Notable References/Sources: China and Intellectual Property Rights

Here are a slew of articles and papers on China and intellectual property rights. Each paper/article will be presented with link and an abstract. In some instances important sections will be highlighted in bold. Note especially the name 'Keith E. Maskus' as he is involved in more than one article.

All articles and papers are featured below the fold ... 

Felicia M. Fai (2005) - Using intellectual property data to analyse China's growing technological capabilities

'Motives for foreign multinational investment in China are gradually shifting from being primarily either market-seeking or
efficiency-seeking towards competence-seeking motives. Are such moves justified and what might Chinese patent data tell us about where such competencies are located and which domestic entities are generating them? Such information is useful to companies to identify areas of potential opportunities and threats. Aggregated Chinese patent data is used to highlight China
s growing technological capabilities generally and disaggregated data to demonstrate how patents can yield more specific competitive intelligence of use to firms. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that whilst issues regarding the patent system in China are presented largely in a negative light and focus upon the lax enforcement issues, the existing Chinese patent system, although in its relative infancy in international terms, can also be viewed positively as a rich source of information which can be tapped to assist in location decision-making as well as in identifying potential indigenous collaborators or competitors in China.'

Keith E. Maskus (2002) - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE WTO ACCESSION PACKAGE: ASSESSING CHINA’S REFORMS

'In this paper I consider implications of China’s recent and ongoing reforms in intellectual property rights (IPRs) as it attains membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). I discuss the consistency of China’s IPRs laws with WTO requirements and indicate outstanding issues. I then present basic economic theory of the need for IPRs, distinguishing among patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights. IPRs can be an important stimulus to innovation and economic growth if structured correctly and introduced in an environment of active competition. Otherwise they may diminish growth by limiting imitation and diffusion, leading to difficult policy choices. I compare China’s post-WTO IPRs regime with standards that seem appropriate for a middle-income developing economy. Overall, the new legal regime seems sensible for China’s position but there are some discrepancies that raise questions about policy. The current IPRs situation in China is analyzed, based on interviews of enterprise managers, public officials, and scholars. China has implemented a strong set of laws but there remain severe problems with enforcement. A final section shows that applications for IPRs are rising sharply but the use of IPRs differs greatly across regions, largely because of significant income disparities.'

Lina Wang (2004) - Intellectual Property Protection in China

The concept of Intellectual Property has drawn much more attention in the worldwide arena than before, and the protection of intellectual property all over the world is now at a dynamic stage of transformation. With the international cooperation on science and technology and the development of economy and trade, the legal protection of intellectual property is playing a more and more important role in society and is receiving even greater attention worldwide. But in the developing countries, intellectual property protection does not match that of the developed countries. This paper provides a brief introduction to intellectual property and intellectual property rights in the global economy. The focus is to examine the current situation of intellectual property protection in China. The study shows that the existing intellectual property protection framework can be evaluated as sufficient, but the problem of the insufficiency of effective, intensive and extensive enforcement of intellectual property exists. While discussing the problems of intellectual property protection in China, the paper also suggests some possible measures based on the current situation analysis.

Cheri Grace (2001) - The Effect of Changing Intellectual Propertyon Pharmaceutical Industry Prospects in India and China

'To meet obligations under the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), China enacted regulation in 2002 extending pharmaceutical patents to twenty years, and data-exclusivity for six years and India plans to amend its patent laws by 2005 to allow for pharmaceutical product patents on any product with a patent issued after January 1, 1995. Why is the introduction of product patents in India and China important? Firms in these countries are important suppliers of low-priced active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished products domestically and to developing countries, and many fear that the introduction of product patents will destroy these industries and lead to increased drug prices. DFID has consequently commissioned this study to answer some emerging policy questions:'

Keith E. Maskus, Sean M. Dougherty and Andrew Mertha (?) - Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development in China 

After a long period of rapid economic growth and significant structural change, the Chinese economy increasingly makes use of advanced production technologies, while demand shifts toward higher-quality goods and services. Further, Chinese enterprises place growing emphasis on developing brand-name recognition, reputation for quality, and product innovation. In such an environment, the provision and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) take on considerable importance as a framework condition for promoting further economic development. Failing to support an adequate IPRs regime could serve as a drag on future growth. In an era of substantial and ongoing structural reform in Chinese enterprises, it is important to establish incentives for the development and expansion of businesses in high- growth sectors, such as information technology, entertainment, plant genetics and biotechnology, and to support innovation in consumer products, such as processed foods, clothing, and household goods. Properly structured, intellectual property rights help achieve these goals.

Keith E. Maskus and Carsten Fink (2005); a World Bank publication - Intellectual Property and Development - Lessons from recent Economic Research.  

This is basically an entire book, but some of the chapters look promising.

