[Complete][GA] At Vote: Foreign Patent Recognition

r3naissanc3r

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
Foreign Patent Recognition

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Railana | Resolution link | World Assembly forum thread​
Description: Recognizing that many World Assembly member states use patents to encourage scientific and technological innovation,

Further recognizing that the effectiveness of patents is substantially reduced when other member states fail to recognize them,

Believing that the international recognition of patents will incentivize the creation of new inventions throughout all member states while providing inventors with a fair reward for their labours,

The General Assembly,

Defines "invention", for the purposes of this resolution, as a device, method, composition or process that is useful, novel and nonobvious, even to others skilled in the same field;

Further defines "patent", for the purposes of this resolution, as the set of exclusive rights granted to the creator of an invention, including the right:

to use, manufacture, offer for sale and import or export the invention,

to sell or license any of these rights to others,

to seek an injunction and fair damages against any entity that infringes upon these rights, and

to extinguish any of these rights;

Further defines "foreign patent", for the purposes of this resolution, as any patent granted by another member state;

Mandates that each member state recognize the exclusive rights associated with foreign patents for a minimum of twenty years after the date on which the patent was granted, or the period used by the member state that granted the patent;

Authorizes member states to create reasonable limitations and exceptions to the exclusive rights associated with certain foreign patents when:

a substantially similar invention to the invention that is the subject of the foreign patent has been patented by a different inventor in a member state, and the date on which the substantially similar invention was first granted a patent by a member state is prior to the date on which the invention that is the subject of the foreign patent was first granted a patent by a member state,

the invention that is the subject of the foreign patent is not currently being exploited in that member state, and the inventor has no good faith plans to exploit the invention in that member state in the near future,

the member state in which the invention that is the subject of the foreign patent was first granted a patent did not release the relevant patent application in a timely manner, and

such limitations and exceptions are necessary to enforce any additional reasonable and appropriate patent regulations created by that member state, including but not limited to regulations regarding the interpretation of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution, so long as such regulations remain consistent with the object and purpose of this resolution;

Specifies that international intellectual property disputes, including but not limited to international disputes on copyrights, trademarks, or patents, constitute international trade disputes for the purposes of international law;

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as requiring member nations to recognize any patents other than foreign patents, nor any patent in respect of an invention that is itself in violation of regulations unrelated to patent law, such as health and safety standards for manufactured goods;

Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as limiting the World Assembly from further legislating on patents.
Please vote: For | Against | Abstain | Present

"Abstain" means that you wish for the Delegate to not vote on the resolution at all.
"Present" means that you effectively choose not to participate in this vote. "Present" has no effect on how the Delegate votes.

Posts which do not include an explicit and unambiguous vote are not counted in the tally.
 
Against. I don't like the time-span it requires to respect patents. It seems pretty focused on fields, such as pharmaceuticals, where a long amount of time goes between filing and release of the product. 20 years is a long time for some fields, especially when there are issues regarding monopolies.

Also, I'm slightly leery of anything Auralia/Railana does in the GA after the self-commendation stunt and their vigorous attempts to separate themselves from it. It really shouldn't have much bearing on my vote, but it bears noting that I, at least, have to consider ulterior motives with anything they produce. Take that as you will.
 
This goes to vote this major. It is the follow-up to a repeal we voted for back in October. The repeal was by the same author.

I am opposed to the proposal for blanket mandatory recognition of patents issued by other states. This allows for the creation of "patent troll states", if I may use a neologism, states that exist for the sole purpose of granting patents just to create trouble in the international community. It also allows for the creation of "patent haven" states, which attact innovators by liberally granting patents, while at the same time interfering with other states that have stricter regulations in place or follow different policies on intellectual property. Similarly, this clause can be exploited by states to cause harm on sectors of competitor states' economies.

