Stratic Advice on Intellectual Property Investment in Asia
苏冉
IssueⅠ: Legal framework of protection on software copyright in P.R.C and Singapore
A) P.R.C
In conjunction with China’s astonishing economic growth over the past two decades, especially after the entrance to WTO, China has steadily improved its legal framework on Software Copyright by checking and clearing large-scale regulations both in domestic and international activities.
Frankly speaking, China joined in three vital international treaties relate to copyright: the Berne Convention , TRIPs and Universal Copyright Convention. Moreover, China and US signed MOU especially for software in January 1992. All these Conventions are regarded as a milestone to reflect China’s dramatic promotion and strong determination to build a satisfactory environment for foreign software investors.
Similarly to US, P.R.C has chosen to protect software under copyright law rather than trademark, patent, or contract law. One year after Copyright Law Amendment in 2001, Chinese Council corrected its software-specific “Computer Software Protection Rules” , to deal with new problems prevailing in software protection nowadays. Under the Rule, software is defined as two particular types: computer program and their relevant documentation. Furthermore, since MOU came into force, computer software is protected as a literary work. Third, according to the conditional nation treatment here, foreigners are required to comply with “connecting factor”, to sum up, either first publication or nationality/residence of the author in China or in any of these countries ,between the work and China or a country who is a member of the WTO, or the Berne Convention. So, despite your software products first being published in US, you can still enjoy the original copyright and the legal protection on in China.
Except from the above rules, other laws also have supportive stipulation on the protection of software copyrights as follows:
(a)The General Principle of Civil Law, the country’s current basic civil law, has authorized the author’s copyright in general;
(b)The Criminal Code has a section of articles referring to piracy offences, with “Dual Punishment Principle” in front of copyright encroachment;
(c)The newly amended Foreign Trade Law (adopted in Feb).
B) Singapore
The general legal framework of software copyright protection in Singapore is almost the same as P.R.C, but with some characteristics of its own. Actually, different from P.R.C based on Civil law background, laws and litigations in Singapore are principally modeled on the English system under Common law system till nowadays. Pursuant to certain legal revolutions, modern copyright legislation contains the same international conventions as P.R.C: the Berne Conventions, Universal Copyright Convention, and TRIPs. But, Singapore signed ASEAN Framework on Intellectual Property Cooperation and the WIPO Copyright Treaty as a member of ASEAN. Turning to its domestic laws, the latest Copyright Act 1999(revised edition) is the principle one, with some other relevant regulations for enforcement. And it also definites software program into literary work under protection. In addition, Singapore owes large resources of case laws so as to make its legal conditions more particular than that in P.R.C.
The amended Act is first purposed to address issues arising from the use of copyright materials in a digital environment, especially provide legal certainty for the use of copyright in cyberspace. For instance, the extension of concept “reproduction” .Second, the Act plays another role in enhancing performer’s rights, offering two new defenses to allegations of copyright infringement. Therefore, merely surfing the Web doesn’t constitute software copyright infringement, if it’s necessary to browse. Even , Singapore passed the Electronic Transactions Act 1998 to give statutory protection of Network Service Providers. At these points, Singapore seemingly forwards a step further than P.R.C, declining its attention on encouraging the growth of a knowledge-based economy and promoting E-commerce and creative innovations. Last but the most significant point, Singapore and the United State signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) on May 6th 2003, and entered it into force from January 1st 2004. Virtually, this is the first FTA between US and an Asia country .So it’s doubtlessly the greatest advantage for Singapore to attract US investors, apart from other Asian countries. They would encourage the entrepreneurship, investment, job creation and growth in our own technology, science and creative industries as well as set the stage for Singapore’s emergence as a global IP hub.
Issue Ⅱ: Implementation on Software Copyright Law in P.R.C and Singapore
Sufficient and effective enforcement is more useful and practical than recorded documents, with no exception to P.R.C and Singapore.
(ⅰ)Role of Government
A)P.R.C
Learned from Annual Report on the Protection of Intellectual Property Right in China during the past 5 years by the head officer Jingchuan Wang in TableⅠ , you can see copyright administration at various levels make remarkable progress in encouraging innovation, promoting industrial development, regulating market order, and even improving the opening-up policy.
As a matter of fact, the People’s Courts, the People’s Prosecution Department, National Copyright Administration Centre and Public Security compose the backbone of the implementation of copyright law in China with civil remedies, criminal sensations and administrative punishments, such as fine. And border enforcement assistance to copyright owners by the Customs and Excise Department is also available.
