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.
北京市人民政府


北京市建设工程勘察招标投标管理规定（第二次修正）
北京市人民政府


（1995年4月7日北京市人民政府第7号令发布 根据1997年12月31日北京市人民政府第12号令进行第一次修改 根据1998年12月22日北京市人民政府令第20号进行第二次修改）

第一章 总 则
第一条 为了完善本市勘察行业的竞争机制，保证工程质量，提高工程投资效益，根据国家有关规定，结合本市实际情况，制定本规定。
第二条 本市建设工程勘察招标投标工作的主管部门，是首都规划建设委员会办公室（以下简称首规委办），北京市勘察设计管理处负责日常管理工作。
第三条 在本市行政区域内，凡符合下列条件之一的建设工程勘察项目（经首规委办批准不宜招标的建设工程勘察项目除外），均须按照本规定进行招标投标：
（一）总建筑面积在五万平方米以上的民用建设工程项目；
（二）总投资额在五千万元以上的工业、民用、市政建设工程项目；
（三）总投资额在五百万美元以上的外商投资的建设工程项目；
（四）特级和一级建筑物或对地基基础有特殊要求的建设工程项目；
（五）概算在五十万元以上的岩土工程、水文地质工程项目。
第四条 招标方式可以采用公开招标或者邀请招标，投标单位不得少于三个。
特殊建设工程项目，由建设单位向市勘察设计管理处提出申请，经批准后，可进行议标。

第二章 招 标
第五条 实行招标的建设工程项目，应当具备下列条件：
（一）经批准的建设工程项目可行性研究报告；
（二）经规划部门核准用地范围的图纸和文件；
（三）设计任务书和符合要求的地形图、建筑平面位置图。
第六条 招标活动由招标单位负责组织。建设工程项目可以一次性招标，也可以分项招标。
第七条 招标单位应当是具有法人资格的建设单位，或者建设单位委托的具有相应资格的设计单位、监理单位。
第八条 招标文件由招标单位编制。招标文件应当包括招标书、工程概况、招标方式、对投标单位资质的要求、对提交勘察成果报告时间的要求、对勘察技术的特殊要求以及勘察现场条件的图纸和说明等内容。
第九条 招标文件由招标单位向市勘察设计管理处备案后，发送投标单位。招标文件发出后，招标单位不得随意修改或增加附加条件。因特殊情况确需对招标文件进行修改或补充的，需经市勘察设计管理处批准，并在投标截止日期前十天通知所有投标单位。

第三章 投 标
第十条 凡持有企业法人营业执照和工程勘察证书的工程勘察单位，均可按工程勘察证书规定的业务范围参加投标。
第十一条 投标单位的资格文件由招标单位进行核查，并报市勘察设计管理处复核。
投标单位应当向招标单位缴纳投标保证金（投标保证金的具体数额由招标单位在招标文件中规定），领取招标文件。
第十二条 投标单位应当按照招标文件要求编写投标书。投标书应当字迹清楚、内容齐全、表达真实准确，并应当加盖单位公章和法定代表人印章。
投标书应当包括以下内容：
（一）勘察方案及说明书；
（二）勘察手段、施工组织方案；
（三）需建设单位提供的配合条件；
（四）提交勘察成果的时间；
（五）勘察费报价。勘察费根据投标书工作量按国家收费标准计算，上下浮动不得超过5％。
第十三条 投标单位应当按照招标文件规定的时间、地点，将密封后的投标书送达招标单位。投标书一经送达不得更改。

第四章 开标、评标、决标
第十四条 开标由招标单位主持，并应当在全部投标单位参加下公开进行。开标时应当对标书登记编号，做保密处理后送评标小组。
第十五条 招标单位应当检查投标书的密封情况，宣布评标原则、决标办法和程序，启封投标书，宣读投标书的主要内容，并作开标记录。
第十六条 有下列情况之一的，投标书无效：
（一）投标书未密封；
（二）投标书未按招标文件要求编制或者文字不清、内容不全、弄虚作假；
（三）投标书未加盖单位公章和法定代表人印章；
（四）投标书逾期送交；
（五）未缴纳投标保证金。
第十七条 评标小组由招标单位和专业技术专家、该项工程的建筑设计人员五至七人组成，与投标单位有直接经济利益关系单位的人员不得参加评标小组。
第十八条 评标小组以招标文件的要求和投标书的内容为主要依据，对投标单位执行规范和规程、解决工程技术问题、勘探和测试工作量的合理程度、勘察进度以及投标单位的资历和社会信誉等方面进行综合评价后，择优决定中标单位。
第十九条 评标报告由招标单位编制。招标单位将评标报告报市勘察设计管理处备案后，向中标单位发出中标通知书，向未中标单位发出未中标通知书。
第二十条 决标后十日内，招标单位应当向所有未中标单位返还投标保证金，并付给未中标单位投标书编制补偿金，补偿金的具体数额由评标小组根据编制投标书的工作量确定；中标单位的投标保证金，在中标单位与招标单位签订勘察合同后，由招标单位返还。
第二十一条 中标单位自接到中标通知书之日起一个月内，应当与招标单位按照投标书的内容签订勘察合同。
中标单位应当依照勘察合同进行勘察，不得转包给非中标单位勘察。
第二十二条 决标后，招标单位和中标单位应当向市勘察设计管理处缴纳管理费，管理费的具体标准由市物价局会同市财政局制定。

第五章 法律责任
第二十三条 有下列情形之一的，勘察结果不予确认，设计单位不得使用；市勘察设计管理处对责任单位处以勘察费50％的罚款，其中属投标单位责任的，责令投标单位一年内不得在本市进行投标：
（一）按照本规定应当实行招标而未招标的建设工程项目；
（二）投标单位不符合条件，参加投标并中标的。
本条第（二）项的招标、投标无效。
第二十四条 在投标过程中，投标者互相串通，抬高标价或压低标价的；投标单位和招标单位互相串通，以排挤其他投标单位参与公平竞争的，其中标无效，由市勘察设计管理处责令其半年或者一年内不得在本市进行投标或者招标，并由工商行政管理部门依法给予处罚。
第二十五条 中标通知发出一个月后，中标单位不签订勘察合同的，其投标保证金不予返还。
第二十六条 勘察合同签订后，中标单位转包的，由市勘察设计管理处对其处以勘察费50％的罚款，并责令其半年或者一年内不得在本市进行投标。
第二十七条 招标、投标过程中发生争议或纠纷的，可以协商解决，或者向市勘察设计管理处申请调解。

第六章 附 则
第二十八条 本规定具体执行中的问题，由首规委办负责解释。
第二十九条 本规定自1995年7月1日起施行。

北京市人民政府关于修改《北京市建设工程勘察招标投标管理规定》部分条款的决定
市人民政府决定对《北京市建设工程勘察招标投标管理规定》的部分条款作如下修改：
第二十二条 决标后，招标单位和中标单位应当向市勘察设计管理处缴纳管理费，管理费的具体标准由市物价局会同市财政局制定。



1995年4月7日