Trademark Logo Goes Up in Smoke To Save Australians? Let's Check The HK-Australian Bilateral Investment Treaty

How to warn people
against blindness who
 cannot do not want to see?

Cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris was not amused when Australia announced last November 2010 that it would prohibit brand logos on cigarette packets, to prevent exposure to children that might be lured to the flames of eternal damnation. Smoking kills 15,000 deaths in Australia each year.

According to the BBC: "Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said "glitzy designs on packets" attracted children to smoking and it made sense to look at "less attractive packaging". Read here. As you can see the substitute for the
brand logo is less than attractive, unless you are a masochist. So "plain packaging law" as the Australian law is described is quite a euphemism.

The proposed ban would be implemented in 2012, and made the cigarette manufacturers worry that this would jeopardise their financial health. 

Philip Morris Brands: Marlboro, Virginia Slims, Merit, Parliament, Benson & Hedges, L&M, Chesterfield, Lark, Cambridge, Basic


If a cigarette manufacturer such as Philip Morris can no longer use their trademarked logos on its cigarette packets (including the heraldry with the slogan "veni-vidi-vice", which is Ceasar's phrase meaning I came, I saw and I conquered) it becomes more difficult to distinguish its brand of cigarettes from other brands of cigarettes. The personality of the brand, the carefully cultivated associations with the brand, will partly go up in smoke. Then again all Philip Morris' competitors deal with the same problem. Cigarette manufacturers such as Philip Morris and British Tobaccco, that have advertised for decades to gain name recognition and brand associations will probably lose relatively more market share than more generic brands.

But can Australia really prohibit the use of trademarked logos and only allow the trademarked brand name on a packet full of warnings?

According to a BBC article, Philip Morris Asia, based in Hong Kong, is now considering a case against Australia for violating the Bilateral Investment 'Agreement between the Governments of Hong Kong and Australia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments' signed in 1993, see here. 

Intellectual property rights falls, according to article 1 (e) iv of the Bilateral Investment Treaty, within the scope of the definition of investment ("intellectual property rights including rights with respect to copyright, patents, trademarks, trade names, industrial designs, trade secrets, know-how and goodwill").

The first sentence of article 6 (1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty is: "Investors of either Contracting Party shall not be deprived of their investments nor subjected to measures having effect equivalent to such deprivation in the area of the other Contracting Party except under due process of law, for a public purpose related to the internal needs of that Party, on a non-discriminatory basis, and against compensation."

This means that Australia cannot subject an investor in Hong Kong to "measures having effect equivalent to such deprivation", such as the prohibition of the use of a trademarked logo on cigarette packets, except for a public purpose related to the internal needs of Australia. To prevent 15,000 people in Australia each year from dying caused by smoking I think falls within this definition. So the exception can only kick-in in case there is a public purpose, check, and compensation for the expropriation of the use of the logo.

Claimant = company       respondent = state

Bilateral Investment Treaties can be a vehicle for companies to get a binding tribunal judgement against a non-compliant state via for example the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. In case a company wanted to change a law or regulation in a state that is not in compliance to the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), it could lobby its government to bring the case to the Dispute Settlement panel of the World Trade Organization, (which was done collectively by the copyright industries for example in case of DS 362) which is a less direct and less efficient route for a company to take. 

Interested in Bilateral Investment Treaties?

This time I wrote about Bilateral Investment Treaties because it touches upon the protection of intellectual property rights and Hong Kong. At the Chinese University of Hong Kong there are, however two experts in this field who deal with the subject in a broader sense. Professor Bryan Mercurio, Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) has written extensively about the subject. For example two books: 'Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements: Commentary and Analysis' (Cambridge University Press, 2009)(edited with Simon Lester) 'Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements: Case Studies' (Cambridge University Press, 2009)(edited with Simon Lester). This year the following book chapter will be published about a particularly fascinating region: Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements in Asia: A Sceptic’s View’ in Ross Buckley, Richard Hu and Douglas Arner (eds), The Economic and Financial Integration of East Asia (Edward Elgar, forthcoming 2011). See more of Professor Mercurio's publications here.

Another expert is Professor Julien Chaisse (CUHK), who specialises in Foreign Direct Investments, and therefore also writes about Bilateral Investment Treaties: 'Do bilateral investment treaties increase foreign direct investment flows - Revisiting the role of legal parameters in economic empirical research’ as co-investigator with Prof. Christian Bellak (Forschungsprojekt ‘Vielfalt von Bilateralen Investitionsverträgen‘), supported by the Vienna University of Business and Economics (WU) & Arbeitskammer Vienna (Austria) (March 2010-March 2012). See more of Professor Chaisse's publications here.

