Jan 27

China losses suit against U.S on Protection of Intellectual Properties

Written by miaka9383 on Tuesday, January 27th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Filed under:-chinese-posts, -guest-posts |
Add comments

Here is an article published today by 聯合網 UDN on U.S had sue China on their lack of effort of protecting intellectual properties and patents and U.S has won the suit.

So what does this mean for china? does that mean they are going to enforce the patent laws? Anti Piracy laws?

Here is the full article:

美控中保護智財不力 WTO判中國敗訴

2009.01.27 10:37 am


美國代理貿易代表歐蓋爾(Peter Allgeier)發表聲明指出,小組的發現「是一項重要的勝利」。








【2009/01/27 中央社】@ http://udn.com/

P.S I am not good at translating so I am not going to try

There are currently no comments highlighted.

5 Responses to “China losses suit against U.S on Protection of Intellectual Properties”

  1. vmoore55 Says:

    Patents keeps the poor of the world poor, it was created to make China poor, limit her productions and trade.

  2. FOARP Says:

    @Vmoore55 – Yeah, that’s why countries which encourage innovation through IPR systems are so poor!

    Seriously, go and check out what the average patent is about. Most likely it will be about a small mechanical or chemical invention which will hopefully improve some area of industry slightly. Now who would bother inventing such a thing if he could not profit from doing so?

    I wrote a piece on a talk I heard about the US v. China WTO case last year, you can read it here:


    Short and tall of it? I don’t think this decision is going to affect anything.

    PS – I actually worked in a patent office in China drafting US patent applications (although the final draft was, of course, done by a qualified patent agent). The applications we filed were all for inventions developed in China and Taiwan for photolithography methods, PCB printing methods, heat-pipe devices, fans, and a million different widgets for use with mobile phones and lap-top computers. That is to say, Chinese workers benefited directly from protection under US patent law. Without these patents, the products we made for the US market could be copied by someone else and our company (which employs more than 500,000 workers, mostly in mainland China) would lose business and have to lay off workers.

    For this reason I am a firm believer in the patent system, and I believe it benefits all the countries that join it. Sure you can argue as to whether countries should allow the patenting of say, business methods (in fact, I believe the US courts are thinking of revisiting the State Street Bank decision and may overturn it), but if there is a better system for encouraging innovation that patents, I’d like to hear it!

  3. vmoore55 Says:

    Patents secure their holder an exclusive right to sell or not, collect fees or license rights, plus the right to sue. Where the holder is the only seller in the market, and the holder is often having a monopoly on it.

    It’a no more than having monopolies on information and intellectual monopoly rights, even to the detriment of all societies.

    Look up the UK’s patent on China and ask who owns the rights to it?

  4. FOARP Says:

    @Vmoore55 – Yeah, I guess companies like Microsoft, Boeing, BAe, Lenovo, Hitachi, Sony, Hyundai etc. are operating at a detriment to the rest of society. Strange then that most people don’t want to go the way of North Korea.

    Look, if you don’t allow inventors a limited monopoly over their inventions then they have no reason to make their inventions public – they will simply keep them secret. The patenting system represents a bargain between the state and inventors whereby inventors are granted a limited monopoly over their inventions in exchange for filing documents which will tell anyone skilled in the art how to practice the invention. In this way society receives a benefit, and others may learn from patents and attempt to improve them, and patent their improvements in turn. Otherwise no one would ever allow the secret of their invention to become public.

  5. FOARP Says:

    You know, the more I think about this the more I am inclined to say that the WTO as an organisation doesn’t really work in its current form. Right now the only way to enforce compliance with the WTO terms is state-to-state actions, but national citizens suffer as much as foreigners from state non-compliance, and the remedies available even when the WTO finds that there has been a breach (i.e., retaliation) is stupid – it essentially makes the citizens of a country suffer for their government’s failure to implement. So if the American government acts against the WTO treaty when they block internet gambling websites based in Barbados,then the WTO grants Barbados a licence to infringe the IP of American citizens – does this make sense as a legal system?

    A much better system would be one founded on the idea of state liability. The WTO clearly grants a benefit upon the citizens of signatory countries, why not allow citizens of signatory states to sue the government of non-compliant states through the national courts when they suffer loss as a result of that states non-compliance? This principle is used in the EU to good effect, and I think it would be a good way of allowing individuals to recover their own personal loss whilst putting pressure on the national government using their own legal system without all the problems involved in the current state-to-state actions. If they don’t want to be held liable for non-compliance – fine, they shouldn’t be allowed in. States which wish to enjoy the benefits of WTO membership without fulfilling their duties under the agreement should be forced to pay for the harm they cause.

Leave a Reply