Showing posts with label China Daily. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China Daily. Show all posts

Friday, January 06, 2012

Key IP Question Before Considering Joint-Venture: Am I Educating My Future Competitor Or Building A Long-Term Partnership?

Colin Davies, managing director of Accenture Software, wrote a column for China Daily European Weekly (always asking whether the content is not usable for the Chinese edition) about ways that will make a better cooperation between Chinese and Western software companies possible: "The West will need greater assurances that the regulatory environment is friendly and conducive to building strong business relationships in ways that both sides can view as credible and mutually beneficial." Who can disagree with this.

Mr Davies also tries to answer the question of how a Western software developer can give a client in China a jump-start asset and let them customize it, while at the same time protecting their intellectual property?

"Although Chinese laws do exist to protect intellectual property (IP), the question is whether anyone is prepared to enforce them. IP protection will need to be adequately addressed before Western software developers are prepared to dive aggressively into the Chinese market."

Then he sketches the situation of a Sino-Western joint-venture, in a bit too optimistic light, in my view:

"Meanwhile, the prospect of a joint venture is attractive because Western companies, rather than investing resources to establish a foothold in a new and very different environment, have the advantage of leveraging the know-how of a local organization already well entrenched in China. This affords them the immediate benefit of a partner that has trust and recognition in the marketplace, knows the local players, and is more likely to defend the IP fiercely for the simple reason that it is also part of theirs."

When simple might be more complex
Some Western companies have been lured (or pushed) a bit too easily in "sharing" their intellectual property without rock-hard agreements that guarantee that the Western company is getting the intellectual property back once the joint venture dissolves. In other words, your joint venture partner can be a significant intellectual property challenge too. Also each company has to think carefully about how much of its knowledge it is willing to transfer in order to get market access. To sum up: Each potential Western company has to ask itself this question: Am I educating a future competitor or building a long-term partnership? Although Mr Davies is not asking the question, he is answering them: "Trust is vital." Read his article here.
continue reading ...

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Netac President Complains About Unequal Treatment Overseas Patents

Netac Technology, the first Chinese company that sued a U.S. company (Texas PNY Technologies)  for patent infringement in 2006, and which settled out of court, expects that it has protected its IPR in all important markets by 2015.

Cheng Xiao-hua, president of Netac Technology alleges that it often takes a Chinese firm much longer to obtain a patent overseas than it does for its foreign counterparts. The next quote of Cheng suggests that this is the fault of the overseas patent office that is examining the Chinese patents.
"Cheng said he is expecting a better climate for Chinese companies in applying for patents overseas, and a more "equal examination period and fairer treatment"."

About which patent office his is talking remains unclear. It would be interesting to see this backed up by some statistics. 

Read China Daily's Zhang Shiyi's article here.
continue reading ...

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Canton Fair Tries To Become More Fair In IPR Protection, Problems Remain

By Michiel Tjoe-Awie

Canton Fair is the biggest show on earth. It shows more kinds of products then one can think off and is also known as “The” China Import and Export Fair. But for many manufacturers the fair comes with a dilemma. “Yes”, they want to sell their products to the world. But in order to sell you first have to show and showing is dangerous in a place that, besides having representatives of all over the world who might be interested in buying your product, is also crowded with honest and less honest competitors. And here is the “No” in the dilemma, it’s not good business to give away your new designs and inventions on a silver platter. It might only take a few clicks with a camera on a phone to start the copying process in a remote factory in the Chinese industrial jungle (read the story Danny Friedmann (2007) posted about it here), most likely not even that far from the fair. This problem is still very real but their some strategic steps has been taken. Over the years the Canton Fair has tried to curb the supply of IPR infringing goods that are offered at the exhibition. The timeline below offers an oversight.

Timeline
1957 – First Canton Fair: Canton Fair was organized for the first time;
2001 – Introduction of an IPR plan: Canton Fair comes up with IPR regulations;
2002 – Introduction of reverse burden of proof: Canton Fair orders companies to provide evidence to prove their innocence if accused of IPR infringements;
2004 – Canton Fair becomes model: the State Council issues an action plan for IPR protection demanding that all other trade fairs should learn from Canton Fair;
2006 - Canton Fair’s regulations are leading: the Canton Fair regulations were used as an example for China's first trade fair IPR regulations (Protection Measures for IPRs during Exhibitions);
2011 – Canton Fair IPR statistics 2011: Canton Fair handled 616 IPR infringement complaints from companies taking part, 800 exhibitors were accused and 465 companies received disciplinary action, which includes in some cases being expelled from the fair.
- Companies that were found to have infringed IPRs were named and shamed during the fair;
- During the fair a Sino-Japanese symposium on IPR protection was held.

Read Zhou Sufen's article for China Daily here.