TableⅠ:
The Administration on Software Copyright In P.R.C
Year Registration Prosecute Cases Resolved Cases Resolved Cases Rate Seized Pirates(M) Top 1 Region of Piracy
1999 1,041 1,616 1,515 93.75% 20.14 Shenzhen
2000 3,300 2,457 1,980 95.30% 32.60 Guangdong
2001 4,620 2,683 2,327 97.52% 61.75 Guangdong
2002 4,860 2,740 2,604 99.02% 67.90 Guangdong
2003 5,020 6,120 5,793 97.64% 73.28 Beijing
Statistics from NCAC (National Copyright Administration Centre
Fortunately, China has begun to regard software as an industry with strategic significance while formulating effective policies in areas including anti-piracy and anti-monopoly. To adapt to the legal framework, China has shifted its attention upon educating software users and strengthening the law. “Government departments are being asked to show a good example in using copyrighted software only and make software budget each year”. For example, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong buy over 3,000 software products every year through public bidding. What’s more, the National Software Government Procurement Regulation will probably act in the near future. Eventually, Chinese government is trying to treat all software companies equal in P.R.C, no matter domestic or foreign countries.
Nevertheless, given China’s vast geography and population, it would be an awesome task for the central government to manage pirating activities throughout the entire country. On the other hand, due to lack of resources, the lack of judicial expertise, the unpredictability of trial outcomes, and large costs, litigation in Chinese courts remains a risky and expensive response to Chinese copyright violations. Another administrative difficulty arises from the increasing decentralization of the Chinese government. Much of China's copyright enforcement takes place at the provincial and local levels; the national government lacks the resources and control to effectively monitor nationwide pirating activity and to impose national enforcement policies.
B) Singapore
Switching to Singapore, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is its senior administration department, and it leads Singapore to the success in copyright infrastructure. Singapore has announced a number of meaningful standards through requirements for tough penalties to combat piracy and counterfeiting, including, in civil cases, procedures for seizure and destruction of pirated and counterfeit products, and a requirement to provide for statutory and actual damages to remedy such practices. There has been a rule in Singapore that government could only allowed to use copyrighted software since 1996. In order to obtain efficiency, Singapore maintain civil remedies and criminal penalties for circumvention of technology protection measures, and it also has in place implementation allowing for border seizures of infringing articles by customs officials. For example, the copyright infringement is punished with a maximum fine of S$100,000 or five years’ imprisonment or both. So, in comparison to P.R.C, the least time for imprisonment is shorter .But due to the judge’s free power under common law system, the court is increasingly harsh in their sentencing in respect of infringement of copyright. In other words, criminal obligation will become heavier with more limitation in Singapore.
In the contrast with Chinese administrative punishments, Singapore has a large scope of interlocutory remedies to fill in the blank area between civil remedies and criminal sensations, and they are three main types:
(a) the interlocutory injunction---It is an injunction obtained before the trail often with the main objective of maintaining the Stats quo between the parties pending the outcome of the trail. The interlocutory injunction may be in a mandatory or prohibitory form.
(b) the Anton Piller Order---It’s developed from Anton Piller KG v.Mfg Processes Ltd as a safeguard system of evidence for avoiding the defendant to destroy and hide the evidence of copyright infringement, if the plaintiff shows an extremely strong prima facie that his right are being interfered with, or the damage, potential or actual are very serious to the plaintiff, or even there must be clear evidence to proof the defendants faults.
(c) the Norwich Pharmacal Order.---The further expansion of Anton Piller Order to raise over the privilege against self-incrimination from Rank Film Distributors Ltd v. Video Information Centre Virtually . However, case law in Singapore has now established that where the privilege against self-incrimination exists, an undertaking from the plaintiff/ applicant not to use the information obtained in criminal proceedings is not an adequate safeguard for the defendant’s privilege against self-crimination. Singapore courts have also held that they don’t have the power to order that the information be inadmissible in any subsequent criminal prosecution.
Relying on common law foundation, people in Singapore prefer to a lawsuit rather than mediation while more mediation in P.R.C, once in the face of a dispute. Consequently, it would like to be more time and energy consuming somehow, for it costs at least one year of a civil procedure in the High Court of Singapore.
Last but not least, along with legsilation changes, Singapore Administration departments are also mounting a public campaign targeting both consumers and businesses to increase their awareness on the benefits and other implications of the new laws. There’s broad-based public awareness initiatives like the HIP Alliance’s year-long anti-piracy campaign? “The Real thing is the Right thing”, and brain Wave, Singapore’s first reality television show on IP.
(ⅱ)Role of Anti- Piracy Organizations
Both P.R.C and Singapore joined in Business Software Alliance (BSA) ,and WIPO several years ago and established domestic anti-piracy alliances at their own respective locality. The alliances played an active part in combating piracy and protecting the interests of right holders. They always declare laws, promulgate routine reports of current protection on TV, newspapers, and Website and show different points between pirate and authorized products. In the contrast with P.R.C, Singapore has other special disputes resolution organs under its common law system, including the small claims tribunals, E-commerce disputes centre. What’s more, Singapore collaborates with other ASAEN countries to harmonize IP rights with international and regional organizations such as the Office of Harmonization of the Internal Market (OHIM), the European Union, the French National Office of Industrial Property, and IP Australia.
(ⅲ)Introduction of Judgments in Precedent Cases
A) P.R.C
In a landmark verdict on April 16, 1996 against Beijing JuRen Computer, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court delivered judgment in favor of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) upholding the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights and ordering the defendant to (a) publicly apologize to the plaintiff; (b) pay over RMB600,000 (US$70,000) in damages, including court costs and accounting costs; (c) pay additional fines directly to the court. The court also ordered the defendant to undertake not to infringe intellectual property rights in the future, and the law enforcement officials to confiscate all computers and software seized during the raid on the defendant's premises. In another case, the same court rendered a judgment against Beijing Giant Computer Co. for software copyright infringement. These were the first cases decided in favor of a US plaintiff in a Chinese court.
关于化工科技人员合理流动暂行办法的补充规定
化工部
关于化工科技人员合理流动暂行办法的补充规定
1986年1月22日,化工部
为了促进化工科技人员的合理流动,限制不合理流动,根据国务院有关精神,特对化工部[84]化干字第1254号文发布的《关于化工科技人员合理流动的暂行办法》作如下补充规定:
一、凡属下列情况之一者,可允许流动:
1.规任工作确属用非所学者;
2.具有技术业务专长而末被安排者;
3.因化工系统全局性工作.需要调动的领导干部和专业技术骨干;
4.自愿支援边疆、边远贫困地区和化工重点建设单位而对原单位工作没有影响者;
5.因有地区性疾病、夫妻分居五年以上、独生子女等特殊困难,原单位无法解决者。
二、凡属下列情况之一者,不允许流动,不许辞职,不准聘用:
1.逆向流动者,即从人材奇缺的边远地区 三线建设单位向沿海、内地及大城市、人才比较富余的单位流动者;
2.凡是所从事的专业对口或基对口者;
3. 原学专业与现从事工作虽不对口,但已从事本工作五年以上,成为本职工作的内行,离开现职工作会给单位造成损失者;
4.担任单位领导者;
5.犯有严重错误,或其他问题正在接受组织审查,尚未作出结论者;
6.国家统一分配的大、中专毕业生未达到国家规定的服务期限者。
三、化工单位科技人员流动要有领导、有计划、有组织地进行,不准自由流动。根据国务院办发[1985]68号文件规定,任何单位不准到地处三线地区招聘人材。凡属合理流动者,如本人申请流动,应首先在本单位、本系统内调整解决;如本单位和化工系统无法调整,可按干部管理权限,经批准后输送给其他单位。
四、科技人员要求流动者,必须提前三个月向所在单位呈交请调报告或辞职申请书。调动或辞职理由充分,流向合理的,所在单位应予同意,并及时办理调动手续。对无正当理由,流向不合理的,各单位要耐心地进行说服教育,使其安心本职工作。干部提出调动或辞职三个月后,所在单位未给予答复,或者个人不同意本单位组织意见的,可越级向主管局或干部司申请裁决,上级主管部门有权直接处理,单位应予服从。凡经批准调动或辞职的人员,原单位有权索取部分或全部培训费用。
五、对不辞而别的人员,各化工单位不准接收录用。对擅自录用人员的单位要加以追究,造成经济损失的,原单位有权要求赔偿损失。
对不辞而别离职六个月以上者,要给予政纪处分,直至开除公职。
对已经不辞而别的,各单位要按照国务院的文件精神,主动联系予以追回,对返回的人员,要热情欢迎,不得歧视,并切实解决其工作、生活上的具体困难。对执意不回者,可参照上述原则做出处理。
六、部属各大中专院校,要维护大中专毕业生分配计划的严肃性,不经部主管部门批准,不得随意改变计划,要确保毕业生的报到率。各化工单位不准截留国家分配的大中专毕业生,对私自接收没有派遣证和粮户关系毕业生的单位,要追究责任。
七、化工企业、事业单位一般不再实行停薪留职,对已被批准停薪留职的人员,应规定不超过一年的期限,期满者要返回原单位工作,或可按规定申请调离或提出辞职。如未得到原单位批准,仍然不回者,原单位有权进行处理。
八、批准调离的科技人员,不得擅自带走原单位的科研成果和科技资料,违反者按科技政策有关规定查处。
九、各化工单位要加强对科技人员流动的领导,对本单位工作需要,但本人请求调动的科技人员,应做好思想政治工作,不可简单处置。
十、各化工单位可根据上述原则,结合本单位的实际情况,研究制定具体的人才流动的管理办法。
十一、本办法自发布之日起施行。