Tuesday, November 30, 2010

How Green Should Patents in China Be? Poisonous Green

9 articles to go: IP Dragon on its way to its 1000th article

If you live in China, you will easily see one of its biggest problems: pollution. In China car manufacturers claim that they are unable to produce low-cost hybrid cars because of a small number of companies that have patented key components, writes Mauricio Bauermann Guaragna in a very interesting article for ISIS, a research centre of the Sauder School of Business of the University of British Columbia, see here.

Bauermann Garagna's writes that although patents give incentives to new technology, they also stifle competition. [Research is inconclusive whether patents have a positive or negative net effect on innovation; it also depends on which developmental stage a country is in and for which industry]. The European Patent Office imagined the following two scenarios for the patent system in 2025: 1. Because of a pandemic and following mass protests the patent system over health technology will be abolished, leading to direct government and prize systems. 2. An open source system for green technologies, software, energy and biotech will be developed.
Another scenario is a portfolio of patents that can be used by the world: World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) initiated the Eco-Patent Commons, on a voluntary basis.

IP Dragon's take: All these methods will help. But the problem is bigger than people see at the moment. Most pollution does not kill directly, hence there is no sense of urgency. And people get used to near everything, polluted air, water and food in China is already not extraordinary anymore. But if you would add the lives that will be destroyed each year the coming decades, you will end up with more victims of pollution than a pandemic, terrorist attack and the biggest Tsunami can cause together. So you could at least argue that drastic measures are needed in the public interest. China's demand for energy is still growing and so is its pollution. Therefore China needs clean energy and it needs it rapidly. If the claim of the Chinese car industry is valid and the other patent solutions do not work, article 49 Chinese Patent Law 2008 should be seriously considered: "Where a national emergency or an extraordinary state of affairs occurs, or where the public interest so requires, the patent adminstrative department under the State Council may grant a compulsory license to exploit the patent for invention or utility model."

Picture: Danny Friedmann

continue reading ...

Why China Is Preferred Over India By The U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry

10 articles to go: IP Dragon on its way to its 1000th article

Joseph Alexander wrote for Pharmabiz.com that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of Amercia (PhRMA) choose for the China Pharmaceutical Industry Research and Development Association (SINO-PhIRDA) to cooperate and continue a regular dialogue.

Why PhRMA did not choose to sign a cooperation agreement with its Indian equivalent?
Read Mr Alexander's article here.
continue reading ...

Monday, November 29, 2010

Parasitizing Trademarks of Drugs in China Breeds Resistant Malaria Parasite

World Health Organisation (WHO) officials say that counterfeit drugs and poor storage are endangering the health of millions of people in Asia.

Ron Corben wrote for Voice Of Amercia the article WTO Fears Growing Malaria Drug Resistance May Be Spreading (November 28, 2010): "In recent years, authorities cracked down against illegal factories in China. Meanwhile counterfeit producers have been found elsewhere, including Cambodia and Burma."

Simeon Bennett wrote for Asia Health Space the article Malaria Redux And Counterfeit Drugs (April 2, 2010): "In Pailin [Cambodia], a flood of counterfeit pills from China and elsewhere is helping to breed a superbug that resist even the most-effective medicine." Read .

This problem is recurring for years now:
2009: See Simeon Bennett's 2009 Bloomberg article Fake Malaria Drugs Spread, Breed Resistance to Lethal Parasite.
2007: Jill McGivering's 2007 BBC News article 'Tracking the fake malaria drug threat'.

Eye for an eye

What is a fitting punishment for these counterfeiters? Denying them help when they would contract Malaria? But even if you would impose the biblical sanction of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, how can you sanction someone that contributes to the death of not one but thousands of people who contracted Malaria and use counterfeit drugs that do not cure them?
continue reading ...

Tian Lipu: "No Plagiarism 'cause China's High Speed Rail Systems Climb Mountains"

At the 'Third Intellectual Property and Urban Development Mayor Forum', November 22, 2010, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) commissioner Tian Lipu refuted allegations that China's high speed rail systems are based on plagiarism. See IP Dragon' article 'Knowledge Transfer in China: How To Train The Dragon To Consume You'.

Sina reports that China News Net was quoting Mr Tian saying:
"How can digesting other people's technology, combined with the adaptation to your own situation so that something new is created be plagiarism?"

An example of such an adaptation was given: China is allegedly the first country where the high speed systems can work in mountains.

Read the translated Sina article here, original here.
continue reading ...

