 中国调查iPad商标侵权案 China Investigates iPad Trademark Infringement 3
 AMSC称中国法院拒绝受理其控告华锐风电的案件 AMSC Says Chinese Court Dismisses Case against Sinovel 3
 恒泰为REHAU集团赢得商标权诉讼 Hengtai Wins Trademark Infringement Case for REHAU 4
 中国法院作出不利于AMSC的裁决 Chinese Court Rules against AMSC 5
 iPad 3的发布日期受到”麻烦的”中国商标猎手的威胁 iPad 3 Release Date Threatened by “Troubled” China Trademark Hawker 6
 中国盗窃了风能技术知识产权吗？ Has China Stolen IP? | Wind Farms Technology 7
 中国打算处罚苹果公司，可能以商标滥用为由查禁iPad China Prepares to Fine Apple, Possibly Ban iPad for Trademark Abuse 8
 中国商标案使苹果公司面临3800万美元罚款 Apple Faces $38m Fine in China Trademark Case 11
 中国商业秘密案正式起诉 China Secrets Case Yields Indictment 12
 理想公司与数家电脑厂商就绿坝软件版权纠纷达成和解 Lenovo, Computer Makers Settle Copyright Lawsuit Over Green Dam Software 14
 关于东西方网络”冷战”风险的若干争议 Disagreements on Cyber Risk East-West “Cold War” 14
 北京微博三月十六日前须完成实名注册 Beijing Microbloggers Must Register Real Names by Mar 16 17
 在中国对社会性媒体的审查中追寻政治线索 Searching for Political Clues in China’s Social Media Censorship 18
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
3
China Investigates iPad Trademark Infringement
By Liu Yuxin. Beijing Daily, Feb. 6, 2012.
China’s State Administration for Industry & Commerce (SAIC) is starting to investigate the iPad trademark infringement.
The trademark dispute between Apple Inc and Shenzhen Proview Technology emerged in 2000. As early as 2000, Shenzhen subsidiary of Proview International Holdings Ltd, one of world’s four major monitor manufacturers at that time, registered the iPad trademark in China, Mexico, Singapore, Indonesia, and EU countries. In 2006, however, Apple Inc found that the trademark was belonging to Proview Technology, as the company planned to promote its iPad product.
In late 2009, a subsidiary of Proview Technology in Taiwan sold 10 trademarks, including two related to the name iPad, to a UK company called IP Application Development, which is owned by Apple. IPAD later transferred rights for the iPad trademarks to Apple Inc.
But Proview Shenzhen thinks that the deal in 2009 does not include the right to use the “iPad” trademark on the Chinese mainland. In April 2010, Proview Shenzhen asked Apple Inc to stop the infringement and compensate for the losses. But Apple Inc ignored the requests and continued the sales of its iPad products. In July 2010, Apple Inc and IP Application Development filed a lawsuit against Proview Shenzhen, but the recent court verdict found that the Shenzhen affiliate is not bound by the 2009 deal.
Once the iPad trademark infringement is verified, Apple Inc will face large sum of fines.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90778/7720979.html
AMSC Says Chinese Court Dismisses Case against Sinovel
By Reuters, Feb. 6, 2012.
U.S. power systems maker AMSC said a Chinese court dismissed one of its copyright infringement complaints against its former customer Sinovel Wind Group, sending its shares down as much as 6 percent.
AMSC, seeking to recover more than $1.2 billion from Sinovel through civil cases filed in various Chinese courts, said it will appeal the ruling.
“The Hainan court’s dismissal of our smallest case is not altogether unexpected,” AMSC Chief Executive Daniel McGahn said in a statement.
The complaint was filed with the Hainan Province Number 1 Intermediate People’s Court.
AMSC ended its prolonged relationship with Sinovel last year, despite the Chinese company accounting for nearly three-quarters of its revenue at the time. It also sued the Chinese wind turbine giant for stealing intellectual property and violating a contract.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
4
AMSC, founded by Greg Yurek in 1987 with three fellow Massachusetts Institute of Technology professors, makes the core electrical systems used in wind turbines.
AMSC shares were down 5 percent at $5.50 in morning trade on the Nasdaq. They touched a low of $5.46 earlier.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-amsc-idUSTRE8151CH20120206
Hengtai Wins Trademark Infringement Case for REHAU
By Laurel Wentz. PRWEB, Feb. 7, 2012.
In January of 2012, Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court delivered the final judgment in favor of REHAU. The Court ordered Chinese infringer RUIHAO to stop infringement of REHAU Trading’s exclusive use right on trademarks “REHAU” and “REHAU” in Chinese characters and to pay compensation of RMB 380,000. (Shanghai No.1 Intermediate court (intellectual property) / Final No. 251.)
Established in 1948, REHAU group of companies is a global leading polymers supplier. REHAU group has over 170 sales companies and over 40 manufacturing factories worldwide. “REHAU Pipe” enjoys high reputation and is well known in Chinese ground heating industry. Trademark “REHAU” has been registered and gained protection in tens of countries (including China) applying at all 45 categories of commodity international classification.
REHAU Trading is one of REHAU group’s China companies. It has gained exclusive right for using the trademarks “REHAU” and REHAU in Chinese character, in Mainland China, through License Contracts for trademarks signed with REHAU AG+CO. The License Contracts specially authorize the REHAU Trading to file claims and lawsuits with Chinese Judicial and administrative organizations.
Shanghai RUIHAO Pipelines Co was set up in March of 2007. Since its setup, it has been using marks “RUIHAO” on its heating and ventilating pipe systematic products manufactured and sold by itself and on its catalogues, name cards, packages, magazines, official WebPages, etc. Furthermore, RUIHAO hints in its catalogues and WebPages that it had Germany elements. REHAU was deeply annoyed by RUIHAO’s infringement.
Hengtai’s managing partner Edward Sun handled the litigation case personally, assisted by Louis Yang and Weibin Lu, two young IP specialists. They filed the case with Shanghai Minhang District People’s Court in April of 2011 and got a winning judgment in October. One day before the deadline of appeal period, RUIHAO appealed. Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court held court hearing and upheld Minhang District People’s Court’s judgment. The ruling also draws attention from China’s famous Trademark Weekly. (Shanghai No.1 Intermediate court (intellectual property) / Final No. 251.)
This is a great start for REHAU’s counter-fight against RUIHAO. With this victory, Hengtai’s expertise on Intellectual Property Protection area is once again evidenced.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/prwebTop-Law-Firm-CN/Trademark-Infringement/prweb9169901.htm
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
5
Chinese Court Rules against AMSC
By Erin Ailworth. Boston Globe, Feb. 7, 2012.
A Chinese court last week dismissed the smallest of three civil cases that AMSC, a Devens firm that makes control systems for wind turbines, has filed against a Beijing wind turbine maker accused of stealing its technology.
The company, formerly known as American Superconductor, last year sued its once-largest customer, Sinovel Wind Group, after discovering an imperfect replica of its software in a Sinovel turbine in China. AMSC is seeking more than $1.2 billion in damages and payments from Sinovel through the three civil cases, as well as an arbitration case before authorities in Beijing.
In the smallest case, AMSC sought about $200,000 and a court order prohibiting Sinovel from using AMSC’s intellectual property. The case was dismissed Friday by a court in China’s Hainan Province, where AMSC filed a copyright infringement complaint against Sinovel and Dalian Guotong Electric Co., a supplier of power converter products.
The court, according to AMSC, agreed with Sinovel that the case should be governed by the Beijing Arbitration Commission, an organization meant to provide an impartial forum to resolve corporate disputes. AMSC, which has already filed a separate complaint with the commission, said it will appeal the court ruling.
“The Hainan court’s dismissal of our smallest case is not altogether unexpected,’’ said AMSC’s chief executive, Daniel P. McGahn, in a statement yesterday. “We continue to have confidence in all of our cases and expect that our legal actions will yield a positive outcome.’’
Sinovel could not be reached for comment, but the turbine maker previously denied stealing AMSC’s technology.
Through its arbitration case, AMSC is hoping to recoup $70 million owed for past product shipments and to get its contracts, worth about $700 million, enforced.
The company has also filed a trade secrets case with the Beijing Higher Court, where it hopes to recover $450 million, and another copyright infringement case in a lower Beijing court, where it is seeking about $6 million.