Part III: Lessons Learned from Technology Transfer and Essential IP in China/HK

June 16th, the European Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong (ECCHK) organised together with the European Union Business Information Programme of Hong Kong and Macao the 3rd annual China IPR SME Helpdesk seminar, this time about 'Technology Transfer and Essential IP Strategies for EU SMEs in Mainland China and Hong Kong'. 

For all companies that are involved in adding or acquiring technology to and from China and want to remit the Renminbis earned, this seminar could not have come more timely. You can find Part I here and Part II you can find here.

Peter Cheung, Director of IPD Hong Kong
Photo: Danny Friedmann

Then it was Peter Cheung's turn. Mr Cheung is the Director of Intellectual Property Department, Hong Kong SAR. He has been representing Hong Kong in WIPO law-making conferences. Mr Cheung settled two WTO disputes (DS 174 US versus EU and DS 290 Australia versus EU, both about trademark protection and Geographical Indications). Mr Cheung's message was that Hong Kong should and could become an IP hub. Hong Kong's advantages are, among many more factors, that it is a bilingual special administrative region and that it is part of China.

Claudia Xu, Director of Hong Kong University of Science & Technology
Photo: Danny Friedmann

After this hopeful and optimistic message Claudia Xu, director of Hong Kong University of Science & Technology (HKUST) spoke about the university's technology transfer centre.

Elizabeth Wong, Associate DLA Piper
Photo: Danny Friedmann

Elizabeth Wong, associate of the Intellectual Property & Technology group at DLA Piper Hong Kong, specialised in trademark law. Ms Wong guided the audience through the economically most important IPRs: copyrights, trademarks and patents. She warned that trademark holders that only have an English name should also register a Chinese character trademark, otherwise there is a big chance that the public will come up with a Chinese character version of the brand, as happened in case of Ralph Lauren's Polo, namely 三脚马 (three legged horse), and also with Salvatore Ferragamo 飞甩鸡毛 (fly off the chicken feathers).

Ralph Lauren does not always use the polo player on the pony
Festival Walk, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Photo: Danny Friedmann

Ms Wong's assessment of good and bad Chinese language marks

Ms Wong also assessed some Chinese characters chosen by international brands. My favorite is Heineken: 喜力 (xi3 li3 in Mandarin, but also phonetic in Cantonese hei lik) which means happy power.

Ms Wong explained that one should register your products/services as broadly as possible. She illustrated it with Apple's application for the iPhone trademark in China in 2002. However, under subclass 0901 computers and computer software. In 2004 Hanwang Technology registered the mark iPhone device in subclass 0907 communication and navigation instruments. Apple lost in the opposition and the subjsequent appeal. Apple had to pay Hanwang Technology a substantial amount to get its mark back. China does protect well known marks, but iPhone was at that time not well known, yet.

Philippe Healey, China IPR SME Helpdesk
Photo: Danny Friedmann

The excellent morning was closed by Philippe Healey who gave a good overview of all the services of the China IPR SME Helpdesk. Check out their website here.

Veronica Llorca and her team of the European Chamber of Commerce have again organised an insightful and inspiring event. Thank you Veronica.

Part I you can find here.
Part II you can find here.

Part II: Lessons Learned from Technology Transfer and Essential IP in China/HK

June 16th, the European Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong (ECCHK) organised together with the European Union Business Information Programme of Hong Kong and Macao the 3rd annual China IPR SME Helpdesk seminar, this time about 'Technology Transfer and Essential IP Strategies for EU SMEs in Mainland China and Hong Kong'. 

For all companies that are involved in adding or acquiring technology to and from China and want to remit the Renminbis earned, this seminar could not have come more timely. You can find Part I here.

Dr. Martin Seybold, founder Seybold & Partner, Beijing
Photo: Danny Friedmann

Dr. Martin Seybold founder of Seybold & Partner in Beijing talked about how to manage technology transfer and the different structures for technology transfer (Contractual Technology Transfer, Transfer into Joint Venture/Foreign Invested Parntership, Transfer into Wholly Foreign Owned Enterprise).
Mr Seybold started with the overly broad definition of what technology transfer is.
Regulations on Administration of Import and Export of Technologies, effective since January 1, 2002: Import and export of technologies in these regulations refer to the transfer of technologies from outside the PRC into or out of the PRC through trade, investment, or economic or technological cooperation.