Sunday, November 28, 2010

IP Dragon 5 Years: Never A Dull Moment


Today it is exactly five years ago that I started with IP Dragon. Since its inception I got a lot of interesting feedback from readers. The readers are the very motivation for me to keep going with the blog.

When I revisited IP Dragon's first blog post today, I saw that my mission at the time of informing non-Chinese companies has broadened to all companies, since most IPR in China disputes are between Chinese companies. Rather than pointing fingers at China for non-compliance of international treaties IP Dragon is trying to show provisions in China's IPR laws that might be not conducive to innovation (Patent Law), creativity (Copyright) in China or commerce (Trademark) in China.

Thank you for reading IP Dragon and I always enjoy reading your interesting feedback.
continue reading ...

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Copied Gun Manufacturer Starts Campaign Against Manufacturers of Copied Copied Guns

MadBull Airsoft launched Operation Copycat', a campaign against counterfeit and cloned airsoft (in between real and toy) guns, read here.

"The enforcement of intellectual properties of gun manufacturers and gear makers in airsoft has been ongoing for sometime now. We know of Umarex, Cybergun, and Magpul on the watch for companies, and mostly at the retail end to block the export and sales of clones and unlicensed products coming out from the Far East, mainly from Mainland China."

Airsoft is a hobby for grown-ups that like to use 1:1 replicas of real guns to shoot each other with plastic pellets. Read more here.

A manufacturer of copied guns that starts a campaign against a manufacturer of copied copied guns? Is this not tu quoque? Well the airsoft manufacturer has the license of the gunmaker to use the design from the manufacturers of the real guns. In some jurisdictions the licensee of a trademark, copyright or design right can enforce the right of the intellectual property holder. Then the airsoft manufacturer has its own trademark and might have copyright and design rights (if it is visible).
continue reading ...

In Honour of The Great Bruce Lee 李小龍: Fight For Trademark Protection in China and U.S.


Today it is 70 years ago that the great Bruce Lee 李 (Li=Lee)小(Xiao=little) 龍 (Long=dragon) to whom IP Dragon feels related in spirit, was born in San Francisco. He grew up in Hong Kong until his teens, then went back to the U.S. and became the biggest martial arts filmstar ever in both Hollywood and Hong Kong. In this blog posting IP Dragon is looking from an IP related angle to honour the martial arts hero.

In China and the U.S. there is a lot of work to do for the heirs of Bruce Lee to protect his name and image.

In China
The China Daily reports that the name of Bruce Lee in Chinese 李小龍 has been registered as a trademark for coffee, dumplings, candy, instant noodles, ice cream, tooth brushes and past and home appliances. The State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) stated that the right to use Bruce Lee's Chinese and English name should belong to his heirs, because otherwise the public will be misguided. According to the China Daily the SAIC is addressing the matter and the applications that are now being processes will be rejected. Shannon Lee, Bruce Lee's daughter, who is the leading the Bruce Lee Enterprises, is trying to protect and enforce the Bruce Lee trademark. She found unauthorised use in Changsha, Shanghai, Qingdao and Shunde (see below). Ms Lee does not mind that Bruce Lee's picture is used at the Shanghai World Expo 2010, but she will not have his image used for fast food chains. Read the China Daily article here.

In Shunde, a city in the south of Guangdong is the ancestral house of the Lee family. The city built "Li Xiao Long (李小龍) paradise", a giant memorial hall devoted to Lee's life, martial arts and acting career. The Straits Times wrote that the Southern Daily newspaper reported that Shannon Lee is trying to let the local government hand over the trademark name of 李小龍. Read more in the Straits Times.

In the U.S.
The Bruce Lee Enterprises, LLC, filed a suit at the U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana, Indiana Division, complaint for damages and injunctive relief against Marc Ecko Enterprises, A.V.E.L.A., Inc., Leo Valencia, Urban Outfitters, Inc., and Target Corporation for unfair competition and trademark infringement under federal statutes (Lanham Act), with pendent claims for common-law trademark infringement and unauthorised commercial use of statutory (California and Indiana's right of publicity statutes) and common law right of publicity, because they used a picture of Bruce Lee in clothing.

The defendants claimed that the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana lacked the personal jurisdiction and that it was the improper venue. The demanded that the case was transferred to the the Southern District of New York or the District of Nevada. Judge William T. Judge decided to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York. Read more at the site of FindACase here.

I am positive that the daughter of Bruce Lee has also genetic advantages in fighting legal battles and she has the philosophical edge of her father who said:

"Using no way as way, having no limitation as limitation"
Bruce Lee, 27 November 1940 - 20 July 1973
continue reading ...