AMSC has a long way to go to rebound from its troubles with Sinovel, which once accounted for nearly 80 percent of the Devens firm’s revenues. The relationship started to sour last spring, when, months before AMSC began to suspect possible theft of its technology, Sinovel stopped accepting shipments of AMSC products.
The loss of the Chinese firm’s business caused AMSC’s stock to plunge from nearly $25 in April to just under $3.50 in October, and the Devens company ultimately had to halve its workforce. AMSC’s stock has since rebounded somewhat, and yesterday closed at $5.48, down 30 cents from Friday.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
6
An investigation by AMSC eventually led the company to an engineer at a subsidiary in Austria. The man was later found guilty of stealing proprietary software and sentenced by Austrian authorities to a year in jail.
http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-07/business/31030364_1_turbine-maker-trade-secrets-case-chinese-court-rules
iPad 3 Release Date Threatened by “Troubled” China Trademark Hawker
By Bill Palmer, Beatweek Magazine, Feb. 7, 2012.
The iPad 3 should see its release date in the United States and elsewhere in March of 2012 as expected. But China may be a different story, as a financially troubled Chinese company which makes monitors claims it owns the rights to the name “iPad” and is suing Apple for more than a billion and a half dollars while attempting to block the launch of the iPad 3 in China. Proview Technology, the company in question, says it registered the “iPad” trademark in China a decade ago, long before Apple’s iPad was unveiled. The company admits it’s in financial “trouble” according to Fox Business, and that it’s relying on a successful verdict against Apple to right itself from a cash standpoint. The company can’t realistically stop the iPad 3 from launching worldwide, but it’ll be up to the Chinese legal system to sort out the mess locally. In the mean time Apple appears to be eyeing March as the release date for the iPad 3 in the west, just as it’s launched the previous two iPad models in the spring…
The financial reality of the China situation is that Apple, which is the world’s largest tech company and has about a hundred billion dollars in cash on hand, could buy Proview for comparative pocket change just to make the whole thing go away – or give the company the cash settlement it wants in exchange for a clear legal grip on the iPad trademark. The situation has come to a head even as Apple is attempting to use the court system to get rival Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, an obvious copycat of the original iPad from a hardware design standpoint, removed from shelves worldwide. The current iPad 2 looks identical to the original iPad from the front, but features curved sides and a thinner profile. Apple’s upcoming iPad 3 is still a mystery. While various internal specs have been quasi-confirmed or speculated on, no clear indicator of the external design of the iPad 3 has arisen from the rumor pile as of yet…
The lack of iPad 3 leaks is remarkable considering the significant amount of digging done in advance by rumor sites any time a major new Apple product is in play. The iPad 3 is expected to launch at a press event sometime in March, with a release date shortly thereafter. Those in the United States and other nations not affected by the Proview legal tussle should have no problem getting their hands on one, so long as Apple manages to manufacture enough initial inventory; last year’s iPad 2 launch was marred by a lack of initial supply. For those in China, or any other nation which the trademark battle spills over into, it may be a different story. Here’s more on the iPad 3.
http://www.beatweek.com/iphone/ipodiphoneitunes/12616-ipad-3-release-date-threatened-by-troubled-china-trademark-hawker/
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
7
Has China Stolen IP? | Wind Farms Technology
By Andrew Heaton. DesignBuild Source, Feb. 8, 2012.
For many years now, consternation in western countries about technology secrets and other intellectual property being allegedly stolen by Chinese companies and government organisations has been on the rise.
Predominately, concerns have been focused around information technology, but a recent civil suit filed by an American wind technology company highlights that the battleground extends more broadly to a wide range of engineering and hi-tech industries.
In the latest developments, US wind energy company AMSC has filed three civil lawsuits in Chinese courts against the Chinese firm Sinovel Wind Group Co. AMSC says it is seeking $1.2 billion from Sinovel and related companies for contracted shipments and damages in what it says what it says represented a discovery of intellectual theft by staff of the Chinese company.
“In total, AMSC is seeking to recover more than $1.2 billion for contracted shipments and damages from Sinovel in these cases, which stem from Sinovel’s contractual breaches in March 2011 and AMSC’s discovery of intellectual property theft by Sinovel employees in June 2011” the company says in a statement.
The case centers around contractual arrangements under a strategic partnership which had been in place between AMSC and Sinovel since 2005. Under that arrangement, AMSC provided core electrical components for some of Sinovel’s smaller wind turbines as well as engineering support and power electronics for larger turbines which were jointly developed between the two companies. In 2009, that arrangement expanded to include the joint development of multi-megawatt-scale turbines which Sinovel was to then market and sell both domestically and in export markets.
Problems arose in March last year when AMSC accused Sinovel of breaching its contract by refusing to accept delivery of equipment or to pay for previously delivered items. Following the arrest of a former AMSC employee in charges of economic espionage and fraudulent manipulation of data, the US firm said it believed that the individual in question had improperly transferred AMSC’s wind turbine control software source code to the Chinese firm. The former employee, AMSC said, illegally used the code to develop a modification which allowed Sinovel to circumvent the encryption and remove technical protection measures for the technology. Essentially, AMSC alleges that this allowed Sinovel to illegally gain access to AMSC’s wind turbine technology – allowing the latter to simply copy technology rather than purchase equipment from the former.
Following the alleged breach, the American firm reported a fall in revenue during the second quarter of fiscal 2011, which it blamed on a lack of revenue from its former customer. Furthermore, the American company said that because Chinese equipment is being used in wind turbines containing its wind turbine control software, “we believe that our copyrighted software is being infringed.”
Increasing Complaints
The latest developments come as amid ongoing concern from both America and other western countries about alleged stealing of intellectual policy by China.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
8
In July last year, US Treasury Secretary Tim Giethner blasted the country for ‘systematically stealing’ the intellectual property of American firms. Earlier in January, the New York Times has described intellectual property theft as ‘the No. 1 problem’ for the United States with China’s economy, with technology companies continuing to notice Chinese government agencies downloading updates for programs they have never bought. And in December, US cyber security experts and analysts said that as few as twelve different Chinese groups, largely backed by the Chinese government, were responsible for the majority of critical data from US companies and government agencies.
The latest developments highlight that concerns relating to intellectual property protection apply not just to information technology and defence, but also to a broader range of hi-tech engineering and technology fields.
Pleasingly, however, AMSC says the company was starting to see ‘motion’ from Chinese courts regarding its case, although a judgment in the smallest of the three cases has already gone against the company.
“We are starting to see motion from the Chinese courts, and proceedings are getting underway as expected”, AMSC President and Chief Executive Officer Daniel P. McGahn says.
The latest developments also come amid accusations by the United States against China for allegedly providing several hundred million US dollars in illegal grants since 2008 to wind turbine makers for using Chinese components.
http://designbuildsource.com.au/china-stolen-ip-wind-farm
China Prepares to Fine Apple, Possibly Ban iPad for Trademark Abuse
By Jason Mick. Daily Tech, Feb. 7, 2012.
Apple will have to pay $38M USD and likely be forced to pay new licensing fees unless it can win its appeal
Apple, Inc. is in hot water over its use of the trademarked name “iPad”. In fact, appeals pending, a lawsuit loss has put it at risk of a complete sales ban in the world’s largest consumer electronics market -- China.
Chinese holding company Proview International Holdings ltd. sold Apple the Chinese market rights to use the trademark for a mere $55K USD in 2006, via an Apple subsidiary IP Application Development. Apple has increasingly turned to using shell companies to sue people and buy patents, a traditional method of the patent troll.
Of course Proview, ostensibly had no idea that it was really dealing with Apple, or that Apple would use the trademark towards a billion dollar product. Of course Apple did exactly that, and today the tablet is a much-coveted piece of electronics in the world’s largest nation -- one that some people would (literally) trade a kidney for.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
9
Proview looked to settle with Apple out of court, but Apple’s lawyers apparently did not take the company’s threats seriously. So Proview called Apple’s bluff and sued it in Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court over the trademarks iPAD (China Trademark No. 1682310) and IPAD (China Trademark No. 1590557). Proview sought 10B yuan (RMB) ($1.586B USD) in damages [source]. The iPad 2 launched in China for a whopping 3.688K yuan (RMB) (~$585 USD) for the 16 GB Wi-Fi version [source], $85 USD more than its U.S. retail price. This is actually slightly lower than the even more inflated price points of the first generation model. The iPad has suffered slightly from its incompatibility with local 3G standards. Internationally, the iPad (first gen.) sold 15 million units in 2010. The iPad 2 sold 40 million units in 2011 [1][2][3][4], keeping Apple far ahead of would-be Android tablet competitors.
