d'etre of international patents!

Strongly opposed to this commie bilge. Medicine is just another industry, and exempting it from patents is unacceptable. And Clause 5 just renders the whole thing even more useless.


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

That cinches it for me: unalterably opposed.

Nice going, slim.

Why yes Kenny, the whole point of my campaigning for the repeal of the old resolution was so something stricter and even more restrictive could be put in place.

Now, if I were willing to drop section 5, or add "notwithstanding the provisions of section 4" to it, would there be more support?

Why yes Kenny, the whole point of my campaigning for the repeal of the old resolution was so something stricter and even more restrictive could be put in place.

Now, if I were willing to drop section 5, or add "notwithstanding the provisions of section 4" to it, would there be more support?

No. And probably not for Kenny either, what with "unalterably opposed" and all.

Congratulations, you have just spotted the raison d'etre of international patents!


Actually that wasn't my understanding of the intent of patents. It may be a consequence of having patents but not the intended reasoning behind them.

As I understand it Patents are common in countries with capitalist economies and the idea is to allow the inventor to be able to make a profit off of his/her invention before anyone else gets to.

True this is unfair. But Capitalism by its very nature is unfair. Should a international patent law go into effect Zyrwick would change its intellectual property laws to grant the National Government the patents which it would hold.

Our objection was to the overly long period of time that this current draft grants the international patent. We figure 10 years should be sufficient for the inventor to remake his money invested and make a small surplus value.

Also should the technology be ground breaking we would want it to be implemented world wide as soon as possible.

For example lets hypothetically say that global warming exists (which as you know on NS anyway thats a debatable issue) Someone in country X invents a method to produce hydrogen for fuel very very very cheaply and with little energy input, possibly using a renewable such as solar or wind power.

Would it not then be in the interests of the sentient beings residing on the planet to implement this technology as soon as possible?

I further would like everyone to know that we do see a need for patent legislation possibly. However on this particular one we will probably abstain unless we become firmly convinced that this is the right and appropriate way to address this issue.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

No.
He's probably going to need you to explain why not.

But since I did promise that I was working on a replacement, and since I don't want a draconian replacement authored by rabid right-wingers to pass on the basis of "we need this and there's no other alternative", here is my proposed replacement.

It's fun to see the "rabid right-wingers," (and who would have thought the rabid left-wingers would join them) not only pull a portion of a quote out of context but pull wrong portion of a quote out of context.

After due consideration I find I have a lot of minor problems with the resolution. There is plenty that is covered by the clause 3(e) by the way that probably should not be excluded. I think the exclusion of therapeutic methods might be somewhat broad, new methods for the speedy recovery of patients might not be persued because of the lack of potential benefit to those who have to do the work and research.

I'm at a loss to see what the Medicine problem is in this resolution. Generally speaking the medicine problem involves nations that want to manufacture medicine not because the pattent owner does not want to give them the medicine but because they are too cheep to actually pay the patent owner his proper royalty. Clause 4(1) clearly shows that you can't do that under this resolution as the committee will assign the proper "compensation for the patent owner, taking into account the circumstances of the action, the value of the invention, and the actual loss suffered by the patent owner, which shall not include lost sales due to the inability of persons to access the product for reasons only of price or inadequate distribution, but shall include any unfair profit gained from the compulsory licence."

Given minor modifications to this resolution, I can't see a good reason not to suport it. In fact it's kind of fun to see who starts jumping up and down with the words "rabid right-wingers." Even more so when the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny takes the bait, hook, line and sinker.

OOC:

While respect our Colleague's opinion about some nations being too cheap to pay the inventor of a drug his proper royalty which in some cases is true. There comes a time to divide the needs of the many from the needs of the multitude.

I have posted this out of character for this very reason, and perhaps it will be an explanation as to why we do not yet how we should vote. Half of our delegation is in favor, half opposed. And we wont really know until the the nitty comes to the gritty on this issue because of a Real Life issue.

In the Real world the problem with drugs becomes evident especially with aids. My nephew was a hemophiliac (a bleeder and contracted that disease from a blood transfusion) and had to take many drugs to combat aids.

Now aids is prevalent in the third world in Real Life. Many of the corporate originators of the drugs that fight this disease want to charge royalties that are exorbitant in comparison to what these third world nations can afford to pay.

Brazil stepped up to the challenge and was willing to produce the drugs and distribute them at low cost to combat aids world wide, but refused to pay the royalties to the American drug companies that developed them.

Considering that aids is a terrible disease, Ive seen its effects first hand, would it not be beneficial then to have a UN committee to determine that if a nation cannot afford to pay the standard royalty, but the need for a drug or product is so great that a more affordable licensing fee be given.

I would like to believe that this draft would be able to provide this...but if it does not, we should consider adding it to the responsibility of the UN committee competent to deal with this matter.

And probably not for Kenny either, what with "unalterably opposed" and all.Kenny can speak for himself, thank you very much.

I'm at a loss to see what the Medicine problem is in this resolution.
That they can't be patented at all, genius? 4.1 covers compensation for a patent owner; 3.e states that medical innovations can't be patented, so there is no patent owner to compensate.