Several nations in the NS forum have pointed out a particularly troubling aspect of the clause requiring mandatory recognition of patents granted by foreign states, namely that it is also mandatory to conform to the duration the patent is granted for in the foreign state (up to a minimum of 20 years). The period for which a patent is granted can vary considerably from state to state. It seems a vast overreach to require states to abandon the time periods they have adopted internally for patents and be forced to use those of other states.

For now, I am voting Against. I'd like to hear Separatist Peoples' and Kenny's thoughts on this. I also know that the author is watching vote threads in major regions, so he is welcome to post here - I'd like to hear his thoughts on the issues I raised.

EDIT: SP beat me to it :P .
 
I'm posting my thoughts too, although I'm basically echoing the thoughts of r3n and SP. :P

I'd also like to encourage you guys to vote against, as I feel that this is too much of a "one size fits all" policy. Item 4 in the resolution is my largest point of contention. Basically, no matter what your nation offers your own citizens for patent life, you'd have to offer at least a 20 year patent to foreign inventors (or less, if their home nation also has a lesser patent requirement).

There are certainly some situations where 20 year patent life is appropriate. As mentioned by others on the NS forums, and as I've seen in my own RL work, prescription medications have a 20 year patent life in the US. However, that patent starts from the second a potential prescription product is identified. By the time all the studies and testing have been completed, it's more common that 5 or less years of patent life remain. Given that there are so many potential medications that never make it to market (due to ineffectiveness, side effects, etc.) and the costs involved with all the associated studies, ensuring that companies that invest millions and millions of dollars in the R&D side have time to recoup those costs seems appropriate.

However, that same logic does not apply to everything that can possibly be patented - nor should it. If this proposal required member states to extend the same rights regarding patent rights to international applicants as they would to their own citizens, that would be logical. Decreeing that "20 years" is the minimum - unless the other member state has a lower minimum - seems a bit too arbitrary and random.

As a result, I encourage you guys to vote against this resolution. Thanks for letting me ramble on. :)
 
r3naissanc3r:
If you mean regulation for non-WA nations, I believe it is illegal for WA resolutions to do so.
Click to expand...
Aye. By rule, WA resolutions can only make mandates of WA member nations. It's possible to "invite non-WA member nations to participate" - but with this sort of resolution that's generally not worthwhile. Such efforts are usually more common for educational or health endeavors, but I'm sure those aren't the only examples that exist within WA legislation. (those are just the ones that I've written myself :P)
 
(Not voting.)

This is one of the best proposals the WA's had to vote on in the last year, and I admit to finding an utterly abject shame that TNP, the one feeder that always had a reputable record for WA involvement, is going to doom it to failure.
Also, I'm slightly leery of anything Auralia/Railana does in the GA after the self-commendation stunt and their vigorous attempts to separate themselves from it. It really shouldn't have much bearing on my vote,
Click to expand...
No, it shouldn't. But this is the problem with the modern WA: it seems to be all about the name on the proposal, not its content. So is there any point discussing the proposal at all? Or is it simply a done deal because of the author?
 
SP may have his issues with Auralia, but my vote and I believe the majority of the votes here have little to nothing to do with the author. I made a recommendation for his previous resolution, and we voted for it in-game as well.

My reasons for voting against can be found in the third post in this thread.
 
I'm not sure that that's true of all respondents, no, but I'll take yours on good faith.
I am opposed to the proposal for blanket mandatory recognition of patents issued by other states. This allows for the creation of "patent troll states", if I may use a neologism, states that exist for the sole purpose of granting patents just to create trouble in the international community. It also allows for the creation of "patent haven" states, which attact innovators by liberally granting patents, while at the same time interfering with other states that have stricter regulations in place or follow different policies on intellectual property. Similarly, this clause can be exploited by states to cause harm on sectors of competitor states' economies.
Click to expand...
Patent trolling isn't really possible under this resolution, at least not in the RL sense. The resolution permits limitations when:
the invention that is the subject of the foreign patent is not currently being exploited in that member state, and the inventor has no good faith plans to exploit the invention in that member state in the near future,
Click to expand...
Patent trolls don't have such plans. So limitations to prevent abuse can legally be created. And if they do have good faith plans to exploit the invention in that member state in the near future - then they meet no reasonable definition of being a patent troll in the first place.
Several nations in the NS forum have pointed out a particularly troubling aspect of the clause requiring mandatory recognition of patents granted by foreign states, namely that it is also mandatory to conform to the duration the patent is granted for in the foreign state (up to a minimum of 20 years). The period for which a patent is granted can vary considerably from state to state. It seems a vast overreach to require states to abandon the time periods they have adopted internally for patents and be forced to use those of other states.
Click to expand...
It was a considerably vaster overreach for the WA to mandate a universal patent length, as was the case with the recently repealed Charter! Yet without any regulation, states could infringe others' patents at will. Foreign patent recognition is the way that is most respectful of national sovereignty for both sides.