The iPad is the hottest tablet in China. [Image Source: EPA/Diego Azubel]
The crux of Proview’s argument is that it sold the rights to IP Application Development -- not Apple.
Apple argued that Proview was in the wrong and that it fully owned the trademark, via a transfer. It sought 4M yuan (RMB) ($634.5K USD) in legal fees, for what it says was a defense against false claims.
But the local court did not see Apple’s logic, ruling it to be in infringement. It is on the verge of ordering a 240M yuan (RMB) ($38.07M USD) fine [source]. Emboldened, Proview has filed more lawsuits against Apple’s retail partners, including one that will be heard in court in the Pudong district of Shanghai later this month.
Proview Shenzhen’s lawyer Xie Xianghui demands that in addition to paying the fine leveled by the Shenzhen court, Apple must either pay a licensing fee or stop selling the product. And it wants an apology, for what it sees as Apple trampling its IP rights.
States Mr. Xie in the China Daily, “We ask the court to stop selling and marketing for Apple’s iPad in China. We also demand an apology.”
Xiao Caiyuan, another lawyer, told the China Daily, “We have prepared well for a long-term legal battle.”
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
10
But Proview may need outside cash from another Chinese firm or venture capitalists in order to fuel a successful IP war against Apple. The holdings company, which owns some display manufacturing capacity in Taiwan, appears to have listed its website for proviewintl.com for sale.
Proview’s webpage appears to be for sale -- which could be a sign of cash troubles.
For those who fear the Shenzhen court may be favoring the local firm, consider that Shenzhen is far more reliant monetarily on Apple than on Proview, so the ruling indicates that Proview must have a very strong case.
Apple is indirectly one of the biggest employers in Shenzhen, using the majority of the manufacturing capacity of the local electronics mega-factory complex -- owned Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd. (2317) subsidiary Foxconn -- to produce its iPhones and iPads. Apple has been criticized for reportedly ignoring poor labor conditions at the factory, whose employees describe it as a “hellish” sweatshop. Apple disputes these claims.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
11
Workers assemble electronics at a Foxconn factory. [Image Source: Kotaku]
One thing is for sure -- the Proview case illustrates the danger of firms dealing with holding companies, as you never know who you’re dealing with. As an IP firm you would expect that would be something Proview would be aware of, given that IP-heavy firms are among the biggest abusers of shell companies.
As this is an oft-occurring headache in the tech industry, the real question his how to stop shell company obfuscation.
The answer seems simple; just limit the number of subsidiaries that any one corporation can hold. This would go a long way to preventing this kind of potential abuse and reduce these “he-said-she-said” legal spats.
http://www.dailytech.com/China+Prepares+to+Fine+Apple+Possibly+Ban+iPad+for+Trademark+Abuse/article23945.htm
Apple Faces $38m Fine in China Trademark Case
By Nick Wood, Total Telecom, Feb. 8, 2012.
Shenzhen-based Proview seeks ban on sale of iPad in China; asks for apology, compensation.
The future of Apple’s iPad is under threat in China after local firm Proview Technology Shenzhen claimed ownership of the trademark and demanded sales of the device be halted, reports the China Daily.
Apple could also be slapped with a $38 million fine as authorities in Beijing weigh up the case.
The lawsuit is the latest twist in a saga that began in October 2010, when Proview Technology’s parent company Proview International sued Apple for 10 billion yuan ($1.6 billion), claiming it had rights over the iPad trademark.
The controversy stems from the fact that two of its subsidiaries, Proview Taipei and the aforementioned Proview Technology Shenzhen, both registered the iPad trademark in different territories and at different times more than 10 years ago. Proview Taipei later sold its rights to the
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
12
trademark to U.K.-based IP Application Development Ltd, which in turn sold it to Apple for a mere £10.
Proview Technology meanwhile – which registered the iPad trademark in China in 2001 – claims it still maintains sole rights to the brand in China.
“We are asking the court to order Apple to stop selling and marketing the iPad in China. We also demand an apology,” said Proview Technology’s lawyer Xie Xianghui, in Tuesday’s China Daily report.
Apple has yet to comment.
http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=471049
China Secrets Case Yields Indictment
By JUSTIN SCHECK. Wall Street Journal. Feb. 9, 2012.
SAN FRANCISCO—A federal grand jury on Wednesday indicted a San Francisco Bay area couple on charges of conspiring to steal trade secrets from DuPont Co. and sell them to Chinese state-owned companies.
The indictment said Walter Liew, 54 years old, and his wife, Christina Liew, 49, conspired to take confidential DuPont documents and used them to obtain more than $20 million in contracts from companies in China.
The case is the latest in a series of federal indictments alleging the theft of U.S. companies’ intellectual property by Chinese companies.
On Wednesday, a federal court in Chicago convicted Chinese national Hanjuan Jin of stealing trade secrets from Motorola Inc. but acquitted her of more serious espionage charges. Federal prosecutors in 2010 abandoned a corporate-espionage case against two men accused of stealing secrets from NetLogic Microsystems Inc. to sell to Chinese companies after a jury acquitted the men on some charges and deadlocked on others.
The indictment against the Liews came after nearly a yearlong investigation in which a witness committed suicide and federal authorities detained two Chinese executives for weeks as witnesses, people familiar with the matter said.
The indictment alleged that Mr. Liew gained information on DuPont’s titanium-manufacturing practices by hiring former DuPont employees with knowledge of the company’s technology.
A DuPont spokesman said the Wilmington, Del., company approached law-enforcement officials after learning that information on its titanium-dioxide factories had been stolen. Titanium dioxide is found in paints with military and aerospace uses, among other things. DuPont has filed a civil suit against Mr. Liew that is pending.
Lawyers for the Liews declined to comment on Wednesday’s indictment.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
13
Ling-Chi Wang, a professor emeritus at University of California, Berkeley, who has been advising the Liews on how to fight the charges, said he was “outraged” that prosecutors detained Mr. Liew, a U.S. citizen, for seven months before obtaining the indictment.
The investigation gained steam over the summer, prosecutors said in court documents, after FBI agents arrested the Liews on charges of obstructing justice after they tried to keep agents from a trove of documents during a search of their home. The Liews have pleaded not guilty to the obstruction charges.
The documents, which prosecutors filed in court last week, include letters and emails in which Mr. Liew allegedly wrote that a Chinese government official told him to develop expertise in titanium manufacturing and wrote that he has “possession and mastery of the DuPont titanium” technology that he can sell to Chinese companies.
Mr. Liew’s lawyer has said in court filings that the documents aren’t accurate.
In a statement, China’s Ministry of Commerce said it hasn’t “heard from the U.S. government or relevant industrial circles about the issue,” and said the “Chinese government has long been putting emphasis on the protection of Intellectual property.”
Prosecutors also built their case using business associates of the Liews, the people familiar with the matter said. These included two executives from Pangang Group Co., a state-owned Chinese enterprise that is a defendant in the case, who federal agents detained last year and prevented from leaving the U.S. to obtain testimony about the Liews, the people said. The executives, the people said, recently were allowed to return to China.
Pangang, which was named as a defendant in the indictment, couldn’t be reached for comment. The indictment also names four other Chinese state-owned companies and three business associates of the Liews as defendants.
A former employee of Mr. Liew, Reno, Nev., engineer Tim Spitler, told prosecutors he discussed secret DuPont documents with Mr. Liew, people familiar with the investigation said. Mr. Spitler was expected to be a witness for the government but killed himself last month, the people said. Members of his family didn’t return calls.
Wednesday’s indictment said Mr. Liew’s attempts to obtain and sell DuPont secrets began in the 1990s, when Chinese-government officials placed a priority on the development of titanium-dioxide manufacturing.
