• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Assistant Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Projects
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Secure IPR essential for China’s Growth

January 25, 2010 by Virgil Cojocaru (IPilogue Editor)

Virgil Cojocaru is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Google recently surprised the world by announcing it may pull out of China. In the meantime, it would no longer enforce China’s information suppression and screening platform. Ultimately, if Google leaves China, it will do so because the country’s government would not tolerate Google running without filters. Many have interpreted this as Google possibly being the first of other American corporations standing up for freedom of speech and information in a country sorely lacking both. However, closer investigation of the allegation paints a more complex picture. The issue revolves around freedom of information on the Net, privacy rights, and intellectual property rights (IPR).

Google alleges that hackers accessed the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. However, this was limited to a few email addresses. Furthermore, the information only included account creation dates and subject lines. They did not extend to the content of those email accounts. Hence, although privacy and freedom of information on the Net are an issue in this particular case, an objective evaluation points to another central problem.

In fact, it seems that Google is particularly miffed about the hackers’ alleged breach and extraction of its intellectual property, along with that of other international corporations. The Official Google blog states: “As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses–including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors–have been similarly targeted.”

Google can afford to state its opinion on the dreadful state of IP protection in China. Other corporations aren’t so privileged. Even though the online market in China has immense potential, Google only makes about 1% of its revenue there. The same might not be said for other major companies. Hence, Google’s statement might reflect the hushed view of many other corporations operating in China. The first response of the Chinese government has been that “Chinese law proscribes any form of hacking activity”. Nothing has been stated directly on intellectual property rights.

China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. Afterward, it amended its legal system to comply with the WTO Agreement on Traded-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Hence, at least in theory, China does have a legal system for dealing with IPR. It also has an obligation under TRIPS to enforce and protect intellectual property.

If China does not enforce IPR, it is breaching its obligations under TRIPs. Furthermore, such a state of matters will discourage future business and innovation in the country. There will simply be less incentive for companies to move or continue operating in China. This applies especially to IP brought in from abroad. Like privacy and freedom of speech, intellectual property is also a right. Ultimately, all rights can be traced to a notion of dignity for the person and society at large. Perhaps it is naive for companies to think that in a country where other rights are foregone, IP rights will be respected and enforced. On the other hand, it is important to note that China does have a judicial system to deal with IPR infringements set up to comply with its WTO obligations. This consists of an administrative procedure and a criminal or civil judicial avenue available for complainants. At this point, it is important for China to show the world that its judicial system does in fact work when it comes to IPR. As others have said before me, for different reasons, the ball is in China’s Court(s).

Posted in Copyright, Electronic Databases, General, Human Rights Issues, IP, Internet, Patents, Privacy, Telecommunications

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« France and the Right to Forget | Obama’s Likeness Used to Sell Rain Coats »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Events Calendar
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

 

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • bob on Bill C-32: Copyright and Education in the Digital Age
  • Stuart Freen on Sizing Privacy Harm
  • Steven Bercu on First sale and digital content
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Stuart Freen on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Christian Rock on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Anonymous on Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection?
  • Fly Intheointment on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Bart on Copyright Termination: How Authors can Reclaim their Copyrights
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • CRTC Seizes Internet Regulation Mantle
  • Brand Expectations in the Restroom: 4th Circuit Applies Contributory Trademark Infringement Doctrine to Post-Purchase Confusion Case
  • Yes, Patents Do Have Gender
  • Fashion IP Revisited: The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act
  • RIM’s Battle for Information Privacy, Market Share, and its Reputation
  • Transnational Regulation: Rough Consensus and Running Code
  • IP Osgoode: Call for Editors (2010-2011)
  • Sizing Privacy Harm
  • The Internet Age: The Culprit for a Rise in Plagiarism?
  • USPTO Issues Post-Bilski Guidelines for Patent Examiners
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Commercialization (46)
  • Contracts (36)
  • copyright reform (65)
  • defamation (6)
  • events (36)
  • General (120)
  • Innovation (79)
  • Internet (122)
  • IP (650)
    • Copyright (308)
      • CD Levy (6)
      • Digital Downloads (39)
      • Digital Locks (12)
      • Fair Dealing (25)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Internet Sharing (50)
      • Literary Works (24)
      • Movies (24)
      • Music Industry (42)
      • Originality (17)
      • Ownership (45)
        • Licensees (12)
      • Subsidiary Rights (4)
    • Patents (198)
      • Cross Border Issues (34)
      • Electronic Processes (7)
      • Infringement (37)
      • Patent Trolls (10)
      • Patentability (59)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (46)
    • Trademarks (130)
      • Domain Names (26)
      • Famous Marks (9)
      • Official Marks (8)
      • Parallel Importation (3)
      • Personality Rights (8)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • Links (3)
  • Music Industry (39)
  • Open-Source (14)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (3)
  • Privacy (111)
    • Electronic Databases (23)
    • Human Rights Issues (19)
    • Identity Theft (6)
  • Regulatory Policy (2)
  • Tech Transfer (12)
  • Technology (119)
  • Telecommunications (30)
  • Uncategorized (70)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736