Tip! Before going to an exhibition don’t forget to register your IPRs in the strategic markets. Contact Danny Friedmann if you want to know more about this.

Text Michiel Tjoe-Awie
continue reading ...

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

IPO Candidate Tudou Is Building Its Patent Portfolio For Future Growth, Promoting Chinese Creativity

With 90.1 million registered users, 
Tudou 土豆, which means potato, 
is no small potato. 

The site for investors 'Seeking Alpha' gives an analysis of the Chinese online video site Tudou.com 土豆网 (for which they use the symbol TUDO) in relation to its competitors, before it is going for an Initial Public Offering (IPO) at NASDAQ Stock Exchange in the US. The IPO was planned last November, but because of a quarrel between the founder and his ex-wife it was delayed. 

For the valuation of what a company is worth, and to valuate the price per share, one should take into account the IP portfolio of a firm. In case of technology firms such as this online video company patents play an extremely important role. They can be used for defensive or offensive purposes. Seeking Alpha took a  look at the intellectual property of the IPO candidate: "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY -- TUDO owns one utility model patent in China relating to a unique search engine system, and is in the process of applying for 32 additional patents to protect core technologies with respect to online video distribution and search."

Read the analysis here.

Effective measure against copyright infringement: create copyrighted works
Huang Ying has an interesting China Daily article about how Tudou is supporting the creation of Chinese films and TV drama, read it here.

UPDATE: August 19, 2011 Can NASDAQ Fund Chinese Piracy?

Tom Cheredar of Venture Beat gives the update on the Tudou IPO: they raised 174 million US dollar at the NASDAQ, read more here.
Greg Pilarowski wrote on July 27, 2011 also for Venture Beat about how a possible Xunlei IPO could lead that Chinese piracy would be funded via NASDAQ, read here.
continue reading ...

Monday, August 08, 2011

Must Read Monday: Bye Bye Shanzhai, Hello Mainstream Smartphones

Photo: Close Encounters
To Migrate or not. A wildebeest's dilemma:
"Starvation if I stay,
or risk of being eaten by a crocodile if I go
"
Shen Jingting wrote an excellent article for China Daily about the epic migration taking place within the Shenzhen mobile phone industry.

Shen is distinguishing three phases: 
  • Production of Shanzhai phones and focus on emerging markets, such as India and Nigeria and delivering to the domestic market.
  • Transform into a legitimate supplier with good relationships with operators in emerging markets, also because when a Shanzhai producer is acquiring a high profile it will be vulnerable for IP lawsuits (as happened to "G'Five International Ltd, a Shenzhen-based handset supplier that mainly sells phones in Asian and African countries, and was sued by Nokia in India for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights."). Or working for international brands such as Motorola or Samsung. 
  • Follow the Taiwan-based HTC Corp. strategy, that has succeeded in entering profitable markets in Europe and North America. 
There is enough ambition to reach the third phase. Huawei even expects to be a top five global mobile phone supplier by 2014. And ZTE wants to become one of the world's top three mobile phone vendors by 2015.

Read Shen's article here.
continue reading ...

Friday, August 05, 2011

One Out of Three Seeds in China Infringes Patents

Do you want patented rice with that?
Zhou Siyou writes for the China Daily: 
"An estimated 8,700 seed companies are operating in the Chinese market, but fewer than 100 have their own intellectual property rights. More than 90 percent of the companies are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)and have lower levels of research and technology. Around 30 percent of them are engaged in producing and selling counterfeit seeds every year, according to industry reports." 
Read the China Daily article here. 

Chuin-Wei Yap writes for the Wall Street Journal that China is trying to establish national champions in the life science business that can compete with the likes of Monsanto and Pioneer, read more here.
continue reading ...

Monday, April 18, 2011

How bright is Bright Sword?

Is the Force with mass campaigns?
Are mass campaigns of intellectual property enforcement mere temporary patchwork, leaving untouched the underlaying problems? Most mass campaigns are still announced with starting date and expiration date. The only thing trademark counterfeiters and copyright pirates need to do is book a holiday and start after the campaign is over, reinvigorated. Now I exaggerate a bit. But mass campaigns are in my view suboptimal and overrated, despite all the impressive statistics, and to be consumed by foreign media tired about reporting on IPR infringement cases in China.

The newest campaign is named Bright Sword. The question is whether it is a bit less typical in that it will continue for quite a long time. It started November 2010 and will continue until the end of 2011. The police seized 14,185 suspects in five months, allegedly involved in over 8,000 cases of IPR infringements, according to the Public Security Ministry.

Zhang Yan and Cai Yin wrote for the China Daily that Bright Swords focuses on eight fields including fake international brands, fake food and drugs, pirated film and television works as well as organised crime. Zhang and Cai wrote in the same article that the police is targeting four activities: agriculture, fake drugs, counterfeit wine and food, as well as fake brands. If the journalists are so unclear about which categories are targeted IPR infringers have a more difficult job finding out if they need to temporarily stop their activities.