Friday, November 26, 2010

Knowledge Transfer in China: How To Train The Dragon To Consume You


Professor Pierre Sauvé, deputy managing director, director of studies and faculty member at the World Trade Institute (WTI), Switzerland gave a very interesting guest research lecture at CUHK November 24, 2010: "Waiting for Godot? The troubled prospects of (coherent) multilateralism in investment rule making". Inspired by his speech in which he mentioned the requirement of many countries to use a certain percentage domestically produced parts in the product to prevent that tariffs are imposed that make the product uncompetitive (for example there is a domestic content requirement in the U.S. car industry of 75 percent. Therefore Japanese automobile plants opened in the U.S.), IP Dragon has been thinking about knowledge transfer in China.

Also on November 24, Leslie Hook wrote on the front page of the Financial Times an article called 'Westinghouse gives China details of nuclear reactor technology':
"Westinghouse Electric has handed over more than 75,000 documents to its Chinese customers as the initial part of a technology transfer that it hopes will secure the company's place in the world's fastest-growing nuclear market."

Whether this hope can become a reality remains to be seen. There are ample examples of companies that transferred their technology in the hope of selling more products in the future, only to find out that their customer metamorphosed into formidable competitors.

Speed railway system: Alstom (France), Siemens Mobility (Germany), Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. (Japan) shared high-speed rail technology with China's CSR Corporation Ltd, and China CNR Corporation Ltd.

Thomas Hout and Pankaj Ghemawat wrote the article 'China vs the World: Whose Technology Is It?' in the Harvard Business Review of December 2010. In this article they give an overview of China's plans, which they formulated in 2006, to close the technology gap with the west.

"China wants to strengthen innovation, particularly in energy, transportation, the environment, agriculture, information and health." Professors Hout and Ghemawat write that China wants to increase their proprietary IP. In order to prevent that Chinese companies have to pay royalties for foreign IP, China is promoting its own unique national technology standards, that form de facto entry barriers to foreign manufacturers: WAPI (Wireless local area network Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure) and TD-SCDMA (Time Division Synchronous Code Division Multiple Access).

Because China has many state-owned enterprises, it can orchestrate mergers and acquisitions in industries that are considered of key importance to China. Professors Hout and Ghemawat give four mechanisms that China is using to support their industries:

1. Tax incentives for key industries;
2. Spending and soft loans for key industries;
3. Procurement that favours indigenously developed technologies (China is an observer to the WTO General Procurement Agreement and not a member);
4. Forcing multinational companies to transfer their newest technologies to their joint ventures with state-owned companies.

The following companies are among those that will probably thrive under these circumstances:
Wind energy: Sinovel, Goldwind
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software: Kingdee International Software Group
Solar energy: Suntech, Yingli Solar, JA Solar

How to train the dragon ... to become your competitor?

Why would a company transfer their technology, which is their only advantage in comparison to Chinese companies that can produce much cheaper? Are these foreign companies suicidal?
Some are lured by the prospect of great deals in the long run, and expect loyalty from Chinese companies and China. However, this might never materialise. Instead it is very possible that after the technology transfer has been completed the joint venture will be dissolved so that the Chinese part will leapfrog and become a formidable competitor of the foreign company.

Some foreign companies might be more realistic. They might have the conviction that if they don't do it, some other foreign company is cooperating with the Chinese and securing in the short term big orders. Because of the prisoner's dilemma they might be right. China does not have this problem. The foreign company has probably the idea that the revenues from the Chinese orders can be reinvested into new technology, so that the technological edge can be sustained. Nevertheless, it seems a risky strategy.

UPDATE November 29, 2010:

Francois de Beaupuy and Tara Patel wrote: 'China Builds Nuclear Reactor for 40% Less Than Cost in France, Areva Says', November 25, 2010.

Nuclear Townhall reports in the article 'China, Russia Leveraging Nuclear Energy For World Economic Lead', November 26, 2010: "Chinese technicians have already reversed-engineered Areva 900-MW reactors built at Daya Bay into the CPR-1000 and have 16 under construction, the first scheduled to open next September. Zhang [Shanjing, president of China’s Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation] said that once certain intellectual property issues are cleared up with Areva, Guangdong would begin exporting, probably by 2013."

continue reading ...

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Taiwan Makes Priority Claims in Other Countries Possible In The Patent, Trademark and Plant Variety and Plant Seed Acts


Taiwan Intellectual Property Organization (TIPO) announced that the Presidential Office promulgated the amendments of some IPR laws on August 25, 2010, that makes priority claims possible in other countries. The amendments went into force on September 12, 2010. Implementing a principle of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (article 4) and incorporated in the WTO's TRIPs Agreement (article 2(1)). IP Dragon already covered the ECFA here. Read more here.