In 1998, the indictment said, Mr. Liew signed a $5.6 million contract to sell the technology to a Chinese company, and he signed larger deals with other companies in 2005 and 2009. From 2003 to 2008, prosecutors alleged, Mr. Liew and his associates advised Pangang Group on constructing a titanium-manufacturing plan that used DuPont blueprints.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203315804577211463864126278.html
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
14
Lenovo, Computer Makers Settle Copyright Lawsuit over Green Dam Software
By Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg, Feb. 8, 2012.
Lenovo Group Ltd. (992) and other computer makers settled a lawsuit brought by a California software maker who had claimed the Green Dam software installed on personal computers in China infringes its copyright.
“The parties have reached a settlement resolving the entire case,” Cybersitter LLC, the software maker, said yesterday in a filing in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California. Terms of the settlement weren’t disclosed in the filing.
Closely held Cybersitter sued China, seven computer makers and two Chinese software makers in 2010, seeking $2.2 billion in damages over allegations the Green Dam program illegally copies more than 3,000 lines of code from Cybersitter’s Internet content-filtering program. The Chinese government made Green Dam mandatory on personal computers sold there in 2009.
Researchers in China have reported that Green Dam contains more than 6,500 political keyword filters, including words related to China’s control of Tibet, the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and the government-banned Falun Gong religious group, Cybersitter said in its complaint.
Robert Schwartz, a lawyer for Lenovo in Los Angeles, declined to comment on the settlement. Elliot Gipson, a lawyer for Santa Barbara, California-based Cybersitter, didn’t immediately return a call to his office.
Gipson said in a telephone interview last month that China hadn’t responded to the complaint and that U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton Tucker last year granted a motion for entry of default against the country.
The case is Cybersitter v. the People’s Republic of China, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Santa Ana).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-08/lenovo-computer-makers-settle-copyright-lawsuit-over-green-dam-software.html
Disagreements on Cyber Risk East-West “Cold War”
By Peter Apps. Reuters, Feb. 3, 2012.
* East-West disagreements over cyberspace rise * Intellectual property theft, Internet freedom key issues * Increasingly obvious gap between US, alies, Russia ,China
LONDON - With worries growing over computer hacking, data theft and the risk of digital attacks destroying essential systems, western states and their allies are co-operating closer than ever on cyber security.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
15
But as they do so, the gulf between them and China and Russia -- blamed for many recent hacks and with a very different and much more authoritarian view over the future of the Internet -- grows ever wider.
Last week, Chinese officials turned down invitations to a privately-run conference of military and civilian experts on cyber security in London, telling organisers Defence IQ they would not attend due to a “low tide” in relations with the US, particularly its military. A senior Russian official also pulled out at the last moment, citing a failure to obtain a UK Visa in time -- although other attendees suspected that might simply have been an excuse.
Western officials talk down such snubs. But they admit progress towards international agreement on “norms of behaviour” in cyberspace remains a distant dream.
“It is worrying,” says John Bassett, a former senior official at British signals intelligence agency GCHQ and now senior fellow at London’s Royal United Services Institute. “If anything, in the last year the differences have become more apparent and there seems to have been little success in tackling them. There is a risk it could end up damaging the wider relationship.”
Russia and China, it seems, have little appetite to tackle data theft whilst the West has no intention of acquiescing to Russian and Chinese demands for a more controlled Internet.
Jim Lewis, a former US foreign service officer and now senior fellow at Washington DC think tank the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, participates in regular semi-official meetings with China on cyber.
“There are several things coming together here,” he says.
“There is the political difference over the freedom and future of the Internet. Then that gets tied together with the theft of commercial property -- which itself becomes part of the wider trade issues.”.
Already, Western officials and academics involved in talks say discussions on cyber between East and West have become much more difficult and more complex than on any other issue.
“This is going to be a very gradual process,” says Christopher Painter, the US State Department lead official on cyber policy. “There are obviously some very different visions of the future of the Internet... On intellectual theft, I’m not going to single out China or Russia but it’s obviously something we take very seriously.”
A November London conference organised by British Foreign Secretary William Hague was supposed to kickstart progress towards global consensus. But if anything, it looks to have simply exacerbated the differences. A follow-up conference in Budapest later this year could be similar, some fear.
“The London conference did seem to show a “non-flexible” attitude from both the West and East,” says Tony Dyhouse, a leading cyber security specialist for UK defence firm Quinetiq. “Dare we coin the term “Cyber Cold War”?”
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT
In public, U.S. and other Western officials almost always decline to detail where they believe the plethora of recent cyber attacks have come from.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
16
In the last year, they have included attempts to break into computer systems at the U.S. State Department and British Foreign Office and other highly publicised attacks on Lockheed Martin, Google, the NASDAQ and the International Monetary Fund amongst others.
But privately and occasionally on the record, they frequently point the finger at Russia and China. Both angrily deny any involvement, saying they too are victims of hacking.
But many Western security specialists say the evidence against both nations -- particularly China -- has become increasingly compelling.
“China is currently engaged in a maximal industrial espionage effort that it justifies internally in terms of a catch up strategy (with the West),” says Thomas Barnett, chief analyst at political risk consultancy Wikistrat and a former strategist for the U.S. Navy. “The key question here is: can China assume the mantle of intellectual property rights respect fast enough to avoid triggering economic warfare of the West... If it can’t, then this is likely to get ugly.”
PricewaterhouseCoopers consultant Tim Hind, a former intelligence chief at British bank Barclays, has few doubts.
“I think government circles and organisations now... have very good attribution,” he says. “The question is what you do diplomatically with that attribution... I think our government sees our economic and political mission with China as more important than addressing the cyber issue.”
Some believe the most promising avenue of negotiation might be to link it to one of Beijing’s primary worries -- the buildup of US military forces in Southeast Asia.
“There is a deal to be made here involving the U.S. ceasing its intelligence gathering, naval and air activity off China’s coast,” Nigel Inkster, a former deputy chief of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and now head of political risk and transnational threats at London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies, said late last year.
But others suspect the scale of Chinese responsibility might be overstated.
“One thing is certain -- the “in thing” to do is blame China and hence it is likely that at least some of the actions blamed on China will not be of that origin,” said another European cyber security expert, speaking on condition of anonymity. “They’ve become a “no questions asked” scapegoat.”
Because of the focus on China, some experts say the scale of hacking from Russian territory is often ignored.
That, some suggest, is how Moscow was able to marshal so many “patriotic hackers” to paralyse Estonia’s Internet during a political face-off in 2007 as well as attacking Georgian websites during the 2008 war. More recently, such hackers have targeted dissident websites.
VAST PHILOSOPHICAL GULF
Perhaps even more serious than worries over hacking, however, is the vast philosophical gulf between East and West.
Last year, both Russia and China saw a rise in Internet-fuelled unrest that they blamed in part on the West. Beijing’s censors increasingly struggled to control micro-blogging on their relatively tightly
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
17
regulated Internet, whilst recent protests against Vladimir Putin are seen further fuelling Russian desire for control.
In the run-up to the London meeting, Moscow and Beijing released a suggested “code of conduct” for the global Internet that would give national governments much more control over the Internet within their borders.
But Western states swiftly shot down such suggestions. Despite British hopes the Chinese and Russians would not feel “ambushed” at the London summit, they would have found much to dislike there.
“The Chinese see the Internet as an American construct, designed to provide the U.S. with military and commercial advantage,” said Lewis, adding that Beijing suspected the West of fostering dissent within its borders as well as building powerful cyber weaponry with which to attack.
With almost every nation dramatically ramping up its military spending on cyber security -- including offensive “cyber warfare” capabilities to attack essential networks, turn off power grids and cause massive disruption -- some fear more serious confrontation.
In a worst-case scenario, a single damaging cyber attack could spark a wider conventional war or even nuclear confrontation -- with the risk a nation might wrongly blame a rival government for the actions of a single hacker and strike back. The 2009 Stuxnet computer worm attack on Iran’s nuclear programme that reprogrammed sensitive equipment to tear itself apart was seen by many as a sign of things to come.
As with any potential military conflict, experts have long said the key to avoiding accidental escalation is the creation of “confidence building measures” between all sides such as meetings, hotlines and shared discussions over threats.