That they can't be patented at all, genius? 4.1 covers compensation for a patent owner; 3.e states that medical innovations can't be patented, so there is no patent owner to compensate.

That isnt how we read section 3.e

e) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals, including any procedures to allow it to be carried out safely;


As we undertand this language it does not cover drugs which are chemical compounds. It should do so spacificly, even though we know we will hear arugments that theraputic methods do cover drugs.

So then it is possible that a drug, a chemical compound, can indeed be patented. In reguard to medicine that is our main complaint. If drugs were not allowed to be patented advancements, medical drugs could pass from country to country freely as needed by each nation.

Perhaps for clairity 3.e should read.

e) diagnostic, therapeutic, pharmacological and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals, including any procedures to allow it to be carried out safely;

Believe it or not that part is a meld of the now-repealed resolution and the TRIPS treaty - which evidently does not cover medications or we wouldn't even be talking about this issue. "Methods" covers things like surgical techniques, ways of stuffing a person into an MRI machine, etc.

OOC:

While respect our Colleague's opinion about some nations being too cheap to pay the inventor of a drug his proper royalty which in some cases is true. There comes a time to divide the needs of the many from the needs of the multitude.



I expect that nations that own a great deal of patents will use this resolution as a template for national law, reading all the conditional clauses as mandatory, and requiring trade partners to do so as well.

Destitute nations, ravaged by disease, are likely to interprate every optional clause unnecessary, and effectively non comply with the resolution in some way such that they don't pay much money for patent law. I expect such nations will have trouble finding trading partners, but they'll have a good chance to pull themselves up by their own boot straps in the fashion that "rabid right wingers" love so much.

The resolution standardizes patent law, in nations that choose to fully implement it. I'd be happy if that was even clearly stated, "this resolution is designed to encourage an international patent standard" or some such.

In the interest of full disclosure though, our nation is in favor of never replacing the UN patent law. We'd much rather limit all IP law to a 2 year duration. We'd implement that gradualy, every 2 years reducing any IP laws effective duration by 2 years.

This seems like an issue countries should decide on their own. According to the ideals of the countries government not the United Nations. This issue is not ours to decide.

This seems like an issue countries should decide on their own. According to the ideals of the countries government not the United Nations. This issue is not ours to decide.

This is a non-starter of an argument here. The UN decides what the UN decides it wants to decide. This may be your nation's opinion, but it's not fact. Feel free to join one of the national sovereignty groups around here, but please don't waste our time with these posts if that's your only argument. It won't fly.

In my opinion, both 3(c) and 3(e) are inappropriate. 3(e) has already been discussed, so I'll focus on 3(c). To quote, it completely exempts 'plants, animals, micro-organisms, or any biological process', however, some countries are sufficiently scientifically advanced to create beings, such as custom-made animals and plants. These should not be exempted from patent law, nor the processes necessary to create such things.

Although it should be noted that my queen is opposed to such creations in the first place, in international affairs, I'm allowed to work with reality.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

We agree with the inclusion of (3)(c), not arbitrarily, but because if it can reproduce on its own (which is a characteristic of many living organisms) you would end up with the sticky situation of having it violate its own patent through reproduction. Not to mention that if it has life on its own, it has a right to a certain degree of liberty not afforded while patented.

Malcolm K. Pratt
Interim Secretary to the United Nations

This is a non-starter of an argument here. The UN decides what the UN decides it wants to decide. This may be your nation's opinion, but it's not fact. Feel free to join one of the national sovereignty groups around here, but please don't waste our time with these posts if that's your only argument. It won't fly.

Did I say it was fact? I meant "should not" be ours to decide. My opinion is that we have no business settling a problem that can easily be solved individualy. I think this is an issue to small to concern us. Bottom line, I just don't think it's important enough.

Did I say it was fact? I meant "should not" be ours to decide. My opinion is that we have no business settling a problem that can easily be solved individualy. I think this is an issue to small to concern us. Bottom line, I just don't think it's important enough.

My Colleague, you and your nation may not feel it important. However, I would think that if one of your nationals invented say a car that ran on water, and was without international patent. A Zyrwickian Industrial agent might for example smuggle in plans for the water powered car and we could immediately begin production of those vehicles--perhaps at a lower cost.

Would your automotive industry not then be effected? Would your people(s) not consider this theft of their intellectual property?

While we are primarily Sovereigntists in our ideology, the Democratic Republic of Zyrwick recognizes patents on inventions to be necessary on an international level. Where as for us they would be unnecessary on a national one. The Intellectual advancements of the People of the Democratic Republic of Zyrwick are their property, and any such international patents would be held by the National Government in our case, and by individual citizens in the cases of other nations.

We agree with the inclusion of (3)(c), not arbitrarily, but because if it can reproduce on its own (which is a characteristic of many living organisms) you would end up with the sticky situation of having it violate its own patent through reproduction. Not to mention that if it has life on its own, it has a right to a certain degree of liberty not afforded while patented.

Malcolm K. Pratt
Interim Secretary to the United Nations

A good thought, but in our experience, many created organisms are designed to be incapable of independent reproduction. But you do raise a valid point. Perhaps an additional note that states that creatures that reproduce are exempt from their own patents, but only for themselves?

Serifina Karin