It concerns the following provisions:

Article 17 Plant Variety and Seed Act
continue reading ...

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Trademark/Copyright Use or Abuse: Coca-Cola in Hong Kong

Do you think this use of the trademark should be allowed.

"Immoral to drink sweat and blood. Coca-Cola."


Photo taken from the wall at Franklin Centre at CUHK Campus in Shatin, Hong Kong. It is in protest against alleged bad labour conditions at the Coca-Cola plant.
One could argue that the copyright (moral right of droit au respect de l'intégrité de l'oeuvre) of the Pulitzer Prize winning photo by Eddie Adams is infringed.
continue reading ...

China Launched 10-Year National Patent Development Strategy


During the 4th China Patent Week China launched the National Patent Development Strategy (2011-2020). The strategy focuses on:
  • International cooperation in patent protection and utilisation;
  • preferential policies to encourage R&D by high-tech companies, research institutes and colleges;
  • Overseas IP websites so that foreign companies can check patent info;
  • Establishment of organisations for patent trading in big cities.
To have a long term vision of a decade (the life-span of a utility patent and also design patent and half the life-span of an invention patent) is praiseworthy, although we have to see what the preferential policies exactly entail.

Read Hao Nan's China Daily article here.
continue reading ...

Monday, November 22, 2010

Monday Meditations on IPR in China

Gouzou de la Réunion
Author: Bouette

Counterfeiters and copyright pirates in China respect intellectual property. They merely wish the intellectual property to become their intellectual property that they may more perfectly respect it.

Paraphrasing the controversial G.K. Chesterton

UPDATE November 23, 2010:
I just found out that the term Monday Musings was unconsciously plagiarised from IP Kat. I apologise for the musing and will meditate on Mondays.
continue reading ...

Why Kaixin001 Might Not Be Too Happy About Its Victory Over Oak Pacific Interactive

Social media site Kaixin001's content was copyied by Oak Pacific Interactive (who owns social media site Ren Ren). It was put online under the domain name Kaxin.

Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court ruled that Oak Pacific Interactive should pay to Kaixin001 400,000 RMB as compensation for damages, remove the copied content and stop using the name Kaixin (which means "happy") on the site. However Oak Pacific Interactive can continue to use the domain name Kaixin. So if you type in Kaixin, you will be redirected to the social media site of Ren Ren.

Read the Xinhua article via China IPR here.
A fair competition between social media sites such as Ren Ren (人人网), which focuses on internet cafe visitors and college students, and Kaixin001 (开心网), which caters to white collar workers, is laudable. However, one can pose the question about whether these two competitors reached their pole position, making use of the protection the Great Chinese Firwall gave them, de facto excluding social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn, is fair.
continue reading ...

Saturday, November 20, 2010

USCBC Members' Perception: Progress of IPR Enforcement in China Marginal

The US-China Business Council (USCBC) released the 2010 Member Priorities Survey Results.

Top 10 concerns cited by USCBC member companies:

1. Human resources: talent recruitment and retention (tie)
1. Administrative licensing, business, and product approvals (tie)
1. Competition with state-owned enterprises (tie)
4. Intellectual property rights enforcement
5. Cost increases
6. Market access in services
7. Transparency
8. Protectionism risks in China
9. Government procurement
10. Standards and conformity assessment
There is no change in the progress compared to last year according to the members. 58 percent of all members are very concerned about the enforcement of IPR regulations in China.

Read more here.
continue reading ...

Friday, November 19, 2010

China Recognises Scotch Whisky as Geographical Indication

Great victory for the Scotch Whisky Association.

"Scotch Whisky’s registration as a GI in China – recognising Scotch Whisky can only be made in
Scotland - is the culmination of three years of discussions between The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) and the Chinese Government. The announcement was made today [November 8, 2010] at a Ministerial meeting in Beijing between the Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP, the UK Business Secretary, and Mr Zhi Shuping, Minister of China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ)."

Protection is great, but whether it will be enforced is another question. You can say the glass is half full or half empty. Let's chose for the first option for now. So, congratulations to the Scotch Whisky Association for its stamina, or rather: cheers!

Read more here. Hat tip to Managing IP, see here.

UPDATE: December 12, 2010
China unveiled high-end whisky for 18,000 Renminbi per bottle, read K.J. Kwon's Reuters article about it here.
continue reading ...

Thursday, November 18, 2010

USCC 2010 Report Released

2010 Report to [the U.S.] Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Commission (USCC) has been released. The report is 324 pages long and IP Dragon will read those parts relevant to intellectual property in China, including market access, in the coming weeks.