Senior officers from the newly launched U.S. Cyber Command and other officials have massively ramped up links with other military and civilian cyber agencies across NATO and the Western world. That process with China and Russia is at a much earlier stage, officials say. Some believe more should be done.
“Even if you have long-running cyber arms control negotiations that never really went anywhere, that would give you the chance to get conversation and contacts going,” says former GCHQ official Bassett.
For now, many believe the greatest risk is that paranoia sets in on both sides, further entrenching positions.
“We are very tempted by a “Cold War” way of thinking,” says Lewis at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. “The problem is that that can be very self-fulfilling.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/technology-cyber-idUSL5E8D322720120203
Beijing Microbloggers Must Register Real Names by Mar 16
By CNET, Feb. 9, 2012.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
18
BEIJING--An officer at the Beijing Internet Information Office (BIIO) has decreed that all microblog users in the Chinese capital must authenticate their names before Mar. 16, or will have their access limited to browsing and not be allowed to post or relay messages.
At a media briefing earlier this week, the government office said it set up a team comprising consultants from Qinghua University, China University of Political Science and Law, Yuqing.People.com.cn, Chinalabs.com, and DCCI Internet Data Center, which will observe and examine the development of microblogging services including Weibo.
All major microbloging services in the city have already begun implementing such measures. Sina Weibo.com, for instance, has added an identity data-matching function which includes information such as the user’s real name and identification number during the registration process. If the information does not match, users can only browse the site upon registering their account. A user will need to authenticate his identity again if he wants to post on the site.
To date, 3 million new users have already authenticated their names and the volume of registration applications on a single day continues to rise. Microblogging sites have begun offering more online functions and offline privileges to authenticated users and will also develop a microblogging credit system. A V identification badge will also be launched later this week.
These sites have also launched the “Authenticate Me First” event, offering 20 million RMB (US$3.2 million) worth of monthly video channel cards and 1 million RMB (US$158,880) of mobile phone cards as prizes to encourage microbloggers to post using authenticated identities.
One microblogging site also launched a event featuring a “Wheel of Fortune” draw, which all users who have authenticated their registered identities can enter. The grand prize offers 13 sets of free stays in luxury suites in cities of popular holiday destinations.
On Mar. 16, microblog users who have not authenticated their identities will be blocked from posting and relaying posts.
A spokesperson at Sina Weibo noted that up until the Chinese Lunar New Year in late-January, the number of authenticated celebrity and corporate users had exceeded 300,000, and grassroots Web “expert” users had also exceeded 1.5 million. At the same time, users with mobile phone contracts exceeded 50 percent. This indicated that over half of microblog users have indirectly implemented the real-name system.
With regard to issues concerning user privacy, a spokesperson at Sohu said the company’s microblogging service is only a channel and does not retain any real user information. This avoids the possibility of user data leaking out, he said.
http://www.zdnetasia.com/beijing-microbloggers-must-register-real-names-by-mar-16-62303787.htm
Searching for Political Clues in China’s Social Media Censorship
By J. DAVID GOODMAN. New York Times, Feb. 9, 2012.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
19
Amid a torrent of online rumor, China’s state-run Xinhua news agency on Thursday published a terse report confirming that one of China’s most famous mob-busting security officials had spent a day at an American consulate.
It was among the few bits of official information to trickle out during days of intense speculation on the country’s Twitter-like microblogs about the fate of Wang Lijun, the deputy mayor overseeing public security in the sprawling city of Chongqing. An earlier statement by city officials said he had sought “vacation-style medical treatment” before the State Department said on Wednesday that he had visited the consulate, without describing the reason he had done so.
The uncertain nature of Mr. Wang’s visit attracted attention in China because of his close connection to Bo Xilai, the city’s Communist Party secretary who is widely believed to be under consideration to join the Standing Committee of the Politburo later this year.
Yet the local news media ignored the reports, according to the China Media Project at the University of Hong Kong, with one newspaper celebrating “Peaceful Chongqing” on its cover as the apparent political intrigue gathered steam online.
China changes its top officials at party meetings held once a decade, and this year will see the first such session since the widespread adoption of the microblogs, known as weibo, where rumors spread among tens of millions of users with a speed that the Chinese authorities have struggled to control.
In the noise of rumor about Mr. Wang, some English-language bloggers and China observers have sought to find signs of broader political meaning in an unusual way — by watching how the Chinese authorities have, or have not, censored social media posts on the subject.
“Vacation-style medical treatment” — along with the names of the two officials — were trending topics on Sina Weibo, the largest microblog service, said Charles Custer, who edits the blog ChinaGeeks.
“It seems quite obvious now that the authorities are letting this story spread on purpose,” he speculated. He wondered on Twitter whether the apparent lack of strong censorship of the topic pointed to troubles for Mr. Bo with the top level of the party.
Others also found the lack of censorship meaningful, though the exact meaning was unclear:
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 10, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
20
Later, it was reported that some of the posts on the subject were being deleted, though not enough of them to halt the discussion.
“Wang Lijun posts are being deleted on Sina Weibo, but it still seems like a free-for-all. So much being shared,” the China Media Project said on Thursday.
Neither official’s name, however, was part of the trending topics list published each day by Baidu Beat, a corporate blog run by China’s largest search engine. “Wang story getting no love in Baidu trending list. Robin Li and Bo karaoke buddies?” said Josh Chin of The Wall Street Journal, referring to the Baidu chief executive.
Even if the signs did not lead to any concrete interpretation, the weight of citizen chatter would eventually force the authorities to be more open, The Economist wrote.
“Even 15 years ago, most of mainland China would have heard nothing and Chinese officialdom could have remained comfortably silent,” the magazine wrote. “The Chinese government is being dragged, click by click, out of its cone of silence.”
That sentiment appeared oddly echoed in astate-run news report in the English-language paper Global Times. The report, regarding a swindle at a restaurant in the southern city of Sanya that was revealed amid pressure on social media, paused to make a broad statement on the benefits of such online citizen pressure.
It is not only Sanya that has been reluctant to admit the facts after a scandal emerged. This is usually the first choice for many local governments facing negative events. They try to shut investigations down or pretend the incident never happened.
Unlike in the past, such tricks don’t work in the Internet era, when they can be easily exposed online.
The report does not make the logical leap from local government to the Chinese national government, where silence on political issues still largely reigns.
But despite the local focus, the headline was sweeping: “Cover Ups No Longer Work in Weibo Era.”
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/searching-for-political-clues-in-chinas-social-media-censorship/?ref=china

Copyrights and trademarks are property of their respective owners.
Comments are welcome. Editor of this newsletter can be reached at ideobook@gmail.com.

来源：北京盈科（上海）律师事务所 知识产权部

 中国扩大网络实名制的范围 China Expands Program Requiring Real-Name Registration Online 3
 网络盗窃乃中国国策——我们必须对此提出挑战 China’s Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged 4
 苹果就iPad商标案提出上诉 Apple Appeals IPad Trademark Decision in China 6
 德国总理默克尔要求中国加强知识产权保护 German’s Merkel Urges China to Improve IPR Protection 7
 摩托罗拉子公司与中国相关纠纷达成和解 Motorola, Spinoff Settle Suit Involving China 7
 中国国营报纸称赞推特的新审查政策 China State-Run Newspaper Praises Twitter’s New Censorship Policy 8
 推特——当言论自由撞上商业利益 Twitter – When Freedom of Speech Collides with Business Interests 10
 中国正在考虑谷歌地图服务申请 China Considers Google Maps Request 12
 泰国和中国支持推特的审查政策 Thailand, China Embrace Twitter Censorship Policy 13
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 3, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
3
China Expands Program Requiring Real-Name Registration Online
By MICHAEL WINES. New York Times, Jan. 18, 2012.
China will expand nationwide a trial program that requires users of the country’s wildly popular microblog services to disclose their identities to the government in order to post comments online, the government’s top Internet regulator said Wednesday.
The official, Wang Chen, said at a news conference that registration trials in five major eastern Chinese cities would continue until wrinkles were worked out. But he said that eventually all 250 million users of microblogs, called weibos here, would have to register, beginning first with new users.
Mr. Wang indicated that under the program, users could continue to use nicknames online, even though they would still be required to register their true identities.
