Showing posts with label AmCham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AmCham. Show all posts

Friday, August 19, 2011

EU, U.S. Perception: "China Is Discriminating". What Are We Going To Do Against It?

US: We have so many
stars, we deserve 

to be treated
accordingly in China
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden is visiting China to try to smooth the Sino-Chinese relations (one can argue that the U.S. is borrowing money from China to import from China) and meet with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping (习近平) who is expected to succeed President Hu Jintao (胡锦涛) in 2013. With the election coming up in November 2012 their is pressure on the Biden and Obama to show that they can create new jobs to get the U.S. economy going. 

Perception

Biden is going to talk also with U.S. and Chinese business leaders. Kate Andersen Brower and Michael Forsythe point out in their Bloomberg article that U.S. business leaders are more worried about the level playing field in China, which includes intellectual property protection and enforcement, than the alleged overvalued Renminbi that makes export to China more expensive. 

""Our members do not think currency is the top issue in our relationship," said Erin Ennis, vice president of the U.S.- China Business Council. Bigger concerns are "level-playing field issues," like opening up the Chinese market to U.S. exports and protecting intellectual property."

Tony Su, corporate vice president and president of DuPont Greater China was quoted saying: "We have a rising concern about IP protection," Su said, adding that it is an especially important consideration for his company, the biggest U.S. chemicals maker by market value and second-biggest seed producer in the world. "The government can be an example to industry that stealing technology will be punished by law."

We have some stars,
please consider
us as stars 
 in China
Surveys in both the EU and U.S. confirm the concern about discrimination of foreign firms in China. When EU business leaders were asked " will the Chinese government have policies in place that discriminate against foreign companies?"in a survey by the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, 46 percent (36 percent in 2010) answered "Yes, in the next two years."
And when the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) asked whether China is discriminating against foreign companies with its licensing process, 71 percent answered yes.

It is also interesting to watch the foreign politics strategies play out in regard to China. Is the U.S. strategy, which is arguably more assertive but also more confrontational more effective than the EU strategy that is more constructive but also more passive. I think if the U.S. and EU would coordinate their efforts and come up with a combined good cop bad cop approach, they can attain better results than if they would operate on their own. What do yo think?

Read the Bloomberg article via SF Gate, here

Now That We  Some EU and US business leaders Found Perceive Love Discrimination, What Are We Going To Do With Against It?
We are talking about perception. Now what are we going to do against it? Like each year the European Chamber of Commerce has formulated some interesting suggestions in their 'European Business in China 2011/2012 Position Paper' that will be launched on September 8, 2011 in Beijing and Shanghai. The following subjects, that are all related to intellectual property rights, will be covered:

1. The positive role European companies can play in helping China reach the goals of its 12th Five-Year Plan:
-Developing the service sector
-Enhancing environmentally-friendly and advanced technologies
-Encouraging Innovation
2. An overview of the key themes of recommendations to Chinese policymakers:
-Increasing Market Access
-Enhancing Transparency & Predictability in Legislation
-Improving Regulatory Efficiency
-Encouraging Innovation through Intellectual Property Rights Protection
3. Recommendations to both European and Chinese governments on EU-China commercial relations and the prospects for a bilateral investment treaty.

The Beijing launch of the paper will be held at Kempinski Hotel at 4 o'clock (free for members, 400 Renminbi for non-members) Dirk Moens, secretary general of the Chamber and Davide Cucino president of the Chamber will give a presention, see here. The Shanghai launch will be held at The Westin Bund Centre Shanghai at noon (free for members, 300 Renminbi for non-members) and Piter de Jong, vice president of the Chamber will give a presentation, see here.

Piter de Jong explains in a Squawk Box CNBC interview how the EU companies are missing out on a trillion dollar procurement, he also elaborates on the business confidentiality survey 2011 by the EU Chamber of Commerce in China, see here.
continue reading ...