If you cannot wait read the 4 page opening remarks of Chairman Dan Slane and Vice Chairman (why not vice chairperson?) Carolyn Bartholomew on the report which includes information about indigenous innovation and procurement in China without applying the WTO Governement Procurement Agreement (GPA) rules (which is not that strange since its status is observer since February 21, 2002, not party, see here, Hong Kong is party June 19, 1997 and Taiwan July 15, 2009), a striking name for China's approach to internet control as "networked authoritarianism" and its take on the hijacking of U.S. internet traffic. Read here.
continue reading ...

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

IP Dragon Chosen As One of the "25 Blogs Chinese Advertisers Should Read"

Normandy Madden composed a list of 25 blogs Chinese advertisers should read for Advertising Age:

"Blogging has become a national obsession in China, with over 50 million Chinese regularly contributing to local blog sites. A handful of these sites are written in English, and provide a fascinating perspective on a country that is changing quickly. Below, we've identified 25 blogs that can serve as a great resource for marketers in China."

18. IP Dragon (ipdragon.blogspot.com) is dedicated to gathering and sharing information about intellectual property in China, a murky area since government officials have been slow to crack down on piracy.

Thank you Ms Madden and Advertising Age for the compliment.
Read the complete list here.
continue reading ...

IP Dragon Featured As Top 50 Patent Blog

IP Dragon was informed by the Guide to Online Schools that it was on the list of Top 50 Patent Blog. Thank you for the encouragement. Click on the banner to see the complete list.


50 Best Patent Blogs

continue reading ...

More Chinese Trademarks More Vehicles of Innovation = More Innovation?

China Hearsay's Stan Abrams takes a critical look at statistics about trademark registrations in China. He is rightly filleting the alleged relationship between increased trademark registrations and a growing awareness of trademark protection among Chinese entreprises, read more here.

However it could be said that the growth of trademark registrations in China would indicate two things:

- More companies want to build their own brand;
- Brands are a way to exploit innovation. So you can have a patented invention, which needs a trademark if you want to sell. The question, however, remains: if there are more vehicles of commerce for innovative products, will there be more innovation? In other words:

More trademarks equals more innovation?

多商標 = 多技術創新?
continue reading ...

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Best of Google's White Paper: Censorship is Hurting China's Economy

Intellectual property and market access are interdependent subjects. If there is a barrier to the free flow of information (the market access is challenged, regulated or censored when it refers to copyrighted goods), no intellectual property can be exploited and this will feed a demand for pirated works and counterfeit products.

Google has problems accessing the market in China, because it cannot offer its users unrestricted access via its search engine and other applications. In the hope of solving this problem it published a white paper of 25 pages, see here: Enabling Trade in the Era of Information Technologies: Breaking Down Barriers to the Free Flow of Information, in which it appeals to basically everyone:
  • "Focus on and publicly highlight as unfair trade barriers those practices by governments that restrict or disrupt the flow of online information services.
  • Take appropriate action where government restrictions on the free flow of online information violate international trade rules.
  • Establish new international trade rules under bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements that provide further assurances in favor of the free flow of information on the Internet."
If this does not sound very innovative to you, it is because it is not.
The most persuasive argument: internet censorship is bad for the economy of the censoring country, because it is a restraint on global trade. The other arguments (trying to stop violation of international trade treaties such as WTO's TRIPs, unfair competition and favouring indigenous industry) might all be laudable and valid, but not as compelling to China right now.

Therefore it would be interesting to elaborate how censorship is hurting China's economy and stifling innovation. More about this subject later.

UPDATE November 18, 2010:
Ronald Yu pointed me to an interesting The Register article by Cade Metz 'Baidu boss: Google don't know China' that the problems Google is facing are not only related to market access. Thanks Ron.
continue reading ...

Monday, November 15, 2010

Hotlines IPR in China

IPR Focus of IPR.gov.cn has announced that legal aid centres on IPR will participate in the 'Special Campaign on Combating IPR Infringement and Manufacture and Sales of Counterfeiting and Shoddy Commodities' via the following phone numbers:

12330: specialised public benefit hotline which provides IP-related legal aid and receives complaints "with quick response and serious attitude";

12312: receiving complaints on commercial affairs.

12315: dealing with consumer complaints;

12365: receiving complaints on product quality;

12390: reporting IP infringement and piracy.
continue reading ...