The announcement was long expected. Because the registration rules apply to Internet companies — most of which are in Beijing or the other four cities covered under the trial — the practical effect is to certify that the government will now formally require those companies to register all users of weibos eventually. Some users and analysts had suggested that such a requirement would be met with a public outcry. In fact, the response has been comparatively muted.
Mr. Wang leads the State Council Information Office, which regulates the Internet and the government’s domestic public relations machine. He also is a deputy director of the Communist Party’s propaganda department and, in particular, is in charge of China’s lavishly financed recent efforts to burnish its image worldwide.
The government has said that it is studying real-name registration of microbloggers to limit the spread of malicious rumors, pornography, swindles and other unhealthy practices on microblogs, which have become a major source of news for many Chinese.
Free speech advocates generally condemn the move, saying that the microblogs’ freewheeling debate and frequent criticism of official misconduct will be neutered if the government knows the identity of everyone who posts a comment. Real-name use also would allow security officers to identify microblog users who consistently post comments about delicate issues, even if their individual remarks do not attract large numbers of readers.
With a population of about 1.3 billion, China counted 513 million people online in 2011. That was a sharp increase from 2010, but microblogs have grown even more spectacularly, quadrupling the number of users in the past year. They revealed their power to drive public opinion last July, after a high-speed train crash in Zhejiang Province prompted tens of millions of online comments, many condemning the government’s stewardship of the rail system and its response to the accident.
The government soon stepped up its efforts to monitor and censor online dialogue on delicate topics, with senior Communist Party officials visiting major Internet companies to underscore their concern. The trial requirement of real-name registration was announced last month.
Mr. Wang said Wednesday that the government broadly supported citizens’ use of microblogs, on which posts are typically limited in size, as on Twitter, noting that an average day sees 150 million new comments posted online. “Weibos can indeed reflect people’s opinion and spread positive voices and
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 3, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
4
enrich information services,” he said. “But they have also made it easy for some irrational voices and negative opinions and harmful information to spread quickly.”
Real-name registration will have a chilling effect on some kinds of online comment, Hu Yong, an associate professor at Peking University’s school of journalism and communications, said Wednesday in a telephone interview. But it remains to be seen how many users will be dissuaded from speaking out on controversial issues, Mr. Hu added.
“Certainly some people will not dare to speak out about certain issues,” he said. “But a lot of people already are using their real names, even in discussing current affairs. And the user base of weibos is so huge that if something happens to highly concern their own interests, I think you’ll still hear a loud uproar.”
At Wednesday’s news conference, Mr. Wang also suggested that the government and the Communist Party would continue to expand and improve the domestic and global public relations machines, starting with training for press officers, who are increasingly deployed in government offices.
Some press officers are “putting the government on the back foot in dealing with emergency events,” he said, because they have not yet learned how to respond quickly and accurately to requests for information. He said public relations officials would be trained in “political thought” and “the spirit of speaking truth,” adding: “Speaking honestly is the most valuable quality of news spokespersons. Skills are necessary, but that comes second.”
On the foreign front, Mr. Wang said, “We will spread the voice of China to the world with an even more open attitude and more efficient methods.”
The goal, he said, is to educate foreigners about China’s domestic and foreign policies, values and culture “so that we can show off a national image of being civilized, democratic, open and progressive.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/world/asia/china-expands-program-requiring-real-name-registration-online.html
China’s Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
By Mike Mcconnell, Michael Chertoff & William Lynn, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 27, 2012.
It is more efficient for the Chinese to steal innovations and intellectual property than to incur the cost and time of creating their own.
Only three months ago, we would have violated U.S. secrecy laws by sharing what we write here—even though, as a former director of national intelligence, secretary of homeland security, and deputy secretary of defense, we have long known it to be true. The Chinese government has a national policy of economic espionage in cyberspace. In fact, the Chinese are the world’s most active and persistent practitioners of cyber espionage today.
Evidence of China’s economically devastating theft of proprietary technologies and other intellectual property from U.S. companies is growing. Only in October 2011 were details declassified in a report to
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 3, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
5
Congress by the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive. Each of us has been speaking publicly for years about the ability of cyber terrorists to cripple our critical infrastructure, including financial networks and the power grid. Now this report finally reveals what we couldn’t say before: The threat of economic cyber espionage looms even more ominously.
The report is a summation of the catastrophic impact cyber espionage could have on the U.S. economy and global competitiveness over the next decade. Evidence indicates that China intends to help build its economy by intellectual-property theft rather than by innovation and investment in research and development (two strong suits of the U.S. economy). The nature of the Chinese economy offers a powerful motive to do so.
According to 2009 estimates by the United Nations, China has a population of 1.3 billion, with 468 million (about 36% of the population) living on less than $2 a day. While Chinese poverty has declined dramatically in the last 30 years, income inequality has increased, with much greater benefits going to the relatively small portion of educated people in urban areas, where about 25% of the population lives.
The bottom line is this: China has a massive, inexpensive work force ravenous for economic growth. It is much more efficient for the Chinese to steal innovations and intellectual property—the source code of advanced economies—than to incur the cost and time of creating their own. They turn those stolen ideas directly into production, creating products faster and cheaper than the U.S. and others.
Cyberspace is an ideal medium for stealing intellectual capital. Hackers can easily penetrate systems that transfer large amounts of data, while corporations and governments have a very hard time identifying specific perpetrators.
Unfortunately, it is also difficult to estimate the economic cost of these thefts to the U.S. economy. The report to Congress calls the cost “large” and notes that this includes corporate revenues, jobs, innovation and impacts to national security. Although a rigorous assessment has not been done, we think it is safe to say that “large” easily means billions of dollars and millions of jobs.
So how to protect ourselves from this economic threat? First, we must acknowledge its severity and understand that its impacts are more long-term than immediate. And we need to respond with all of the diplomatic, trade, economic and technological tools at our disposal.
The report to Congress notes that the U.S. intelligence community has improved its collaboration to better address cyber espionage in the military and national-security areas. Yet today’s legislative framework severely restricts us from fully addressing domestic economic espionage. The intelligence community must gain a stronger role in collecting and analyzing this economic data and making it available to appropriate government and commercial entities.
Congress and the administration must also create the means to actively force more information-sharing. While organizations (both in government and in the private sector) claim to share information, the opposite is usually the case, and this must be actively fixed.
The U.S. also must make broader investments in education to produce many more workers with science, technology, engineering and math skills. Our country reacted to the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik with investments in math and science education that launched the age of digital
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 3, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
6
communications. Now is the time for a similar approach to build the skills our nation will need to compete in a global economy vastly different from 50 years ago.
Corporate America must do its part, too. If we are to ever understand the extent of cyber espionage, companies must be more open and aggressive about identifying, acknowledging and reporting incidents of cyber theft. Congress is considering legislation to require this, and the idea deserves support. Companies must also invest more in enhancing their employees’ cyber skills; it is shocking how many cyber-security breaches result from simple human error such as coding mistakes or lost discs and laptops.
In this election year, our economy will take center stage, as will China and its role in issues such as monetary policy. If we are to protect ourselves against irreversible long-term damage, the economic issues behind cyber espionage must share some of that spotlight.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176.html
Apple Appeals IPad Trademark Decision in China
By Michael Kan, PC World, Jan. 31, 2012.
Apple has appealed a Chinese court ruling last December that rejected its ownership of the iPad trademark in the country, and could expose the company to trademark infringement lawsuits from a local company.
The maker of the iconic iPad filed the appeal on Jan. 5 with the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province, according to a statement from Proview International, a little known Chinese display monitor company that claims control over the iPad trademark in mainland China.
Apple had originally filed a lawsuit against Proview to assert its control of the trademark. But In December, the Shenzhen Municipal Intermediate People’s Court announced it had rejected Apple’s claim.
In its lawsuit, Apple claimed that a Proview subsidiary in Taiwan had sold the iPad trademark rights to a U.K.-based company called “IP Applications”. The trademark rights were then sold to Apple in 2010.
The Shenzhen court, however, ruled that the transfer of trademark rights were only made through Proview’s Taiwan subsidiary. Proview’s Shenzhen-based company, did not attend trademark negotiations, and did not formally transfer any trademark rights, according to the court.
Apple did not respond to a request for comment on the legal action.
