[GA - WITHDRAWN] International Patent Compact

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chipoli

Chipoli

Security Councilor
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him
TNP Nation
Chipoli
Discord
chipoli
ga.jpg

International Patent Compact
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Second Sovereignty | Onsite Topic​

The World Assembly;

Recognizing the immense technological ingenuity of the various peoples of the Member-States,

Acknowledging the vast gulfs in economic structure between Member-States,

Seeking to protect technological innovation from undue and harmful restrictions,

Hereby;

Defines a Patent as a form of legal intellectual property in which the holder of a Patent is granted exclusive rights granted to an inventor regarding their invention for a limited time, typically in exchange for disclosing details and specifications of said invention,

Reserves to Member-States the exclusive right determine the legal status or recognition of patents, excepting where otherwise established by prior legislation,

Non-Bindingly Pressures Member-States to make decisions that will expand access to technologies and assist in the development of new technologies.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
0902
 
Last edited:
Against. The definition excludes indefinite patents and there is nothing stopping "member states" from being interpreted as referring to member nations collectively, ie the World Assembly. On the other hand, if "member states" must be interpreted as referring to nations individually, this prevents the World Assembly from prohibiting the recognition of certain patents, eg those on medical products.
 
Last edited:
(Non-WA) Following some convincing argumentation from IA, I am against this proposal. It does not actually perform its intended effect, due to a seemingly minor error in wording. The clause that ostensibly reserves legislation on patents to member-nations does so to member-nations as a whole, not to each member-nation separately. This means that member-nations, acting as a whole, can pass legislation on patents through the General Assembly. In other words, the proposal allows the status quo to continue being the status quo. It is nugatory.

Edit: Ninja’d, Magecastle said it more concisely than I did.
 
Last edited:
Against

This proposal does so very little except inadvertently prohibit perpetual patents and is, overall, not helpful.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
I don't think it prohibits them; but it doesn't cover them when it patently should, combined with the other flaws making this proposal either useless or counterproductive.
Click to expand...
That's fair. The way I read the language defining a patent existing for a "...limited time..." it could conceivably be taken as a prohibition of perpetual patents, depending on your definition of a "limited time" (which it also does not do).

Either way, we both agree that we are in opposition to it.
 
Last edited:
Upon consideration I have changed my stance and I am now Against this proposal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top