[GA] Foreign Patent Protection Act [Complete]

Sil Dorsett

The Belt Collector
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
sil_dorsett
Discord
sildorsett
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Wallenberg
Onsite Topic

Recognizing the need for international standards on intellectual property, particularly with regard to patents,

Aware of concerns that previous patent law has failed to properly address this difficult topic,

Believing that this Assembly should not punish member states on the basis of their economic ideologies,

Revering the principles of national sovereignty, and the right of nations to their own economic philosophies and ideologies,

The World Assembly hereby:

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:

"patent" as an official government statement granting an entity the legal right to exclude others from producing or generating profit with a particular invention,

"invention" as a process, good, device, or technology created by an entity,

Forbids member nations from granting or recognizing patents for illegal inventions, or for any form of sapient life, as it is not very nice to treat people as property,

Prohibits member states and inhabitants of member states from importing from or exporting to other member states goods produced in violation of any rights granted by a WAPS patent,

Restores the powers and duties of the World Assembly Patent Service (WAPS), among these being:

To consider claims by entities originating from one or more member states, and to grant patents accordingly,

To archive all patents granted by member states or itself, and to make the WAPS archives public to all member states and their citizens for future reference, or to get lost in aisle after aisle of paperwork,

To evaluate the unique characteristics of member states' economies, demographics, and societies in order to determine and set unbiased and appropriate expiration dates in each member nation on a case-by-case basis for patents granted by the WAPS, and

To hear challenges made by other entities in member states to patents issued by the WAPS, and to investigate and rule on them accordingly,

Specifies that the WAPS may only grant patents to entities from member states if:

The entity holds a valid patent granted by the member nation it originates from for the same invention the entity seeks to patent via the WAPS,

The WAPS has not already granted a patent on the invention the entity seeks to claim as its intellectual property,

The entity demonstrates full responsibility for the development of the invention, an inventive step in developing it beyond merely observing or analyzing an already existing invention, and reasonable novelty and uniqueness of the invention in the member nation from which the entity originates, and

The request meets any other basic formatting standards set by the WAPS in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the entity's patent request,

Mandates that all patent offices in member nations observe each patent granted by the WAPS as if it were its own, given that:

The patented invention is neither illegal, nor obsolete, nor in the public domain in that member nation at the time the inventive entity receives the patent,

The patented invention is of practical, commercial, or industrial use in that nation,

The patent holder has demonstrated intent to exercise its patent in that nation, and

Previously passed World Assembly resolutions do not permit that member nation not to recognize the patent.

Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

[wavote=the_north_pacific,ga]2017_02_28_foreign_patent_protection_act[/wavote]
[wavote=world,ga]2017_02_28_foreign_patent_protection_act[/wavote]
 
The Foreign Patent Protection Act tries to fix the recently repealed Foreign Patent Act, attempting to address the issues raised in the repeal. However, the new resolution retains the same flaws for which we opposed the original and supported the repeal, namely the mandate for recognition of a WAPS-granted patent if a patent office exists in a member nation. It also continues to allow WA member nations to trade patent-infringing goods with non-members, giving a trade advantage to non-WA nations and member nations that don't recognize patents. This encourages member nations to scrap their patent system and ignore intellectual property rights.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs encourages a vote against this resolution.
 
This proposal is broadly similar to the previous iteration of the Foreign Patent Act. It notably precludes the possibility for WA member states to exclude themselves from the ambit of the re-established World Assembly Patent Service.

IP Law is a complex and esoteric area to legislate on, without having legisative proposals devolving into jargon and tedious legalese.
That said, the current proposal has some odd clauses, absent in its original version. I fear these frivolities may open this proposal to future repeal attempts.

Nevertheless I am satisfied with the general tone of this proposal, and feel that it sufficiently addresses the concerns raised in the recent repeal of the previous version of the Foreign Patent Act.

On balance I would vote;

For.
 
Not a TNP citizen, but as the author of the repeal for Wallenburg's previous crack at this topic, I thought you might be interested in hearing my thoughts on his replacement.

It's somewhat improved in that it prohibits member states from exporting goods in violation of international patents and contains an appeals mechanism. However, there are still numerous fundamental problems with the approach taken by this resolution:
  • Member states without patent systems are still free to export infringing goods to non-member states. This will make it more difficult for the original inventor to market his or her invention outside the World Assembly. This also allows member states without patent systems to use non-member states as a relay to export infringing goods to member states.
  • This proposal essentially declares that, in member states without patent systems, an extraordinarily large class of goods is legal to produce but illegal to export. I find it difficult to believe that border security in these member states will actually be able to stop the flood of attempted illegal exports of lawfully manufactured goods that will ensue, especially given that it would be in their economic interest not to do so. It would be much easier and safer to simply cut off production of infringing goods at the source by simply recognizing the patent.
  • To the extent that member states without patent systems do make an effort to prevent the illegal export of patented goods, they will incur a significant burden on border security for little benefit. In essence, they experience the disadvantages associated with patent recognition without any of the advantages. Why would any member state opt for such an approach? Wouldn't it make more sense at this point simply to recognize the patent?
  • Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this proposal does not provide for inventors to be compensated for the use of their intellectual labours in member states without patent systems. This can only be properly achieved by recognizing the patent.
In addition, the resolution contains a number of unintended loopholes:
  • Clause 6 permits member states to selectively recognize some patents but not others by simply declaring all inventions associated with patents it doesn't want to recognize to be in the public domain. While this must be done before the international patent is issued, this isn't particularly difficult. In most jurisdictions, patent applications are published when they are received before any patent is granted. The organization responsible for issuing international patents may follow similar procedures.
  • In the same clause, the qualifier "previously passed World Assembly resolutions do not permit that member nation not to recognize the patent" uses an ugly double negative, but it ultimately translates to "previously passed World Assembly resolutions require that member nation to recognize the patent."

    In other words, the clause only requires a member nation to observe WAPS patents if previously passed World Assembly resolutions require that member nation to recognize the patent. There are no previously passed (active) resolutions requiring member states to recognize patents, so the clause requires nothing of member states. This creates a loophole similar to the public domain one described above.
It is also worth noting that the resolution contains several jokes that are inappropriate for international legislation. Examples include the statement that "it is not very nice to treat people as property" and references to "get[ting] lost in aisle after aisle of paperwork".

In summary, the core argument I made in my repeal applies equally strongly to this resolution. This resolution still uses an opt-out system for patent recognition, and it still enables large scale patent infringement. Unsurprisingly, I oppose it in favour of my own replacement.
 
The proposal is badly worded. It defines a patent as being given for an invention, which is in turn defined as a process, good, device or technology. It then goes on to forbid the import/export of goods in violation of patent without mentioning the other 3 categories. I assume the intention would be to prevent the plagiarising of patented processes from another nation but the resolution doesn't actually prohibit that.
 
This resolution would hurt smaller businesses as well as hurt the middle and lower classes.

I vote AGAINST this resolution.
 
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.
 
Back
Top