Xie Xianghui, a lawyer representing Proview, said that Apple had asked for the transfer of the iPad trademark to it in the appeal. It is also asking for compensation from Proview to the tune of 4 million yuan (US$636,204) in legal fees.
Apple’s appeal claims that Proview’s Taiwan subsidiary was acting as a representative for Proview’s Shenzhen-based company, he said. But Proview maintains it had no such relationship with the Taiwan subsidiary, and was not in any talks about transferring the iPad trademarks, Xie added.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 3, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
7
Apple is making the appeal as Proview has has already filed two lawsuits in Chinese courts, demanding that Apple and local vendor Gome Electronics stop selling tablets using the iPad name. The cases are still pending, Xie said.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/249012/apple_appeals_ipad_trademark_decision_in_china.html
German’s Merkel Urges China to Improve IPR Protection
By Reuters, Feb. 2, 2012.
China should improve protection of intellectual property rights, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in Beijing on Thursday, and called on Beijing to ensure that German businesses had reciprocol access to China’s markets.
She said German markets are open to Chinese businesses.
Merkel, who is on a China trip that is widely viewed to seek Beijing’s support for the ailing euro, said in a speech at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences that China can make contributions to help solve high debt problems in Europe but did not offer specifics.
She said excessive debt was not only a European problem but was a global issue.
Merkel is in Beijing to brief her Chinese hosts on the status of Europe’s efforts to extricate several of its nations from a sovereign debt crisis. She travels to the southern city of Guangzhou on Friday for a business summit.
She added that UN security council needs to make voice heard on human rights in Syria.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/china-germany-merkel-idUSB9E7NB00Y20120202
Motorola, Spinoff Settle Suit Involving China
By Lou Kilzer, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, Feb. 1, 2012.
One of the companies spun off from Motorola Inc. last year has settled a lawsuit with a company the former U.S. electronics giant accused of intellectual property theft involving China.
Motorola Solutions Inc. and Lemko Corp. said on Tuesday that all issues between the two companies -- both based in Schamburg, Ill. -- have been resolved. Spokesmen for both companies declined to comment on specifics of the settlement.
Lemko spokesman Raymond Minkus said the company is “very pleased and looking toward the future.”
The original suit accused several Lemko employees of working for Motorola while moonlighting for Lemko. Motorola later alleged that Lemko was working with Chinese electronics giant Huawei
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 3, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
8
Technologies Co. Huawei, an early partner with Motorola as it sought to expand in China, eventually became a fierce competitor in the telecommunications market.
The settlement does not cover earlier allegations brought against former Motorola employee Hanjuan Jin, who was criminally charged with industrial espionage for the theft of $600 million in Motorola trade secrets with the plan to hand them to interests in China.
In 2007, she was stopped by U.S. Customs officers who found her with four hard drives, a flash memory thumb drive, 29 recordable CDs, paperwork and some $30,000 in cash as she attempted to board a one-way flight to Beijing at O’Hare Airport in Chicago.
A trial was held last year in Chicago before U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo, who said he would render a verdict on Feb. 8.
Over the years, Huawei has faced numerous accusations that it was closely aligned with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Founder Ren Zhengfei is a former PLA engineer and the Chinese government is one of Huawei’s biggest customers.
For these and other reasons, Huawei’s access to U.S. markets has been limited. Last month, a group of lawmakers asked the State Department to investigate whether Huawei has violated trade sanctions against Iran.
Huawei has denied allegations, including some that link it to the Chinese military, that it is involved in intellectual property theft, or that it is linked to Lemko.
Huawei Vice President Bill Plummer has said the company has been unfairly treated because of “vague supposed security concerns that have never been substantiated.”
Motorola split into two separate companies in January 2011. Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. inherited the old Motorola mobile phone business. Motorola Solutions continues with network and government communications -- including such items as police radio transmissions -- and inherited the Lemko lawsuit.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_779346.html
China State-Run Newspaper Praises Twitter’s New Censorship Policy
By Sam Gustin, TIME, Jan. 30, 2012.
Twitter’s announcement last week that it could begin censoring tweets on a country-by-country basis drew criticism from many free-speech activists, including Reporters Without Borders, a global nonprofit group that advocates for journalists. Other observers were less concerned, attributing Twitter’s move to the realities of operating in a global environment with differing legal systems and social norms. On Monday, Twitter’s new policy received praise from one source the company might wish had practiced a little self-censorship itself: a Chinese state-run newspaper called the Global Times.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 3, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
9
“It is impossible to have boundless freedom, even on the Internet and even in countries that make freedom their main selling point,” read an editorial on the English-language website of the Global Times. “The announcement of Twitter might have shown that it has already realized the fact and made a choice between being an idealistic political tool as many hope and following pragmatic commercial rules as a company.”
Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the editorial, which was entitled, “Twitter Critics Confuse Politics with Business Decision.” The Global Times is a tabloid published by the Chinese Communist Party, which also publishes the People’s Daily, considered to be the official state organ.
Prior to Twitter’s announcement, the company had the power to delete tweets, of course, but not the ability to do so on a country-by-country basis. What’s new, the company said in a blog post, is “the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world.” As part of the new policy, Twitter is setting up a new transparency regime whereby “if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld.” The company said it would keep a tally of such withheld content on the Chilling Effects website.
Twitter’s announcement drew a range of reactions from free-speech advocates. Reporters Without Borders wrote a letter to Twitter executive chairman Jack Dorsey, expressing “deep concern” over the move and urging him to reverse the policy. “By finally choosing to align itself with the censors, Twitter is depriving cyberdissidents in repressive countries of a crucial tool for information and organization,” the group wrote. “Twitter’s position that freedom of expression is interpreted differently from country to country is inacceptable. This fundamental principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
But other observers said the potential harm being posed by Twitter’s new policy might be overstated. Zeynep Tufekci, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, made this case recently in a post entitled “Why Twitter’s New Policy Is Helpful for Free-Speech Advocates.” Whereas content previously censored by Twitter would have disappeared globally, the new policy is much narrower, and applies only to individual countries. What’s more, Twitter will clearly announce any such takedowns, drawing attention to cases where it’s been obliged by local law to remove content.
Several observers brought up potential commercial implications of Twitter’s move, particularly with respect to China, which has the world’s largest Internet user base. In its letter, Reporters Without Borders seemed to suggest that Twitter’s new policy may be motivated by a desire to curry favor with Chinese authorities in order to give the service a better chance of cracking into the market there, where it’s been banned since 2009. “While it is obviously regrettable that the Chinese authorities block
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 3, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
10
access to Twitter and Facebook,” the group wrote, “what would Twitter’s added value be if it also had to purge itself of forbidden content in order to establish itself in China?”
But in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Twitter general counsel Alex Macgillivray said the company’s new policy “has nothing to do with China.” And it’s hard to see how the new policy will help it crack China, where a homegrown microblogging service called Sina Weibo already dominates the market, with over 250 million users.
The editorial in the Global Times wasn’t the only source of praise for Twitter’s move. An official with Thailand’s Information and Communication Technology Ministry called Twitter’s new policy a “welcome development” in an interview with the Bangkok Post and said the ministry would work with the company to make sure local tweets are in compliance with the law. In the past, the Thai government has cracked down on internet content found to violate its lèse-majesté law, which prohibits citizens from “defaming” or “insulting” Thailand’s king and royal family.
http://business.time.com/2012/01/30/china-state-run-newspaper-praises-twitters-new-censorship-policy/
Twitter – When Freedom of Speech Collides with Business Interests
By Vivian Ni, China Briefing, Feb. 3, 2012.
Twitter, the U.S.-based micro-blogging service provider, has recently found itself at the receiving end of criticism due to its new policy that will allow content censorship on a country-by-country basis. The policy adjustment may have revealed Twitter’s interest in returning to the cash-flowing Chinese market, where the government implements strict internet censorship regulations and blocks an array of Western social media web sites.
In a blog post last Thursday, Twitter said that it had refined its technology and gained “the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country – while keeping it available in the rest of the world.” Previously, when the company took down a post at the request of a country’s government, the “tweet” invariably disappeared across the worldwide web.
