This House Would Lift the Concept of Patent on Renewable Environmental Technologies

Take a small look here. And then, you will encounter, under the list of patent offices, that there are various regional and international patent offices belonging to different countries with differing geopolitical stances and affiliations (Israel, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Canada – to mention some).

Never mind about that piece of information. Our point, is, that all teams, and the adjudicators, should characterize and identify as a communion, let’s say an association of all those patent offices banded together as a single body. It is invalid for Team Negative to come up with a feasibility challenge under something along the lines of “this motion can’t be implemented, because the patent office in Ukraine is unlikely to ratify your ideas, thanks to you being Russia” because, well, you know, the notorious proposition fiat.

Anyway, that’s that for headline news. Now on to the general consensus and the expected discourse.

Both teams are expected to agree that renewable environmental technologies are beneficial and needed by humanity. Nobody will be stupid (or crazy) enough to deny that notion. This debate is somewhat expected to be circulating around the effectiveness and efficiency of patents. The existence of patents have been a long-running issue in lots of different debates and motions, some petitioning that the existence of a patent will promote creativity as it will mean that one’s creativity will be rewarded by invulnerability from counterfeit. Others argue that it will actually hamper creativity as the existence of this invulnerability makes the item patented as a monopoly, thus hindering future attempts in research and development (which is quite an integral issue when trying to promote something).

But, somewhat. Again, somewhat.

Remember the characterization everybody should be identifying as in this debate? That holds the core principle in this debate – everybody should attempt to explore the ethicalities and jurisdiction of these patent offices (or this association of patent offices, so to speak), and what grants them the right to lift a patent or install a patent. When does this right manifest? What constitutes the right? What are the basis in which the right establishes its foothold and groundwork upon? And, finally, why on renewable environmental technologies? We know that they are substantial for humanity to survive; okay, we get it. But is “substantial for humanity to survive” the answer to “the exception of this leeway in granting and installing patent”? If no, then what gives? If yes, then why?

Definition

Patent means that a company pays a lot of money to do research, and when the research is success, the company pays and claims to make a patent.

Renewable Environmental Technologies means technologies invented which can renew the source in the environment which are considered to be able to solve the climate change.

Affirmative

Background

Global warming has happened for decades where climate is changing, temperature is significantly rising, and islands are sinking. Therefore, people do research and make innovation and patent them as theirs, for example the solar power. We say it’s problematic in terms of chances to produce in huge number.

Mechanism

We will lift the patent from the company.

Goal

We want to make easier access to produce more this kind of technologies, so everyone can afford for it and to increase their awareness towards the climate change problems.

Urgency

What is wrong in the status quo?

Company creates patent on the renewable environmental technologies they produce. It precisely is targeting a high-class market segmentation which in the end makes it less accessible by developing countries since the society in developing countries is middle-to-low-class market segmentation.

Moreover, the society in developing countries are still being ignorant about the issue of climate change since they are less informed about it compared to society in developed countries.

Why lifting patent will solve the problem?

When the patent is being lifted, many companies will produce the products since the blue print can easily be accessed by everyone. When many companies produce it, the companies will be more competitive in quality and diversity in product. In the end, the price will be cheaper when the products exist in huge number.

By lifting the patent, a lot of companies will appear means that the number of products will increase and so do the advertisement because they need to promote their product to compete in the market, and these advertisements about the technologies can make people more aware.

Justification

It is in line with international global program

We say that one of international global program is to preserve the environment. By lifting the patent means that we open the chance for every single person to take action actively to preserve the environment. Because we believe when we lift the patent, it increases the number of the technologies and it helps people to actively pursue it to be used in their own environment. For example: in Japan where every single house has been planned to have solar power technologies and so is in the west. We are going to imply it as well in the developing countries to accomplish the goal to preserve the environment. Thus, we absolutely need a lot of number of the technologies. How do we do so? By lifting the patent and increasing the number.

Lifting the patent will not put the companies at disadvantaged 

When people become more aware towards the climate change issue, the demand to access the renewable environmental technologies will also increase. Moreover, companies can make products with different target segmentation which in the end still make the product sold and the companies get the profit as well.

Society nowadays has already paid more attention towards the product they buy. They are attracted more to buy the products from the companies which have good image in protecting the environment. Therefore, companies will be competing to create more eco-friendly technologies.

Impact

For companies

By lifting the patent, they get the same opportunity to create the same-basic things. Therefore, to make their products sold out, they must be really creative in competing, in terms of creating different product among companies.

For developing society

Developing society will be encouraged more to preserve the environment. In the end, it creates a paradigm that developing countries can also take part in protecting the environment which eventually people are together saving the Earth, not only the burden of developed countries.

Opposition

Negation

We acknowledge the problem that is happening in the status quo, like what government said. But we believe lifting the patent will not just simply solve the problem and make the problem worse instead.

Goal and stance

We want to stick to the status quo where patent is still given for company who is success in making the technologies. Because we want to uphold fairness for the scientists and companies.

Urgency

Why status quo is enough?

Strategy to solve the problem has been enough. There are many environmental organizations already give free blue print for renewable technologies. Government from developed countries also has already subsidized the accessibility of the technologies for the developing countries. The status quo is also progressing quickly because of the concept of patent. With patent it’ll attract investor more to invest. When a lot of investors invest in developing the products, there’ll be more products to be made which means the price will also be decreased.

Why the solution won’t exclusively solve the problem and instead make the problem bigger?

The one who needs the profit from the patent is the investor. Investors funded the scientist to create the product. Without patent, investors will not be attracted to invest because the profit is incomparable with the money they spend in developing the products. When there’s no interest from investor to invest anymore, it’d cause stagnant in creating products.

Justification

To appreciate the effort of the people to create the product

Scientist has spent years to develop the products that can advantage society also countries. Therefore they deserve continuous profit from patent to compensate the years they have spent.

Diversification in products

Renewable environmental technologies are the most advanced technologies right now. With patent, it attracts investor to invest and make the technologies more advanced. The more they want to make it advanced, it triggers diversification of products to keep it exist in the market.

Impact

Hamper innovation of the development of the technologies

There’re 3 parameters why people make innovation. They’re: (1) When there’s benefit you create it in terms of efficiency, (2) When there’s an emergency problem that needs solution, and (3) There’s an appreciation in a form of continuous profit for the creator, for example the scarcity of teacher in isolated area, because the less appreciation towards them.

When you lift patent, means that there’s no appreciation for the scientist anymore, they’ll be reluctant to create it and it eventually will hamper the innovation of the products.

Quality Control

Patent exists to create standard on the product. When there’s no patents means that there’s no exact standard on what the product is supposed to be. With patent also, companies can be sued for not following standard and  bring harm to the user. Without patent , companies (who are basically profit-oriented) will have no sense of responsibility in keeping the quality of product which will cause bad products to be sold in the  market.