Deputy director of the ministry's economic crime investigation department, Gao Feng was quoted saying that of 7,000 production and sales outlets were shut down and that the ministry will focus on the supervision of 340 major cases to ensure thorough investigation and punishment of violators. This information is a bit cryptical: does it mean that out of 8,000 cases just 340 cases are prosecuted?

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

Monday, February 07, 2011

What Is the Superlative of Contributory Liability?... Local State Supervision Liability?

Managing IP magazine, had a link to an interesting China Daily article, see here in which a State Administration for Radio Film and Television (SARFT) official was quoted as saying that it is "working on the establishment of an internet audio-visual programs industry association (..)". The application has been submitted and it now waiting approval to the Ministry of Civil Affairs.

Also interesting in the article is that the government intensified supervision over major internet enterprises, a precautionary move to stop piracy spreading. "In 2009, the number websites being supervised by local copyright authorities, reached 3,029. They include Taobao.com, Baidu, Sohu and Youku."

That means that if infringement still took place in that period, it was under local copyright supervision.

Taobao is China's e-commerce platform. And where eBay is sued by trademark holders in the U.S. (Tiffany), France (Hermès and LVHM) and Belgium (Lancôme), in China Taobao was sued for example by Puma; read Lee, Won Hee Elaine. 'Online Auction Sites and Inconsistencies: A Case Study of France, China, and the United States.' American University Intellectual Property Brief, Spring 2010, 50-57, here.

Jesse London (who is the managing editor of Cornell Journal of International Law), wrote an interesting note on China's Approaches to Intellectual Property Infringement on the Internet for the Internet Journal of Rutgers School of Law, volume 38, 2010-2011, read here. Mr London is comparing the IFPI cases against Baidu and Yahoo China and comes to the conclusion that the degree of good faith of the online service provider is crucial, but so is the degree of reasonableness of the demands of the trademark holder by insisting in the measures against infringement.

Youku (the Chinese equivalent of YouTube) had a lot of pirated Hollywood movies. But I checked a few times and they indeed seem to have cleaned up a lot of copyright piracy.
continue reading ...

Thursday, December 09, 2010

Prepositions in China Product Labels Tell It All: Good Bye Country of Origin, Hello Country of Destination

1 articles to go: IP Dragon on its way to its 1,000th article

The world is flat according to Thomas Friedman, and therefore the determination of the country of origin of most products is becoming more complex. So what should be put on the product labels? Below a short history.

Made in China
The probability that any given product has a label 'Made in China' (中国制造) is quite high. Because of some lethal food and drink scandals and recalls, its reputation was dealt some major blows. Dirk Lammers wrote in 2007 an article for MSNBC.com about the effort his family made to avoid one week products with the label Made in China. Read here.

Made with China
To associate China products with Western quality, a "co-branding" campaign was started in 2009, under the banner of Made with China. As you can see in the video: Made in China, with American sports technology, Made in China with European styling, Made in China with software from Silicon Valley, Made in China with French design. Read also Jin Zhu's China Daily article about a static advertisement during the Shanghai F1 Grand Prix, in April 2010, here.




World Trade Organization (WTO) General-Director Pascal Lamy was trying to ion out trade disputes bubbling up, and invoking David Ricardo's theory on comparative advantage,
to put it into perspective. Mr Lamy used the example of an iPod.

"According to a recent study, it has an export value of $150 per unit in Chinese trade statistics but the value added attributable to processing in China is only $4, with the remaining value added assembled in China coming from the United States, Japan, and other Asian countries."

Read Mr Lamy's speech of April 2010 here.

Made for China
trendwatching.com identified eleven trends in 2010. On number 11 is Western products and brands that are adapted and specially 'made for China, if not BRIC'. The explanation is that Western companies want to profit from the economic growth in China by leveraging the perceived quality of Western goods and brands. An example is Shang Xia, a new brand of French luxury house Hermès.

"Affluent Chinese consumers prefer foreign brands: 52% of consumers whose annual income exceeds RMB 250,000 (USD 36,765) trust foreign brands more than Chinese ones while just 37% said they prefer the latter. (Source: McKinsey, September 2010)"
continue reading ...

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

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 ...

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Don't Feed The Patent Trolls in China and Start Your Own IP Team

Tian Lipu, commissioner of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) visited Samsung, according to the China Daily. Mr Tian was told by the Keun-Hee Park, president of Samsung's operations in China that patent trolls were on the rise.

One can argue that a patent troll, or more neutrally called a non-practising entity (NPE) abuses its intellectual property: the patent is only used to enforce or threaten to enforce it via litigation. This way, they do not create added value to society, because (except for lawyers and magistrates) and form an obstacle to research and/or manufacturing of some product.

