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.
河池市人民政府关于印发《河池市市直国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入管理暂行办法》的通知
广西壮族自治区河池市人民政府
河池市人民政府关于印发《河池市市直国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入管理暂行办法》的通知
河政发〔2011〕62号
各县(市、区)人民政府,市直各单位,各企业:
《河池市市直国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入管理暂行办法》已经市二届人民政府第七十八次常务会议审议通过,现印发给你们,请认真贯彻执行。
二○一一年十月八日
河池市市直国有资产(资源)有偿使用
收入管理暂行办法
第一条 为了加强市直国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入管理,规范公共财政收入体系建设,促进国有资产合理配置和国有资源有效利用,根据有关法律、法规的规定,结合市本级实际,制定本办法。
第二条 本办法适用于市本级国家机关、事业单位及代行政府职能的社会团体及其他组织 (以下统称执收单位)国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入的征收管理和监督检查。
执行企业财务会计制度的事业单位,其国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入管理不适用本办法。
第三条 国有资产有偿使用收入,是指执收单位将其占有使用的固定资产、流动资产、无形资产,在保证完成正常工作的前提下,经审批同意,通过处置、租赁、对外合作、对外服务、对外投资和担保等形式取得的收入。
第四条 国有资产有偿使用收入包括:执收单位的固定资产和无形资产出租、出售、出让、转让等取得的收入,政府拥有所有权和投资兴建的公园、景点范围内实行特许经营项目的有偿出让收入和门票收入,利用政府投资建设的城市道路和公共场地设置停车泊位取得的收入,政府投资建设的公共基础设施(如道路、桥梁、公园、广场、建筑物等)的开发权、使用权、冠名权、广告权、特许经营权等取得的收入,以及利用其他国有资产取得的收入。
第五条 国有资源有偿使用收入,是指执收单位利用各种形态的自然资源、公共资源、政府信誉、信息和技术资源等方式向社会提供公共服务、准公共服务、经营服务以及出租、出让、转让国有资源使用权取得的收入。
第六条 国有资源有偿使用收入包括:执收单位收取的土地出让金收入,新增建设用地土地有偿使用费收入,探矿权和采矿权使用费及价款收入,场地和矿区使用费收入,出租汽车经营权、公共交通线路经营权、汽车号牌使用权等有偿出让取得的收入,政府举办的广播电视机构占用国家无线电频率资源取得的广告收入,以及利用其他国有资源取得的收入。
第七条 国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入属政府非税收入。执收单位扣除应缴税费后,应按政府非税收入管理规定,将应缴资金缴入国库,实行“收支两条线”管理,严禁私设“小金库”行为。
任何单位不得坐收坐支、截留、挤占、挪用或者擅自减收、免收、缓收国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入。
第八条 市财政局是国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入征收管理的主管部门,所属市非税收入管理局具体负责国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入征收管理的组织实施工作。
行政监察、审计等部门应当按照各自职责,做好国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入征收管理的相关工作。
第九条 执收单位处置、租赁国有资产(资源)以及利用国有资产(资源)开展对外投资和担保活动,应当按照财政部《行政单位国有资产管理暂行办法》、《事业单位国有资产管理暂行办法》的规定,报经同级财政部门审核批准。
本办法出台前,执收单位已投入租赁经营活动的国有资产(资源),执收单位应当及时到市非税收入管理局补充办理备案登记手续。
第十条 执收单位处置国有资产(资源),能够通过市场化方式进行的,应按照公开、公正、公平的原则,依法采取公开招标、竞价、拍卖等国家法律、法规、规章规定的方式进行,实行阳光操作,接受社会监督。
第十一条 执收单位出租、出借国有资产(资源),应分别按以下方式进行:
(一)对首次投入有偿使用的国有资产(资源),按照有关竞价程序,实行公开挂牌竞价出租,经市非税收入管理局确认后,执收单位方可签订出租、出借合同,合同经营期限一般不超过5年;
(二)对已出租经营的国有资产(资源),待原合同经营期满,经市非税收入管理局委托市价格认证中心或中介评估机构对租金重新进行价格评估认证后,原承租户可按评估认证价格实行协议续租,合同经营期限一般不超过3年。原承租户放弃续租权利的,按前款规定实行公开挂牌竞价出租。
(三)对租赁国有资产(资源)临时用于短期宣传促销等经营活动,并且规模较小、经营时间较短的,遵照物价部门确定的市场指导价,授权执收单位简化报批程序、缩短审批时间,具体办理出租、出借审批手续,以提高工作效率。
国有资产(资源)租赁合同文本统一由市非税收入管理局制定。
第十二条 未经市财政局审批,执收单位不得擅自改变国有资产(资源)的经营属性和用途,不得改变或自行续签租赁合同、预支租金或押金,或变相转移资产(资源)等。
第十三条 执收单位投入租赁经营活动的国有资产(资源)应与市非税收入管理局办理登记备案手续,并定期对账。执收单位要根据市非税收入管理局提供的国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入征缴数据和有关会计资料,登记辅助账簿,建立有关内部控制制度。
第十四条 执收单位收取国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入,应当依照有关规定开具政府非税收入票据。
执收单位不得使用资金往来结算票据以及自制票据、作废票据等非法票据收取国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入。
第十五条 执收单位应当建立健全国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入财务会计管理制度,如实提供国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入收支情况和资料,接受财政、审计等部门的监督检查。
第十六条 国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入根据管理需要可以由市财政局直接征收,也可以由市财政局委托执收单位征收。法律、法规、规章另有规定的,从其规定。
委托有关单位征收的,财政部门应当与有关单位签订委托合同。
第十七条 市财政局应当将国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入纳入财政预算和决算。
第十八条 市财政局、市审计局应当加强对国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入征收、入库、支出和票据使用管理等情况的监督检查,依法查处国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入收支管理中的违规违纪行为。
第十九条 市财政局应当加强对国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入的管理,协调解决有偿使用收入管理中的重大问题,建立和完善激励机制,鼓励执收单位利用闲置的国有资产(资源)进行有偿使用活动,不断提高国有资产(资源)使用效益。
第二十条 对产权属执收单位所有的国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入,按市人民政府规定的办法征收政府统筹资金后,市财政局应将其余部分拨付执收单位用于有偿使用的国有资产(资源)的维护管理以及弥补执收单位公用经费的不足等支出。
对产权属政府所有的国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入,市财政局应当按一定比例核拨执收单位用于征收成本支出。对征收成本不能在国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入中列支的,由财政预算另行安排执收经费。
第二十一条 鼓励企业参与政府公共基础设施建设,对政府和企业合作开发建设取得的国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入,收益归政府和企业共同所有。
第二十二条 任何单位和个人有权举报国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入管理中的违法行为。受理举报的部门应当按照规定职责依法处理。
第二十三条 对违反本办法有关规定的执收单位和个人,按照国务院《财政违法行为处罚处分条例》和《广西壮族自治区政府非税收入管理条例》、《广西壮族自治区收据管理办法》等规定,对直接负责的主管人员和直接责任人员依法给予处罚、处分;构成犯罪的,移交司法机关,依法追究刑事责任。
第二十四条 财政部门和其他有关部门的工作人员在国有资产(资源)有偿使用收入监督管理工作中滥用职权、玩忽职守、徇私舞弊,造成有偿使用收入流失的,依据《财政违法行为处罚处分条例》规定,给予行政处分、行政处罚;构成犯罪的,移交司法机关,依法追究刑事责任。
第二十五条 本办法由市财政局负责解释。
第二十六条 本办法自发布之日起施行。