Such transfer includes assignment of patent rights or rights to apply for patents, licensing of rights to implement patents, assignement of technical know-how, technical service, etc.

Contract Law: “A technology contract is a contract the parties conclude for establishing their rights and obligations in respect of the development or transfer of technology, or in respect of technical consulting or service.”

Mr Seybold made clear how many certifications are needed in case of technology transfer.
Mr Seybold made some important distinctions between direct and indirect consequences of technology transfer. Technology transfer can have an immediate effect on the validity of the contract and transfer of money. Then indirect consequences are caused by IP brought in (“background IP”), or in case of a joint venture Joint IP, improvements that came into being during the joint-venture (“foreground IP”) generated through a project.

Mr Seybold made warnings against specific IP dangers:
Construction industry: copies of engineering drawings/blueprints; Public procurement: often transfer of technology to Chinese co-operation partner is a pre-condition; Chinese certifications: often disclosure of extensive know-how to Chinese inspections, even inspection of facilities in Europe.

Mr Seybold advices that companies should try to know the outcome of the intended technology transfer, which might be easy when the service/product is clearly defined, but it could be really challenging in case of research cooperation.

Examples of Contractual Technology Transfers are Licensing of IP, assignments of IP, consultancy, research cooperation. Your contract partner needs to be a “Technology Transfer Importer” even if only consultancy services are involved.

Mr Seybold stressed to make sure to clarify in the contract to what extent the transferred technology can be used. In case of a delivery of prototype for example: what about licenses in case the prototype becomes a product? And what about the protection of IP of the prototype? Make a distinction between the right of use and the right to register IP in China.

In case of a WFOE, according to Mr Seybold there are different means to transfer money, and validity of the technology transfer contract is usual not a problem.
Bigger challenges are an unwanted loss of IP through employees and registration of your IP by Chinese companies.
To avoid this one should have Non-Disclosure Agreements and Non-Competition clauses with employees.

Stephanie Mitchell, Head of the IPR Team
of the European Commission
DG Enterprise and Industry
Photo: Danny Friedmann

After this well structured presentation Ms Sun, Mr Seybold were in a panel discussion which was moderated by Stephanie Mitchell,. Head of the IPR Team of the European Commission, Directorate-General Enterprise and Industry. Ms Mitchell summarised it eloquently: Know thyself, know your IP.

Part III you can find here.
Part I you can find here.

Part I: Lessons Learned from Technology Transfer and Essential IP in China/HK

June 16th, the European Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong (ECCHK) organised together with the European Union Business Information Programme of Hong Kong and Macao the 3rd annual China IPR SME Helpdesk seminar, this time about 'Technology Transfer and Essential IP Strategies for EU SMEs in Mainland China and Hong Kong'. 

For all companies that are involved in adding or acquiring technology to and from China and want to remit the Renminbis earned, this seminar could not have come more timely.

Veronica Llorca, Project Director-European Union Business Information Programme

Photo: Danny Friedmann

Veronica Llorca (ECCHK) gave the kickoff of the event followed by Peter Cremers, chairman of ECCHK, who in his introductory words illustrated the importance of technology transfer and IP. Mr Cremers stressed that public awareness of IP is the guarantee for companies' long term success.

Peter Cremers, Chairman ECCHK
Photo: Danny Friedmann

Maria Castillo, Head of Office, EU Delegation to Hong Kong & Macau concisely described the high costs of IP infringements for EU industry. 

Maria Castillo, Head of Office, EU Delegation to Hong Kong and Macao
Photo: Danny Friedmann

Then Catherine Sun, managing director of China Intellectual Property Limited in Shanghai gave a presentation about the 'practical considerations for European companies engaging in technology transfer. Ms Sun gave an overview of the legal framework. 