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Another Mass IPR Campaign in China: Groundhog Day All Over Again

China's Ministry of Culture announced that it has launched an IPR campaign that cracks down on counterfeit products and needs to raise awareness about IPR protection. It focuses on karaoke bars, websites, online-games, internet cares, animation and artistic products. Read the Xinhua article via People's Daily Online here. Sounds familiar As you might have already read here or here (chapter 8.3), IP Dragon is not a believer in China's mass campaigns, because:

- they are temporary (although this campaign will be quite long: half a year);
- fight symptoms not the causes;
- the are announced, so that infringers can take this into account.

However, the best part of these massive IPR campaigns were their imaginative names of these massive campaigns, such as "Operation Mountain Hawk", "Sunlight 1, 2 and 3" and my favourite "Blue-Sky". Although you would expect the Ministry of Culture to be in the best position to come up with a great name, they unfortunately called this campaign just generically campaign.

However, if the campaign has some name, please let me know. In the mean time my suggestion is "Groundhog Day All Over Again". If you have a more imaginative name, please let me know.
UPDATE November 15, 2010:
IPR Focus of IPR.gov.cn sent me a document that told me the name of the campaign:
'Special Campaign on Combating IPR Infringement and Manufacture and Sales of Counterfeit and Shoddy Commodities' and elaborated on the campaign: It includes a lot of shoulds for all involved in the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in China. It also gives a schedule of which steps will be taken:
1. Mobilisation period (October 2010): Relevant departments in different regions shall formulate detailed plans to guide implementations. Proposals drafted provincial, municipal and the central administrations shall be submitted to the Leading Group Office of the National Campaign before November 10.
2. Implementation period (November 2010 to February 2011): Relevant authorities shall take action in accordance with the Plan and the respective implementation proposals. The Leading Group Office of the National Campaign will cooperate with other relevant authorities to supervise the implementation progress in different regions. Provincial administration will conduct spot check in local areas.
3. Acceptance inspection period (March 2011): Relevant departments in different regions shall summarise the experience and lessons gained in the special campaign. The Leading Group of the National Campaign will recognise the outstanding performance of the regional departments by granting honorable titles and rewards and later report the process and achievements of the special campaign to China's State Council.
Well at least the makers of the plan are optimistic; they already know that there will be outstanding performances of the regional departments. Then again, who would not perform outstandingly, if there is honourable titles and rewards are at stake... What happened to taking pride in the work you are supposed to do?
continue reading ...

Are Intellectual Property Rights A Subspecies of Human Rights?

Damian Reece, Head of Business of The Telegraph was commenting David Cameron's trip to China. According to Mr Reece his timing to talk about human rights was wrong and therefore counterproductive. Instead, writes Mr Reece, he should have focused on intellectual property rights related problems in China. Read here.

Mr Reece is most certainly right that timing when talking about human rights can be of key importance. But this applies equally well for bringing up the subject of intellectual property rights. When, if ever, is it a good time to point with an accusatory finger to an official of another country in public about a sensitive issue, such as human rights or intellectual property rights? It is understandable that an politicians want to be transparent toward their consitituency about their critique in regard to another country. Mr Reece also suggests that human rights and intellectual property rights are completely separate issues. Are they? This is an interesting issue.

Professor Daniel Gervais wrote an interesting article about it. He describes the two schools of thought about the topic: cohabitation (conflict) model and compatibility model. In the cohabitation the negative impacts of IP on human rights are emphasised, such as the possible restrictions on the expression of free speech, problematic access to medicines etc. While the compatibility model stresses that the two go hand in hand.

Read Professor Gervais' article 'Intellectual Property and Human Rights: Learning to Live Together' (March 1, 2008) for the book with the same name, edited by Paul L. C. Torremans, published by Kluwer, here.

With Professor Gervais and also with Professor William Alford (who wrote in his famed 'To Steal a Book Is An Elegant Offense: Intellectual Property Law in Chinese Civilizatation' that the rule of law is a precondition for private rights, such as IP) I think the latter theory has most merit.

Are intellectual property rights a subspecies of human rights?
Professor Peter K. Yu advocates a human rights framework for intellectual property, read his research paper 'Reconceptualizing Intellectual Property Interests in A Human Rights Framework' (2007), here.
continue reading ...

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Why The Chinese Educational System Is Not More Conducive To Creativity: Some Hypotheses

China is the country with the most creative people in the world. That is a truism in a country with 1.3 billion people. In the past China showed the world the way to creativity: compass, gunpowder, papermaking and printing, all are Chinese inventions. So why are copyright piracy, counterfeit trademarks and patent infringements that origin from China so rampant?

I have written about some of the extra-judicial factors before, see here (chapter 8), but I have overlooked one of the fundamental flaws that China has to fix: its educational system.