As to whether 20 years itself is reasonable I have no particular argument.
 
Separatist Peoples:
Against. I don't like the time-span it requires to respect patents. It seems pretty focused on fields, such as pharmaceuticals, where a long amount of time goes between filing and release of the product. 20 years is a long time for some fields, especially when there are issues regarding monopolies.
Click to expand...
20 year patent terms for all classes of inventions are the norm in RL, so I don't think it's unreasonable to repeat that in NS. And for what it's worth, clause 5(d) would probably be sufficient to suspend patent recognition for the purposes of enforcing competition laws.

r3naissanc3r:
I am opposed to the proposal for blanket mandatory recognition of patents issued by other states. This allows for the creation of "patent troll states", if I may use a neologism, states that exist for the sole purpose of granting patents just to create trouble in the international community. It also allows for the creation of "patent haven" states, which attact innovators by liberally granting patents, while at the same time interfering with other states that have stricter regulations in place or follow different policies on intellectual property. Similarly, this clause can be exploited by states to cause harm on sectors of competitor states' economies.
Click to expand...
Nations are specifically authorized under clause 5(d) of the resolution to refrain from recognizing foreign patents when they are improperly granted (i.e. when two nations' interpretations of clauses 1 and 2 differ). "Patent troll" or "patent haven" states shouldn't be a problem.

r3naissanc3r:
Several nations in the NS forum have pointed out a particularly troubling aspect of the clause requiring mandatory recognition of patents granted by foreign states, namely that it is also mandatory to conform to the duration the patent is granted for in the foreign state (up to a minimum of 20 years). The period for which a patent is granted can vary considerably from state to state. It seems a vast overreach to require states to abandon the time periods they have adopted internally for patents and be forced to use those of other states.
Click to expand...
To clarify, nations are required to required to recognize a foreign patent for the minimum of a) 20 years, or b) the period chosen by the member nation that granted the patent. In other words, the most time that a nation can be required to recognize a foreign patent is 20 years.

It's true that under this resolution, nations that normally grant patents for terms that are less than 20 years might be required to recognize foreign patents for 20 years. Unfortunately, a fixed term of 20 years is the only way to accomplish universal patent recognition throughout the World Assembly. Allowing nations to use whatever term they like would defeat the point of this resolution, as it would allow for the creation of piracy havens that steal inventions from other nations and cause serious economic harm to nations that specialize in intellectual property intensive industries.
 
Mousebumples:
I'd also like to encourage you guys to vote against, as I feel that this is too much of a "one size fits all" policy. Item 4 in the resolution is my largest point of contention. Basically, no matter what your nation offers your own citizens for patent life, you'd have to offer at least a 20 year patent to foreign inventors (or less, if their home nation also has a lesser patent requirement).

There are certainly some situations where 20 year patent life is appropriate. As mentioned by others on the NS forums, and as I've seen in my own RL work, prescription medications have a 20 year patent life in the US. However, that patent starts from the second a potential prescription product is identified. By the time all the studies and testing have been completed, it's more common that 5 or less years of patent life remain. Given that there are so many potential medications that never make it to market (due to ineffectiveness, side effects, etc.) and the costs involved with all the associated studies, ensuring that companies that invest millions and millions of dollars in the R&D side have time to recoup those costs seems appropriate.