Catherine Sun, Managing Director, China Intellectual Property Limited
Photo: Danny Friedmann

• Regulations on Administration of Technology Import and Export adopted by the State Council on October 31, 2001, promulgated on December 10, 2001, effective since January 1, 2002; 
• Catalogue of Technology of Which China Prohibits or Restricts the Import (First Batch) promulgated by MOFTEC and SETC on December 30, 2001, into force on January 1, 2002, but repealed on November 23, 2007, with the implementation of Catalogue of Technology Which China Prohibits or Restricts the Import, promulgated by MOFTEC on Decmber 12, 2001, in force on January 1, 2002, revised on November 1, 2008;
• Catalogue for Guidance on Foreign Investment in Industries issued by the State Development Planning Commission, SETC, MOFTEC on March 11, 2002, into force on April 1, 2002;
• Regulations on Guiding the Direction of Foreign Investment promulgated by the State Council on February 11, 2002, into force April 1, 2002; 
• Notice on How to Adjudicate Disputes on Technology Contracts by Intellectual Property Courts issued by the Supreme People's Court on June 19, 2001; 
• The Supplemental Notice Concerning Strengthening Administration for Technology Imnport Contracts and the Sale and Payment of Foreign Exchange issued by MOFTEC and SAFE on March 19, 2001; 
• Catalogue for Technology and Products that are Encouraged for Import, issued by National Development and Reform Commission, MOFCOM and Ministry of Finance on July 22, 2009. 

For dispute resolution Ms Sun made clear that Hong Kong and Singapore are preferred locations for arbitration, and considered politically acceptable by China. She also touched upon articles 24 and 25 Technology Import & Export Regulations 2002 that the technology to be transferred is “complete, error-free, valid, and capable of accomplishing contracted technical objectives.”

This is not because China does not want later improvements, but it means that China wants that the innovator is acknowledged: article 27 Technology Import & Export Regulations 2002 provides that during the validity of the contract, ownership of improvements in technology shall be vested in the improving party. Foreign transferors are advised to limit the geographical area of use of the licensed technology and its improvements, and to negotiate for a nonexclusive license and an exclusive license outside China for use of the improved technology.

Article 26 Technology Import & Export Regulations 2002 require assignees and transferees to keep trade secrets and know-how received from assignors and licensors confidential during the validity of the technology contract.

Although confidentiality is required by government employees responsible for approving and registering technology import and export contracts when they received trade secrets and know-how from transferors and/or transferees, irregularities can happen.

Ms Sun has written extensively about the topic and also about trade secrets.

Part II you can find here.

Part III you can find here.

Taiwan IP Update: First Country That Protects Hologram In Its Trademark Law

Taiwan has amended its Trademark Act May 31, 2011. What has changed?

Progressive trademark act,
but with olfactory deficiency
Photo: NASA via Wikipedia

• Listing counterfeit merchandise online will be punishable by fines of up to NT$50,000 and up to one year in prison. 

According to the director-general of Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO), Wang Mei-hua (王美花) the scope of trademark protection expanded to include: 

• animation (movement) and laser logors (hologram);
• three-dimensional shape, colour and sound, already since the Examination Guideline for 3D, Colour and Sound Marks on 1st July 2004;
• and already since the Trademark Act November 2003 word; figure and symbol. 

Some argue that holograms are not perceived as sources of origin by consumers. But one can also argue that that article 15 (1) Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) does include holograms: "Any sign, or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, shall be capable of constituting a trademark. Such signs, in particular words including personal names, letters, numerals, figurative elements and combinations of colours as well as any combination of such signs, shall be eligible for registration as trademarks. Where signs are not inherently ca pable of distinguishing the relevant goods or services, Members may make registrability depend on distinctiveness acquired through use. Members may require, as a condition of registration, that signs be visually perceptible.", most jurisdictions perceive some problems with the prescription of the last sentence that the representation needs to be graphically representable. Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) has become a member of the WTO of which TRIPs is an integral part on January 1, 2002.

Now a hologram's graphical representation changes per definition according to the angle you are taking towards it. However, since most intellectual property offices around the world already record the representations digitally, I think it should not have to be an insurmountable problem, as everybody who in the last few years bought a digital camera knows that these cameras include a movie function. So instead of photos, you can easily also make a very high quality movie of any dynamic representation. And even if you insist upon static photo's, there are cameras that can make a series of stills, each separated from the other by a fraction of a second.
 
The International Hologram Manufacturers Association (IHMA) is thrilled that Taiwan is the first country to protect holograms as a trademark. According to IHMA, Holograms can play a role in the authentication and detection process against counterfeit products, read here.  

Take notice that Taiwan is not taking the lead in every trademarkable representation. Scent is not specified as protectable representation. However, in case companies register it, TIPO will study executive orders.