I assume that for an educational system that fosters creativity the following factors are of crucial importance:

- Idle/play time;
- Combining factors that have not been combined before;
- Atmosphere where experimenting (or put it another way: critical thinking) is possible.

Based on these assumptions are my hypotheses:

- Most students work too hard and too long and learn too much by rote (learning by repetition) to develop their creativity;
- Many students limit themselves by focusing exclusively on what is relevant, but often it is hard to know ex ante what the ingredients for success are going to be, and following the downtrodden path is not helpful for making new combinations or to "think outside the box" or to be open to serendipity;
- Most schools do not give enough room for experimentation;
- Although there are many ways to Beijing, parents, teachers and society at large expects students to excel and go to the Chinese Ivy League schools and universities. This puts students under immense pressure.

Of course these Hypotheses need to be tested.
I am interested in your views. Let me know. ipdragon at gmail dot com.


UPDATE:
IP Dragon thinks this educational problem is shared by countries such as Singapore, Korea and Japan. Since these countries are no longer known for their rampant infringements of intellectual property rights the explanation becomes more convincing that China's low level of intellectual property enforcement is caused by the developmental phase it is.

UPDATE 2:
Carven, a student of St Joseph's College in Hong Kong, and member of the project affairs department of the 43rd Joint School Science Exhibition Preparation Committee wrote in the Young Post of the South China Morning Post of November 18, the article 'Lack of Creativity Limits Knowlegde'.

"The educational system in Hong Kong - in which students are spoon-fed information - has often been criticised. It leads to students having no idea how to be creative in the pursuit of knowledge."
continue reading ...

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

IP Dragon's Book Review: Invisible Gold in Asia

Professor David Llewelyn (King's College London and IP Academy, Singapore) wrote an exceptional book that will appeal to both laypeople and IP professionals. Although Invisible Gold in Asia does not aim to be a scholarly book (for example there are no footnotes), the book could not be written by a non-scholar. For laypeople the book lays out the intricacies of intellectual property rights and their relationships to wealth creation, a topic incredibly comprehensive and therefore almost unmanageable, in digestible parts. For the IP professionals the book is a treasure of anecdotes worth knowing and sketches the whole field of IP in Asia, and thereby giving some crucial context even to IP professionals, since most of them cover only some part of intellectual property rights, and their focus is often geographically limited. Professor Llewelyn's educational capabilities are charged by years of teaching a critical mass of students. Therefore when he touches upon a complex subject, he goes just deep enough into the matter to convey the essence of the subject. When you read the easy flowing book, you will notice that Professor Llewelyn not only wants to illuminate the obscure world of IP, but he has a message as well: basically he wants to wake up everybody inside and outside of Asia that IP, will be of crucial importance for Asia in the coming years. Professor Llewelyn rightly divides two markets for the world of IP: the USA and the rest of the world. But the role of Asia and the role of IP in Asia will become ever more important. And he tries to make the reader aware that IP rights are not mere liabilities, but they could be valuable assets. The book is structured in two parts. In part I Professor Llewelyn is going on a tour de force as he gives an overview of all intellectual property rights and their different characteristics. He can do this like no other, see here. In part II he gives describes the Asian IP landscape: Japan, the Little Dragons/Tigers (Taiwan, Hong Kong, Republic of Korea and Singapore), China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Vietnam, Bangladesh, Laos, Cambodia. My favorite chapters where about the Little Dragons (or Little Tigers) and China. Professor Llewelyn sketches in a few sentences a mini-biography of some highly interesting Chinese companies with iconic brands and IP, such as Li Ning, Haier Group, Mengniu, Huawei, ZTE etc. Before the text Professor Llewelyn put a great maxim: "Don't make the mistake of thinking something is valuable merely because you can measure it. It is far better to work out what you can value and then see if you can measure it." That same maxim could not only be applied to IP, but to reading a book such as Invisible Gold in Asia as well.

If you want to get an overview of IP in Asia, this is the book to read. If you are an IP professional the book is the perfect present to give to clients, so that they can learn about the importance of IP, or to give to your spouse, or friends, so that they can get a clue about what you are doing.

Invisible Gold in Asia, Creating Wealth Through Intellectual Property, can be bought at Marshall Cavendish Business.
continue reading ...

Monday, November 08, 2010

Film Work Collective Copyright Management Use Fee Transfer Payment Rules


Remember that the National Copyright Administration of China (NCAC) promulgated rules for operators of internet cafes, planes, trains and automobiles have to start pay royalties for showing Chinese movies to the China Film Copyright Association. Read Hard Choice? Chinese Internet Café Owners/Transport Operators Can Choose Paying for Chinese Movies Or Using Free Pirated Movies.