According to PatentFreedom, a website providing research on and strategy about NPEs, Samsung has been relentlessly pursued and ranks sixth by the number of NPE lawsuits it was involved in in 2009. See the list at the site of PatentFreedom here.

Mr Tian was quoted saying: "Since the Chinese government adopted a national intellectual property strategy in 2008, fighting such inappropriate use of patents has been listed as one of five top priorities on our agenda."

If one reads Article 4 (Preventing Abuses of IPRs) of Chapter III Strategic Focus of the National Intellectual Property Strategy 2008 you will see: (14) Formulate relevant laws and regulations d to reasonably define the scope of intellectual property. Prevent abuses of intellectual property. Maintain fair market competition. Safeguard the public lawful rights and interests.

The fact that Samsung founded a special intellectual property team was praised by Mr Tian. It is "of demonstrational significance" to Chinese companies, according to Mr Tian. Whether Samsung's example will be followed remains to be seen.

Read the China Daily article here.

UPDATE: Anonymous wrote a very interesting comment:

"As many Chinese commentators have noted, what constitutes patent "misuse" or "abuse" is unclear in China. Also, what constitutes an "NPE" or "troll" or (in Chinese) "cockroach" is also unclear. If it is simply a "non-practicing entity" then all research institutions may be trolls. The concept of "abuse" in Chinese (lanyong) likely encompasses "abuse" under the Chinese antitrust law (Art. 55) and may also encompass "misuse" - which is typically a defense to infringement and not an affirmative claim in the US. Moreover, there are aspects of the issue which involve patent examinations/grants/novelty requirements and patent litigation (damages/availability of injunctive relief). A country, such as China can have a relatively high level of NPE's (or non-service inventions), esp. in patents that are not examined for substance (utility model and design patents), or in patents that were once examined only on grounds of "relative novelty" (under the former patent law), but the patents may have a low value for litigation (damages or injunctions, or preliminary injunctions). Moreover, there may be limited means of compensating a victim for abusive assertion of rights - under US "Walker Process" type remedies, or "Rule 11" or other doctrines."
continue reading ...

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Symbolic IPR Enforcement and Bonfire of the Vanities

Zhang Jiawei reported for the China Daily about China's efforts to destroy pirated goods and raise awareness among the public.
  • China destroyed 36 million copies of pirated and illegal publications in 31 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities, the Guangming Daily reported.
  • A total of 15 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities each destroyed more than 1 million copies of pirated and illegal publications.
  • China obtained 8.48 million illegal publications and handled 1,894 IPR cases in the first quarter of this year in preparation for the Shanghai World Expo.
It is not clear what the author means with illegal. Works of which the copyright is pirated are illegal, but censored works are illegal in China too. Maybe this is the distinction the author is making.

In Bozhou, Anhui province they seized and set fire to "3,000 illegally copied reading materials, 14,000 porn discs, 117 gambling machines and 2,000 units of illegal satellite TV receivers (..)"
Read more in the corresponding China Daily article with less than impressive pictures of a "bonfire of the vanities" which shows basically the empty caskets of gambling machines.

Read the China Daily article here.

IP Dragon has covered these kind of operations already many times and is quite pessimistic about its efficacy. Instead it prefers an emphasis on streamlining litigation, criminal and administrative procedures.

continue reading ...

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

News From The Front Lines

Guest article and picture by Mikołaj Rogowski

Writing that the all-front global IPR war between the owners and the infringers is well underway might sound a bit of a truism so I will simply skip to the notable news from the trenches.

Chinese government owned China Daily and Taiwanese China Post both have some worth reading articles regarding details of the Beijing No 1 Intermediate People's Courts recent decision. The amount of +67000 dollars of compensation is by no means a substantial sum for a corporate giant of Microsoft’s size but it’s more than sure that it will be a motivation for the likes of Strongwel to make sure that no one under their roof is selling computers with illegal software.

Remember how some of the commentators used to mention that a time will come when the entire trend of litigation against Chinese based entities will turn against some weiguo firms? The time is now, it seems : China Post reports that Wall Mart and Best Buy have been sued in US court, by a Chinese company on the grounds of patent infringement. The article has some interesting data regarding the number of Chinese patent applications.

Final piece of news: not surprisingly my previous post on the topic of the health reform in china and what it means for the “western” medical companies is not the only material that focuses on the opportunities and threats that come with this Chinese reform. Go to Reuters. Once again, some very interesting numbers are attached.

This is the third guest contribution of Mikołaj Rogowski, law student at Jagiellonian University, author of several IP articles and Polish-English translations, specializes in Polish, European, Chinese and American IP law, China assistant to MEP Jan Olbrycht. His first guest contribution can be found here, second here.

continue reading ...