Read more about non-traditional trademarks in the archives of Dr. Ralph Sieckmann, here.

• No longer is there a minimum limit for trademark infringement fines of 500 times the unit retail price of the infringed goods. Judges will have full discretion about the amount of the fine. 
• Applicants for certificates of origin (Taiwan's Geographical Indications) will have to use the location of origin or the logo identifying the location in their application in accordance with the Trademark Act. 

Read the China Post article here.

Happy Dragon Boat Festival! Unhappy Trademark Protection for Qu Yuan?

Free interpretation of
 zong zi (glutinous rice).
Traditional zong zi has a triangular form.
Photo Danny Friedmann

Today is the fifth day of the fifth month of the lunar calendar. Time for Duan Wu festival (端午节). On this day Chinese around the world commemorate the great poet Qu Yuan 屈原. Qu is not only famous for his work Chu Ci 楚辞 (58 long and 6 short poems) but also because of his act of patriotism.

Qu, who lived between 340 BCE and 278 BCE, was fed up with the corruption by the local government and in protest drowned himself. (The yoga guru Swami Ramdev was on hunger striking protesting graft, becoming a kind of modern Indian version of Qu, read more about it here.) When the local villagers found out about it, they started to paddle and play the drums to frighten the fish away from Qu's body (this started the tradition of dragon boat races), and throw rice in the water so that the fish would not eat Qu (this lead to the tradition of eating zong zi) and doctors poured liquor seasoned with realgar in the river in the hope to make the fish drunk (first people drank a bit of this poisonous wine, now some parents draw with it the character for king on the forehead of their children).

After seeing and hearing the dragon boat race, eating zong zi, there was only one thing on IP Dragon's mind: has the name Qu Yuan been registered in China? In many classes including food and beverages the name was registered, search here. Joel Martinsen wrote already in 2006 about the fact that Qu Yuan was even registered as a trademark for pig-feed, read here. And to add insult to injury, the company that registered is based in Yueyang, Hunan: the location where Qu committed suicide. This location is disputed by South-Korea who claims that the event's genesis was Korea. Read more about Dano (단오) versus Duan Wu here.

Mr Martinsen asked the question whether the State Administration for Industry and Commerce's Trademark Office that granted the registration of the trademark was too lenient.
Article 10 Trademark Law: "The following signs shall not be used as trademarks:
(8) those detrimental to socialist morality or customs, or having other unhealthy influences.

So the registrar could invoke this provision to reject the registration. It is my opinion that article 10 (1): Trademark Law: "those identical with or similar to the State name, national flag, national emblem, military flag or decorations of the People's Republic of China, and those identical with the name of the particular place, or with the name or image of the symbolic building, where a central government department of the State is located" should be extended to include "or national historical figures", such as Qu Yuan.

In a way Qu Yuan lives on because of the well established traditions of dragon boat races and eating zongzi. Does the prosaic use of the name of the great poet for food, beverage dilute or spread his reputation? That depends. One could imagine it could be enhanced if for example a wine brand would publish some of Qu's poetic phrases (that are from the pre-copyright era and have been always in the public domain) on the wine label. 

Induced Patent Infringement Standard: How To Avoid Proving Intent And Fast Forward To Actual Knowledge

Q:"How do you want your induced patent infringement?"
A:"Willful blind, not deepfried"

Spicy vegetarian deep-fried noodle nest
Source: Veggy Monkey Eats

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Global-Tech versus SEB May 31, 2011. It gives a standard for induced patent infringement: namely willful blindness, that goes beyond recklessness and negligence.

The facts are interesting too for IP Dragon:
"Pentalpha is a Hong Kong maker of home appliances and a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner Global-Tech Ap­pliances, Inc. In order to develop a deep fryer for Sunbeam, Pentalpha purchased an SEB fryer in Hong Kong and copied all but its cosmetic features. Because the SEB fryer bought in Hong Kong was made for sale in a foreign market, it bore no U.S. patent markings. After copying SEB’s design, Pentalpha retained an attorney to conduct a right-to-use study, but Pentalpha refrained from telling the attorney that its design was copied directly from SEB’s."

So what can be learned from these bare facts? A way for patent holders to avoid this problem of proving intent and fast forward proving actual knowledge is to use the patent numbers of the patents you own in different jurisdictions on your products. Maybe a sticker is suboptimal, because removable. Engraved in or stamped on the metal or plastic could do the trick.