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Seventy Percent of US Business in China Values Protection of IP Critically Or Very Important

The American Chamber of Commerce in China (AmCham-China) launched its 2010 Business Climate Survey Report. It seems here too the climate is heating up. IP relevant results are:
  • In 2009 18 percent (company sample size 311) reported intellectual property rights infringements issues as a top-five business challenge.
  • In 2010 this has grown to 19 percent (company sample size 318).
To the question (company sample size 277) 'How important is the protection of intellectual property rights to your business?' in 2010:
  • 25 percent answered 'critically important'
  • 45 percent 'very important'
  • 19 percent 'slightly important'
  • 11 percent 'not important'
To the question 'How would you rate China's enforcement of intellectual property rights?'
In 2002 (company sample size 219): 21 percent 'totally ineffective', 63 percent 'ineffective' and 16 percent 'effective or very effective';
In 2004 (company sample size 210): 21 percent 'totally ineffective', 70 percent 'ineffective' and 9 percent 'effective or very effective';
In 2005 (company sample size 331): 15 percent 'totally ineffective', 65 percent 'ineffective' and 20 percent 'effective or very effective';
In 2008 (company sample size 389): 12 percent 'totally ineffective', 62 percent 'ineffective' and 26 percent 'effective or very effective';
In 2009 (company sample 129): 12 percent 'totally ineffective', 60 percent 'ineffective' and 26 percent 'effective or very effective';
In 2010 (company sample 146): 11 percent 'totally ineffective' , 63 percent 'ineffective' and 26 percent 'effective or very effective.

So in short the awareness of IP in China-issues as a major business challenge has risen marginally; 70 percent of business in China knows the importance of IP protection for their success in China; and 74 percent perceives that IP enforcement in China is totally ineffective or ineffective: which is about the same perception as in 2008.
On second thought: Because the samples were drastically smaller in 2009 and 2010, the survey for these years might be less representative.
See the 2010 business climate survey report here.
continue reading ...

Monday, May 11, 2009

AmCham Gives Chinese Government Recommendations About Copyright Law, Trademark Law and Patent Law

American Chamber of Commerce in the People's Republic of China (AmCham-China) issued the 'American Business in China White Paper 2009' last month. Pages 45-48 pdf, with pagenumbers 88-94 are about intellectual property rights protection. Read here.

AmCham-China's recommendations to the Chinese government are:
  • "Continue the pioneering efforts of the US Embassy and government in recent years, with greater internal coordination and cooperation with industry.
  • Amend the Chinese Patent law to address AmCham-China concerns, as specified in this chapter (IP Dragon: Lacks patentability from computer program/software; left out an earlier draft provision allowing employers and inventors to define remuneration for employment invention through contracts; requires the disclosure of genetic resource for patentability; does not have criteria of inventiveness at the same levels for utility model patents and invention patents; does not compensate for regulatory approval process delays in the duration of drug patents; does not set forth conditions for granting compulsory license in sufficiently detailed language; and is unclear and possibly overly broad in defining what constitutes “patent abuse,” its relationship with the Anti-monopoly Law, and “working” requirements for patents.
  • Fully support and follow through with the efforts of the trademark office in eliminating the examination backlog. Retain the Trademark Office examination of trademark applications on relative grounds.
  • Establish new public-private partnerships to duplicate the effective IPR infringement prevention during the Olympics.
  • Resist establishing IP policies in violation of WTO rules, which unduly favor Chinese domestic companies over foreign companies.
  • Amend the 2006 Internet Regulations and Copyright Law to correspond with international norms and comply with WIPO treaties.
  • Enable websites and ISPs to work with rightholders and adopt preventive measures such as filtering and automated take-down.
  • Establish a clear and transparent government structure for administrative enforcement, and adopt an inter-departmental enforcement platform."
I do not understand AmCham-China's recommendation to change China's patent law so that it has criteria of inventiveness at the same levels for utility model patents and invention patents. A utility model patent is something completely different from an invention patent: Utility model patents are meant to protect innovations and are not examined at the application stage, such as an invention patent, and is only examined in case it is enforced. Besides, the protection term for a utililty patent is 10 years, while the term for an invention patent is 20 years. Do you know the ratio of this recommendation?
continue reading ...