'Studying and writing about the economic effects of intellectual property protection has occupied a good part of our professional careers, both in academia and at the World Bank. No doubt about it—this is an exciting field of public policy.
Every year, new intellectual property laws are passed, international treaties are signed, technologies move to another level, and fresh disputes arise. Policy changes affect the bottom-line profitability of Fortune 500 companies, but they also have an impact on poor people in remote parts of this world. As trade economists, we both initially set out to answer a simple question: what are the international economic implications of the intellectual property rules mandated by the WTO’s Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)? Unfortunately (or fortunately), we soon discovered that there is no easy answer to this question, but we did find ourselves left with a large number of new questions that kept us busy for many years.We also quickly realized that the World Bank would be the perfect place to discuss this topic. Not only were Bank staffers interested in our research, but we met other economists working on related questions, further inspiring our own efforts. The studies presented in this volume bring together research that has been conducted both by the editors and by economic researchers at or affiliated with the World Bank.While we still struggle with too many unanswered questions, we believe that considerable progress has been made and we hope this is reflected in this book.'

Chinese guidelines on unfair competition - Managingintelletualproperty.com

On December 30 2006, the Supreme People's Court issued the Explanation on Several Issues on the Application of Law in Adjudicating Civil Unfair Competition Cases. It contains important interpretations of various terms used in China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The Explanations came into effect on February 1 2007.

Article 5(2) of the Law makes it an act of unfair competition to use without authorization a name, packaging or trade-dress the same or similar to the special name, packaging or trade dress of a well-known good/service ("commodity") causing confusion that a commodity is the well-known commodity. Among other things, the Explanation clarifies the following:

Moving on to a couple of articles from The Economist ...

The Economist March 2007 - Caught between right and left, town and country

FOUR years of double-digit growth, soaring government revenues, low inflation and a manageable budget deficit might be cause for celebration in other countries. But China's leaders are anxious. Inequalities are growing, corruption is rampant, grumbling widespread. Ideological battles between free-marketeers and left-wingers threaten to impede reform.

In his annual address at the opening of China's parliament, the National People's Congress (NPC) on March 5th, the prime minister, Wen Jiabao, studiously avoided mention of the most controversial item on the 12-day meeting's agenda. It is a new law on property rights which is mainly intended to reassure the country's fast growing middle class that their assets are secure. Three years ago China added a clause to its constitution saying that private property was “not to be encroached upon”. But efforts to translate this into law have aroused unusually fierce and open debate about the direction of China's economic reforms. Chinese leaders are now struggling to silence it.

The Economist March 2004 - Survey: Business in China  

THE whole world's gaze is fixed on China—not just because the country is vast and growing rapidly, but because it profoundly affects the fortunes of companies everywhere. Around the globe, shelves are stacked with the low-cost goods churned out by “the world's workshop”. Chinese-based manufacturers suck in imports and dictate global prices of everything from steel to microchips. For foreign companies, a huge market beckons as China liberalises its relations with the rest of the world, having acceded to the World Trade Organisation in 2001.

China's progress since it first opened to foreign investment and reform in 1978 has been dazzling. Over the past 25 years, its real gross domestic product has expanded at an average of 9% a year. Growth in foreign trade has averaged 15% annually since 1978; China's trade surplus with America is now twice the size of Japan's. And every week, more than $1 billion of foreign direct investment flows into the country. All this testifies to the global integration of China's economy, now the sixth-largest in the world with a GDP of $1.4 trillion.

The Economist June 2006 - Intangible Opportunities 

NOT long ago, the value of companies resided mostly in things you could see and touch. Today it lies increasingly in intangible assets such as the McDonald's name, the patent for Viagra and the rights to Spiderman. Baruch Lev, a finance professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, puts the implied value of intangibles on American companies' balance sheets at about $6 trillion, or two-thirds of the total. Much of this consists of intellectual property, the collective name for copyrights, trademarks and patents. Increasingly, companies and their clever bankers are using these assets to raise cash.

The Economist March 2006 - The boot is on the other foot 

A COURT case involving counterfeits and China is nothing new—except this time, it is the Chinese company that is doing the suing. In February Netac, a company based in Shenzhen, took PNY Technologies of New Jersey to court in Texas and so became, it is thought, the first mainland firm to sue an American one for patent infringement.

Netac claims that PNY has infringed its patent for external flash-memory storage devices, also known as “flash drives” or “key drives”, which have replaced floppy disks as the easiest way to carry data around. It is seeking “significant” (though unspecified) financial damages. The Chinese company obtained a Chinese patent for its technology in 2002 and an American one in 2004. PNY, it says, infringed the later patent, stunting Netac's growth in the American market for flash drives, which is worth more than $2 billion a year and growing fast. According to Gartner Dataquest, a consultancy, Netac ranked only sixth in this market in 2004 with a 4.4% market share, behind an array of Asian and American rivals including SanDisk, M-Systems—and PNY