IP Dragon's friend Rogier Creemers translated the Film Work Collective Copyright Management Use Fee Transfer Payment Rules, read here.
continue reading ...

Friday, November 05, 2010

SOSFakeFlash Cannot Forget: "Fighting Toward A Fake Flash Drive Free World"

SOSFakeFlash, is an interesting initiative. It is a site fighting "Toward a Fake Flash Drive Free World - No More Counterfeits - No More Data Loss" where people can report vendors of fake flash USB drives and MP players.
For example according to SOSFakeFlash liaoqin_25688, registered in China, is an eBay seller of counterfeit Flash USB drives and MP players. So eBay buyers are warned. Of course liaoqin_25688 can start under another name again. The real solution seems to be in a real name validation system.


"As much as financial help is desperately needed for the project - sorry we will not accept or take nay funds from sellers to be on the list [of safe sellers]. The issue is integrity and ethics. Many of us come from an era where those two qualities MATTER! That generation can not be "bought"!

Read more here and the Global Report eBay Fake Memory 2008-2009, here.
continue reading ...

Fake Medicines Advertised on Taiwanese TV, Radio and in Newspapers

Taiwan's Health Minister Yang Chih-liang warns that the public should not believe TV, radio and newspaper advertisments selling fake pharmaceuticals. Minister Yang called the proliferation of counterfeit drugs more serious than drug trafficking.

Read the China Post article here.
continue reading ...

November 17: USCC Report about Indigenous Innovation, WTO and Disclosure Requirements

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) will release its 2010 Report to Congress at a press conference Wednesday, November 17.

Among the topics in the 316-page report will be about:
National defense and foreign affairs and energy and environmental issues.

But also about economic, trade and censor issues:

  • China's 'indigenous innovation' policy to promote favored industries and limit imports;.
  • China's past and future role in the World Trade Organization;
  • How China's revised state secrets laws may conflict with U.S. disclosure requirements and put U.S. investments in Chinese firms at risk.
UPDATE November 18, 2010: report has been released, read more about it here.

continue reading ...

Thursday, November 04, 2010

How To Get The Copyright When You Commission a Work in China?

Xu Hui-Meng of the Henan University of Finance and Economics, Zhengzhou, wrote in May of 2010 the article: 'The research on the nature of the agreement of the ownership of the copyright of the commissioned works' for the Journal of Guangxi Administrative Cadre Institute of Politics and Law (广西政法管理干部学院学报), volume 25, number 3.

Abstract:
"The copyright of commissioned works [has] important contract terms. The nature of the ownership of copyright agreement is related to the client to obtain the copyright, the trustee obligations and the balance of the interests of both sides. The client gets the copyright through the commissioned works contract that is called achieving by the following. As a result of the invisible works and lack of copyright registration system , the Trustee fulfills his obligation by the legal presumption of copyright transfer. The transfer of the copyright happens with the creation of the commissioned works. The writing contract of the Commissioned works often becomes public means of copyright transfer. Payment from the client and the copyright transfer from the trustee constitute the consideration that impacts copyright transfer."

Read Xu's article here (pdf in Chinese). Picture Danny Friedmann, Yangshuo, Guangxi Province.
continue reading ...

Message of Blog Urges State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping "To Clarify" Intellectual Property Rights Position


Jia Li of the People's Daily reported that the State Bureau of Surveying and Maps (SBSM) announced that the Map World, a Chinese public platform for national geographical information was released on October 21, 2010 and was considered a web service independently developed by China.

Jia Li writes: "But one Chinese person raised doubts about this on a blog the next day, saying the satellite maps used in Map World most likely come from the U.S.-based DigitalGlobe, which is the satellite imagery provider of Google Maps."

"SBSM clarified that the independent intellectual property of Map World refers to the online service software, but not data resource like the satellite imagery itself."

Read the People's Daily article here.
continue reading ...

Wise Advice From the Aeronautics Industry about IP

Boeing and Airbus see new competitors approaching, which includes China's Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China Ltd. (Comac) although whose inaugural model C919 might not be competitive outside China, for now.

Carolyn Corvi, board member at aircraft supplier Goodrich Corp. was quoted by Aubrey Cohen as saying: "The realization and reality is you can't always protect everything [in regard to intellectual property rights]. The winners will be the ones keep advancing the technology so they always step ahead of the competition."
Read Ms Cohen's article for Seattle PI here.

continue reading ...