This House would disallow grant of patent of military technology

Speaker 1 - Josh
Josh’s ideas:

Framing/ Set-up/ Status quo

Your honors, your excellencies. Good day. May it please the panel.

Your honors, allow me to paint the picture of this debate by illustrating the current
context of international conflicts around the world and its possible effects on the
Philippines.

In the continuing age of military globalization and rise of conflicts around the globe,
the powers of states and international institutions to be responsible to the course of
conflict and its socio-political and legal effects around the world continue to diminish,
the rise of privatized profit-driven military companies (Wagner Group in Russia) and
military tech companies (Lockheed Martin) continue to threaten the use of military
technologies for the harmful and profitable purposes, it is high time to prohibit the
IP protection for military technology particularly those the are used as
conventional arms defined under Art. 2 of the 2014 Arms Trade Treaty that
further contributes to the escalation of conflict and for the prolonging of other
conflicts in the different parts of the world.

Our main submission would be, as deemed by exigent international

circumstances it is necessary to disallow IP protection over military
technologies used as conventional arms since there is a greater public interest
at stake than intellectual property protection:

(1) The Philippine government, as a signatory, among others, to the Arms

Trade Treaty, and the Geneva Convention, would disallow Patent protection for
conventional arms as determined by the IPO which is allowed under Art. 73 (b)
of the TRIPS agreement

(2) This will cover all types of patents (i.e. utility patents, method patents, and
even design patents).

(3) All of these will be blacklisted from any attempts of any military tech. And
distribution of it within the country will be deemed a Criminal offense as
subversion.

(4) We submit that the current practice of secrecy orders as an alternative in

status quo is ineffective considering the rising conflicts around the world
deemed to be an exigent international circumstance.

(5) Essentially, the goal of this policy is

(1) To prevent the same destabilizing effect of military companies as early as in

the country while their economic and political powers are still small in
comparison to the military-industrial complex in the US.

(2) to prevent the proliferation of the market of war in the country that they
could use to exploit the future given that our country is full of insurgency
movements

Point: All of this would be consistent with the Constitutional policy of the state
to be able to preserve the non-use of war as a national instrument.

But as a preemptive response to opposition, even if some military technologies

could be beneficial to society, let us as, where do these military companies can
get more profit?

From war-stricken conflicts that have historically been the cash cow of many
major military companies in the world or to more beneficial use?

Unfortunately, reality dictates that there is more profit that they can get in the
market of war.
Thank you, your honors, and your excellencies, we are proud to stand by our
submissions.
FAQs:

Good evening, Mr. Speaker:

Please limit your answers to yes or no.

● If something is disclosed to the public, can it be viewed by others?

● If something is viewed by the public, is it possible that it can be copied?
● Now if something sensitive is disclosed, does it not pose a threat?
●
Sources:
FAQs for first speaker opposition:
 This House would allow longer term of protection to incentivize development of
technology concerning sustainability

Speaker 1 - Josh
Josh’s ideas:

Framing/ Set-up/ Status quo

Your honors and your excellencies, good day.

The affirmative fails to realize that increasing term of protection is no longer necessary
in status quo since as CLASH in this debate:

- (1) The current 20 years of protection already ensures that period is enough to
encourage innovation when it comes to sustainability efforts since as the
granted corporation gains commercial benefits over the product over time,it
also allows the timely transfer of access of technologies for the public
- (2) There is already the safeguard of extension of period of protection in place
by the state that could be extended to sustainable technology as can be
gleaned under Art. 13 of the TRIPS agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) at the World Trade Organization
- (3) There are already established incentives and policies by the state to ensure
the efficient accomplishment of extending the benefit of sustainability for the
SOCIAL GOOD, such as a 10% income tax cuts, tax exemptions for carbon
credits, and vat exemptions.

ARGUE: Even without longer period of protection, status quo already provides for
extension of period of protection as an exception:

Explanation and Law:

(1) As we can see in the progress of most green energy policies in the world, it is
still the sustainable technology itself that drives innovation and not the period of
protection itself. This is because there is already a principled consensus in the
international community (as can be gleaned in the Paris Climate Agreement in
2015 and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
that there is an immediate need to climate adaptation by states to incentivize
states to a just transition through a collective effort by the each states to
achieve this goal.
(2) The goal of sustainability technology is to efficiently reduce the cost of products
to help change the behavior of consumers. A longer term period does not make
this possible since a longer term of protection would contradict the timely
 transfer of access to technologies for the public’s benefit since even if you give
more incentive for development for a corporation, but even if it does benefit
sustainable development, that comes at the cost of public benefits to consume
such products at a cheaper price, and eventually accessible for broader use
to maximize their positive impact on society.
(3) There are already laws and positive legislative policies in place that ensure that
20 year period of protection even for sustainability technology, such as the
Philippine Renewable Energy Act, which already ensures that there is enough
incentive for development for the companies and at the same time that does
not sacrifice the social good for the benefit.

Conclusion: The solution is not about giving a longer period for protection to develop
sustainable technology, but to create more positive political incentives from the state.

Closing Remark: Thank you ladies and gentlemen, and your honors. We rest our
case.

Prepared FAQs:

Necessity:

1. Necessity

- The 20 year period set by the IP Code has a purpose, right?

- And usually in choosing between the companies and the public, sustainable
tech is often still for the benefit of the public, right?
- And even in the process of its innovation, it's still the accelerated access to
these benefits that intellectual property laws still envision?
- So given the purpose of the IP code is clear, isn't it unlikely for the balancing of
interest of the creators and the public on your side?

- Do you agree that the development of sustainable technologies is more for the
benefit of the public or the companies?
-

- Do you agree that the goal of sustainable technology effort is for the good of the public?
- Shouldn't protection be both for the benefit of the creator and the public?
- So following that reasoning, won’t your policy result then to be more detrimental to society?

● Every innovative technology relies on the demand of the market, right?

● So do you also agree that it’s the market that gives incentives to private sectors to invest in
sustainable technology, right?
● So if there is not enough incentive in place for the development of sustainable technology, then
 is there reall a ?
● So if no one really invests and fewer products are being developed, then the current period of
protection is really ineffective in providing for the social good for the public?

Codal/ Jurisprudence

1. Have you read the Philippine Renewable Energy Act of 2008?

2. Are you aware of the ratio behind the 20 year period protection?
3. Are you aware that under Article 13 of the TRIPS agreement extension of
period of protection as an exception for certain special cases, such as
sustainable development, is already present?

Comments from Atty. Rae

- Always attack the major premise of the opponent’s case. Assumptions

- Attack the premise when cross-examination
-
Sources:
FAQs for first speaker opposition: