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.
关于印发《天津市巩固退耕还林成果专项资金使用和管理实施细则》的通知
天津市财政局
关于印发《天津市巩固退耕还林成果专项资金使用和管理实施细则》的通知
津财农〔2008〕38号
有农业的区县财政局:
根据《财政部、国务院西部地区开发领导小组办公室、国家发展改革委、农业部、国家林业局、国家粮食局关于印发〈巩固退耕还林成果专项资金使用和管理办法〉的通知》(财农〔2007〕327号),我们制定了《天津市巩固退耕还林成果专项资金使用和管理实施细则》,现印发给你们,请遵照执行。
二○○八年十月十三日
附件:
天津市巩固退耕还林成果专项资金
使用和管理实施细则
第一章 总则
第一条 为规范和加强巩固退耕还林成果专项资金管理,提高资金使用效益,保护退耕还林成果,促进生态安全,根据财政部等六部门印发的《巩固退耕还林成果专项资金使用和管理办法》(财农〔2007〕327号),结合我市实际情况,特制定本实施细则。
第二条 巩固退耕还林成果专项资金是指中央财政和地方财政在一定时期内安排的专项用于巩固退耕还林成果、解决退耕农户长远生计的资金。
第三条 本细则所指的退耕还林是指国家下达的年度退耕还林任务并经过核查验收的退耕还林地。
第四条 本细则适用于本市使用和管理巩固退耕还林成果专项资金的单位、集体和个人。
第二章 专项资金的使用范围和标准
第五条 专项资金的使用按以下先后次序安排:
(一)退耕农户建设基本口粮田;
(二)退耕农户开展沼气、节柴灶、太阳能等农村能源建设;
(三)有条件的退耕农户实行生态移民;
(四)退耕还林补植补造、发展地方特色优势产业的基地建设、开展退耕农民就业创业转移技能培训等。
第六条 专项资金补偿标准按照《巩固退耕还林成果专项规划》规定的标准执行。各级有关部门发生的相关管理经费依据巩固退耕还林成果工作经费安排方案执行。
第三章 资金拨付与管理
第七条 专项资金申请程序:由区县人民政府将巩固退耕还林成果专项规划报市发改委、市财政局、市农业局、市林业局、市水利局。市发改委会同市财政局、市农业局、市林业局、市水利局审核后上报国家有关部门审批。区县发改委等有关部门根据国家批复的巩固退耕还林成果专项规划,于每年10月30日前将下年度资金使用计划报市发改委、市财政局、市农业局、市林业局、市水利局。市发改委、市财政局、市农业局、市林业局、市水利局将审核后的资金使用计划上报国家发改委、国务院西部开发办、财政部、农业部、国家林业局等部门,待国家下达任务计划后,市有关部门将任务计划转发到区县。财政部门根据任务计划和市林业局检查验收结果下达专项资金预算。
专项资金的拨付,按照财政国库管理制度有关规定执行,专项资金用于基本建设的,各区县人民政府有关部门要按基本建设程序做好项目前期工作。
第八条 区县人民政府制定巩固退耕还林成果专项规划时,应将中央预算内基本建设投资与专项资金统筹考虑,明确专项资金支持的具体任务,并做好同其他有关规划的协调和衔接。同时,与新农村建设、设施农业发展等资金结合起来,统筹安排,支持改善退耕农户生产生活条件,增强自我发展能力。
第九条 专项资金实行专帐核算、专款专用、严格管理,任何部门和单位不得截留和挪用。专项资金不得作为其他中央补助项目的地方配套资金。区县财政部门和农业、林业等主管部门应分别建立健全专项资金拨付使用和管理档案。
第十条 专项资金从2008年起,分8年安排,逐年下达。
第十一条 专项资金由区县政府按照本地区的《巩固退耕还林成果专项规划》的内容统筹安排,因地制宜地用于巩固退耕还林成果、解决退耕农户长远生计。
第四章 监督与检查
第十二条 区县有关部门应加强对专项资金的管理监督,凡违反本规定截留、挤占、挪用巩固退耕还林成果专项资金的,按照《财政违法行为处罚处分条例》(国务院令第427号)及其他法律法规追究有关单位及其责任人的法律责任。
第十三条 市有关部门要各司其职,逐年制定并实施年度检查计划,加强对专项资金和建设项目的管理、监督、检查和考核。
第五章 附则
第十四条 区县根据本细则规定,结合本地实际,制定具体实施方案。
第十五条 本实施细则自发布之日起执行。