However, that same logic does not apply to everything that can possibly be patented - nor should it. If this proposal required member states to extend the same rights regarding patent rights to international applicants as they would to their own citizens, that would be logical. Decreeing that "20 years" is the minimum - unless the other member state has a lower minimum - seems a bit too arbitrary and random.
Click to expand...
As I stated above, a fixed minimum term of 20 years for foreign patents is the only way to accomplish universal patent recognition across the World Assembly. One further reason: specifying a laundry list of patent terms for certain industries through resolution wouldn't be practical, given the character limit.
 
Acoustic Siberia:
(Not voting.)

This is one of the best proposals the WA's had to vote on in the last year, and I admit to finding an utterly abject shame that TNP, the one feeder that always had a reputable record for WA involvement, is going to doom it to failure.
Also, I'm slightly leery of anything Auralia/Railana does in the GA after the self-commendation stunt and their vigorous attempts to separate themselves from it. It really shouldn't have much bearing on my vote,
Click to expand...
No, it shouldn't. But this is the problem with the modern WA: it seems to be all about the name on the proposal, not its content. So is there any point discussing the proposal at all? Or is it simply a done deal because of the author?
Click to expand...
That's an unfair characterization of my decision making in the extreme. I made it perfectly clear of my technical concerns with the resolution, and I pointed out only that my experience with Auralia makes me leery, not summarily opposed.

Auralia, while that may be the norm in real life, I don't think it's a fair restriction in nationstates, where, if nothing else, people Roleplay species that don't live 20 years. And, again, contrary to the characterization by AS, my suspicion is just that: suspicion. Not summary opposition.
 
Separatist Peoples:
Auralia, while that may be the norm in real life, I don't think it's a fair restriction in nationstates, where, if nothing else, people Roleplay species that don't live 20 years.
Click to expand...
Those that roleplay species with non-humanesque lifespans are in the minority, and so I don't think that should be sufficient to entirely preclude the WA from harmonizing patent law.
 
Separatist Peoples:
That's an unfair characterization of my decision making in the extreme. I made it perfectly clear of my technical concerns with the resolution, and I pointed out only that my experience with Auralia makes me leery, not summarily opposed.
Click to expand...
It's still poisoning the well a fair bit.

Edit: If I misinterpreted, then ok, but I suppose my point was: I don't want to have to waste time debating the proposal if people are going to end up saying no solely because of its author, as has happened quite frequently in recent memory within the WA.

Anyway, as to the technical concerns:
Against. I don't like the time-span it requires to respect patents. It seems pretty focused on fields, such as pharmaceuticals, where a long amount of time goes between filing and release of the product. 20 years is a long time for some fields, especially when there are issues regarding monopolies.
Click to expand...
The proposal allows "such limitations and exceptions [as] are necessary to enforce any additional reasonable and appropriate patent regulations created by that member state...so long as such regulations remain consistent with the object and purpose of this resolution" and the resolution has clearly non-monopolistic aims ("that the international recognition of patents will incentivize the creation of new inventions").

But if monopolies are your concern, then the far bigger issue than this proposal is the WA's failure to replace International Competition Law. This proposal isn't going to do much to affect that situation one way or the other.
Auralia, while that may be the norm in real life, I don't think it's a fair restriction in nationstates, where, if nothing else, people Roleplay species that don't live 20 years. And, again, contrary to the characterization by AS, my suspicion is just that: suspicion. Not summary opposition.
Click to expand...
Using hours, days, weeks, months and years has been done quite often in passed resolutions, with nary a mention of caesium decay. Foreign Copyright Recognition itself uses the same 20 year model! It's really only the very recent vogue in the WA that has seen this level of objection gain any sort of traction.

But these Mayfly species would have been much worse off under The General Patent Charter anyway, so it doesn't seem credible that they would have survived years of that, only to now capitulate to a much more moderate proposal.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top