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Multinationals Strengthen Their Commitment to China; But Are Scared of IPR Challenges

Booz & Company conducted a study (survey under 108 foreign invested manufacturing companies) together with the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai to see what the influence is of the economic crisis on their commitment of doing business in China.

"Nearly three-fourths (73 percent) of respondents said that enforcing intellectual property protection was “important” or “very important.” Other manufacturing sector issues ranked similarly include improving education and productivity of Chinese labor (67 percent), increasing quality and safety standards for Chinese-made products (66 percent), and welcoming foreign investment (62 percent). Respondents reported that the Chinese government has made noticeable progress on improving manufacturing infrastructure and incremental progress on protecting intellectual property rights."
Read the summary of the AmCham Shanghai/Booz & Company 'China Manufacturing Competitiveness report 2008-2009' here.
continue reading ...

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Indian High Court Claims Jurisdiction Against Chinese Cybersquatter of ICICIGROUP.COM

Malathi Nayak of Livemint has a very interesting article about who has the jurisdiction over Chinese entities if they infringe intellectual property rights via the internet. In this case a Chinese entity had registered the domain name icicigroup.com which is similar to icicibank.com.

First the icicibank tried to get control over the domain name by filing a complaint with the WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Center (AMC) using the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. To no avail.

Malathi Nayak wrote:

"In December, justice Sanjiv Khanna [of India's High Court, IP Dragon] passed an order restraining a resident of Beijing, Chuandong Xu, and a Chinese website registrar, HiChina Web Solutions Ltd, from using or selling the site ICICIGROUP.COM.
The order was passed ex parte or in the absence of the defendant. The same court had heard a 2007 case, in which India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd sued US-based India Broadcast Live Llc. over thewww.indiatvlive.com domain name. In October, it dismissed India TV’s suit and allowed India Broadcast Live to use the name.
The two cases mark a trend where Indian courts are ruling on cybersquatting cases involving people and firms from different geographies—not all of which may fall under their jurisdiction."

The enforceability of such cross-border rulings are in general doubtful. However, Saikrishna Rajagopal, partner at Saikrishna and Associates, who filed the suit for ICICI bank, said that the Chinese defendants have complied with the high court order.

Read more Malathi Nayak's article here.
continue reading ...

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

AmCham to USTR: "Remove Taiwan From Special 301 Watch List"

America's Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) in Taipei requested the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to remove Taiwan from the Special 301 Watch List, a list of countries that are allegedly failing to adequately protect IPR and used as a trade tool.

Carrot more effective than stick?

In March, AmCham Taipei wrote a letter in which the laubable progress on the island was noted: Taiwan stenghtened its IPR legislation, tightened its enforcement, through the establishement of dedicated task forces, and the inauguration of a specialised IPR appelate court.

AmCham asserts that rewarding Taiwan for its achievement is the best encouragement for Taiwan "[..] to continue to move forward in IPR as parts of efforts to raise its investment environment to new levels of excellence." Read AmCham's request to Washington here.

Room for improvements

AmCham's 2008 White Paper is called: 'It's Time to Get Down to Business', see here.
The 2008 White Paper Committee on Intellectual Property & Licensing has produced a paper with recommendations to the Taiwan government, see here.
Crackdown on DVD copying factory
An example of Taiwan's actions against IPR infringements could be found in the Taiwan News of yesterday: There was a report by the Central News Agency of Taiwan that the Chiayi (northern Taiwan) unit of the Intellectual Property Protection Brigade under the Taiwan Provincial Police Administration held a DVD copying factory under surveillance for half a year. Whether this is (too) long, is hard to say, with the given limited information in the article. Read here.
continue reading ...