Now back to the case. It was about which intent test to use in case of 35 U.S.C. §271(b): "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer."

The Federal Circuit had used the deliberate indifference test.
The Supreme Court opines that the deliberate indifference test makes it possible that knowledge is found where there is just a known risk that the induced acts are infringing. Instead the Supreme Court (8 minus 1) think that some active effort by the inducer is needed to avoid knowing about the infringing nature of the activities.

In this humble author's opinion the wording "actively induces" does not correspond to "deliberate indifference", which seems a mental state. So in this respect he agrees with the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision.

What is the willful blindness test exactly:
(1) the defendant must subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists;
(2) the defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact.

There seems to be a continuum from no knowledge to recklessness/negligence to deliberate indifference to willful blindness to actual knowledge.

Read the Supreme Court decision here.

Eileen McDermott, whose coverage of the court deliberations is excellent, is quoting Global-Tech's counsel William Dunnegan who was proposing to use a "purposeful, culpability test". This was followed by John Roberts C.J. question of how to apply such a standard across different industries. McDermott points out that in some amici briefs it became clear that for example the semiconductor industry has 420,000 patents. McDermott quoted the reaction of John Roberts C.J. after Dunnegan said that there might be different standards per industry: "Well we're not going to adopt a special rule for the deep-fryer industry." Read McDermott's court report for Managing IP here.

Shenzhen Chinese Hop Border Hong Kong For Porn Movie in Three Dimensions

For some Daoist sex advice read
China Expat's article here.

Some months ago an American porn company sought my advice on copyright law in China. "Is porn copyrighted in China and can you sell it there?" A movie, whether porn or not, is copyrighted, thus protectable and enforceable in principle (since the amendment of article 4 Copyright Law, after the WTO dispute resolution DS 362 panel's decision, read more here). But that does not mean you can sell it legally in China. Pornography is prohibited since 1949. Exploiting a popular porn site can get you into jail... for life! You can read about the 2005 case here. That information was a cold shower for the U.S. porn company. Therefore I was extra surprised to read the rather positive and extensive article (4 pages) in the Global Times (China's answer to CNN) on porn movie tourism from Shenzhen to Hong Kong movie theaters. Read here. Because it is a Hong Kong movie, if it was not porn, it would be well positioned to be shown in China, since Hong Kong movies are not considered foreign, see here. China Hearsay's Stan Abrams has written so extensively about the restrictions on foreign movies in China that he, tongue-in-cheek, is considering to write a book about it, see here.   

I am intrigued by everything with Zen in the title, see here. But I missed all the commotion around the movie 'Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstacy' in 3-D.  It's a costume drama released in Hong Kong, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand on April 14, 2011. Why is the Global Times so tolerant in their descriptions about this porn movie and the tourism it spawned to Hong Kong? Is it because the porn movie is, well, Chinese culture? "Based on the 1657 erotic novel The Carnal Prayer Mat written by Qing Dynasty author Li Yu that chronicles the sexual exploits and orgies of a young Ming Dynasty scholar named Wei Yangsheng who realizes that true love is hard to find." Or is it just good for Hong Kong business, and China is considering it should be more lenient towards Hong Kong since it took away its monopoly to have a Disneyland on its Special Administrative Region by granting Shanghai permission to have a Disneyland too. Well if you have another speculation, let me know.

Invisible Gold in Asia: Where The Book Ends The Community Takes Off

Professor David Llewelyn's book Invisible Gold in China
 has its own Facebook page.

As you probably know the characters for China are 中 (centre) and 国 (country): the country in the middle. On most Chinese maps the country is actually situated in the middle of the world. Yes, China is an important country in all respects, but so is India and do not count Japan out. Indeed the whole Asian sphere is thriving and intellectual property assets can play a pivotal role of which the well informed can benefit. Professor David Llewelyn's book Invisible Gold in Asia is daring because it crossed the line of perception, by explaining intellectual property rights concepts to business people. It reminds me of Bruce Lee teaching martial arts to non-Chinese for the first time (movie Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story 1993). And it is no small feat: teaching to view the invisible. Some book stores do not get it: they position Invisible Gold in Asia at the law section. They do not understand that it is a business book about law. Well, for the readers, and for everybody interested in the field of intellectual property law from a business perspective, Professor Llewelyn started not so long ago a community on Facebook. Join the conversation, here.