Advocates for freedom of speech have found Twitter’s new policy hard to accept. Reporters without Borders, a France-based international non-governmental organization that support freedom of the press and information, expressed concern over Twitter’s new move in a letter it wrote to the U.S. company’s executive chairman Jack Dorsey.
“By finally choosing to align itself with the censors, Twitter is depriving cyber dissidents in repressive countries of a crucial tool for information and organization…Twitter’s position that freedom of expression is interpreted differently from country to country is inacceptable. This fundamental principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” the group wrote.
However, from a business point of view, Twitter’s new move makes complete sense. The company is in pursuit of an ambitious expansion goal to increase its global users from the current 170 million to more than 1 billion, and may be willing to abide by individual country’s specific laws in order to reach that target.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 3, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
11
Among potential countries, the Chinese market – with a micro-blogger population of 140 million already on its dominant domestic micro-blogging platform Sina Weibo – is too huge for Twitter (or any other social media web site) to miss. Even Twitter’s co-founder Biz Stone admitted the fact that the company will not be able to ignore China forever.
“Our philosophy is that open exchange of information can have a positive global impact, and that’s not China’s philosophy…we’re not going to be able to ignore it forever,” said Stone at the CTIA wireless convention held last year, adding that the company was still working on a way to deal with the censorship issues.
Twitter has been banned in China since July 2009, when government attempts to censor the information on the July 2009 Ürümqi riots were largely hampered by Twitter’s powerful message dissemination platform. Together with Twitter, U.S. social media web site Facebook was also blocked in China during the same time.
But indeed, it has been proved many times that China does not really intend to refuse the business opportunities brought on by the emerging social media technology. The country welcomes all the commercial advancement on one condition: companies must follow China’s own rules and keep off the political bottom line. On August 28, 2009, shortly after the blocking of Twitter, China’s largest information portal Sina launched its own micro-blogging service Sina Weibo, and within only 66 days, the number of Weibo subscribers surged to 1 million.
In a two-year period, micro-blogging services have become one of the most important markets that big-name Chinese internet companies are competing to share. Following Sina’s success, Tencent, Baidu, Sohu and Netease have all developed their own micro-blogging platforms, attracting a combined 250 million subscribers by the end of 2011. Homegrown players are able to enjoy this huge market because they can (and do) filter content according to government requirements.
Following the maturity of micro-blogging services in China, Sina expects US$75 million in income from Weibo in 2012 – US$50 million of which will be income from advertisements.
If Twitter does return to China someday, the commercial income from the market will be a welcome addition to Twitter’s global revenue – which the U.S. company aims to increase from US$139.5 million in 2011 to US$540 million in 2014.
The availability of Twitter will also likely help both domestic and foreign companies in China gain more exposure to international clients. Nowadays in China, more and more companies practice their online marketing by incorporating social media directly onto their business sites, but such efforts are partly in vain due to a lack of access to such social media platforms in the country.
Even if we look beyond business interests, Twitter’s new policy may not be that harmful to freedom of speech and may actually find a way to improve free information in countries like China.
The new Twitter policy means the removal of “tweets” will only happen in one part of the world, and such deletions will be clearly announced on the web site Chilling Effects, which will end up drawing attention to cases where it’s been obliged by local law to remove content, said Zeynep Tufekci, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 3, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
12
An example echoing Tufekci’s point can be found on Sina Weibo, which established an account called “Weibo Rumor Buster (Weibo Piyao)” to announce the removal of posts proved untrue. Such announcements have in fact raised public awareness of “forged news,” which are often related to collisions between authorities and ordinary people.
Of course, it is still too early to assert any of Twitter’s strategy towards China, as Twitter will still struggle to comply with China’s strict internet regulations even if it implements its new policy. For example, Twitter will only be able to erase a tweet if it is requested by the government based on valid legal grounds; in contrast, its Chinese peers can delete posts on a broader range of topics without legal review. Additionally, the recently-practiced real-name registration represents another potential roadblock to Twitter’s entry to China.
“We would love for people in China to express themselves…(but) under the current situation, that’s not possible,” said Twitter’s Chief Executive Officer Dick Costolo, who on Monday denied that the new policy was designed for the Chinese market.
In a recent blog post, Reuters journalist Doug Young speculated on the future progress of the event: “…I suspect this move by Twitter may be designed to test the China waters and will be followed by a visit to Beijing to see what regulators think. If the reaction is positive, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Twitter taking some kind of modest initiative in China by the end of this year, though it will face a difficult road catching up to (Sina) Weibo.”
http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2012/02/03/twitter-when-freedom-of-speech-collides-with-business-interests.html
China Considers Google Maps Request
By UPI, Feb. 2, 2012.
Chinese authorities say an application by Google for an online maps license, required for operating such services in China, is under official examination.
The application was submitted in November by Beijing Guxiang Information Technology Co. Ltd, a joint venture with Google, officials said.
Under Chinese law foreign companies are banned from providing Internet mapping services in China, and foreign investors’ stake in joint ventures involved in Internet mapping cannot exceed 50 percent, China’s state-run news agency Xinhua reported Wednesday.
Foreign-funded Google China and local firm Ganji.com each hold a 50 percent stake in the google.cn Web site, China’s National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation said in a statement.
Google’s online maps service in China can operate as it has been, it said, but its service content should not be increased while its application is being studied.
A total of 279 licenses have been granted for offering online mapping services, the administration said.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 3, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
13
“The move to bring Internet mapping services under regulation will facilitate public access to better quality online maps as well as maintain state geoinformation security,” an administration official said in the statement.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/02/China-considers-Google-Maps-request/UPI-56811328221971/
Thailand, China Embrace Twitter Censorship Policy
By Associated Press, Jan. 30, 2012.
Twitter has embraced censorship, many fear -- and the world’s most repressive regimes are applauding the move.
The short-messaging service announced on Thursday what it called a commitment to free speech, a technology update that allows it to censor messages on a country-by-country basis. The move had Internet users up in arms over the weekend, with many joining in a Twitter “blackout.”
But it’s earning applause in countries that endorse censorship.
“It is impossible to have boundless freedom, even on the Internet,” read an editorial published Monday on the website of state-run Chinese newspaper Global Times. “Twitter might have … already realized the fact and made a choice between being an idealistic political tool as many hope and following pragmatic commercial rules as a company.”
The so-called “Great Firewall of China” is widely described as a black eye on Internet freedom. And China was not alone.
Technology minister Anudith Nakornthap said Monday in an article in the Thai newspaper Bangkok Post that the new policy was a “constructive” development. The Southeast Asian country routinely blocks websites with content deemed offensive to the Thai monarchy.
Anudith said it was good that Twitter “felt responsible to cooperate with governments to make sure basic rights are not violated through the use of social media.”
Thailand’s task force that monitors anti-monarchy content has blocked 1,156 websites since December.
Twitter has been a tool of free speech and dissent around the world and its policy change last week ignited global outrage. The U.S. State Department credited Twitter with being upfront about the policy but reserved comment otherwise.
Twitter sees the censorship tool as a way to ensure that individual messages, or tweets, remain available to as many people as possible while it navigates a gauntlet of different laws around the world.
Before, when Twitter erased a tweet it disappeared throughout the world. Now, a tweet containing content breaking a law in one country can be taken down there and still be seen elsewhere.
Intellectual Property & Internet Law Weekly Feb. 3, 2012 知识产权与互联网法律资讯周报
14
Twitter will post a censorship notice whenever a tweet is removed. That’s similar to what Internet search leader Google Inc. has been doing for years when a law in a country where its service operates requires a search result to be removed.
Meanwhile, foreign dissidents and activists fear the new policy will stifle free speech and are threatening an ongoing boycott of Twitter, reported the Los Angeles Times.
“Is it safe to say that Twitter is selling us out?” asked Egyptian activist Mahmoud Salem.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/30/thailand-china-embrace-twitter-censorship-policy/

Copyrights and trademarks are property of their respective owners.
 

来源：http://www.chinaipmagazine.com/news-show.asp?id=5850

整理：北京盈科（上海）律师事务所知识产权部整理

整理：北京盈科（上海）律师事务所知识产权部

北京盈科（上海）知识产权部整理。

           王律师的讲座分为以下九个部分：

讲座共计两个小时，讲座后王律师又回答了听众提出的问题并于企业进行了交流。