Duke Law School shield Duke Law & Technology Review logo
TOPICS
eCommerce
eDiscovery
CyberCrime
International
Media & Comm.
Patents & Tech.
Health & Biotech.
Copyrights & TM.
 
DLTR Home
About DLTR
Contact DLTR
Submissions
Staff
Duke Law
This page has moved. You are being automatically redirected to the new location. If you are not redirected within a few seconds, please find the new page here.
International:
RECENT ARTICLES:
THE IMPACTS OF THE CHINESE ANTI-MONOPOLY LAW ON IP COMMERCIALIZATION IN CHINA & GENERAL STRATEGIES FOR TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN COMPANIES AND FUTURE REGULATORS
  2010 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 004
International
03/23/2010
After thirteen years of discussion and three revisions, China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) was promulgated on August 30, 2007 and has come into effect on August 1, 2008. It is the first anti-monopoly law in China and has been viewed as an “economic constitution” and a “milestone of the country’s efforts in promoting a fair competition market and cracking down on monopoly activities.” However, the wording of some provisions of the AML, including the sections dealing with Intellectual Property (IP) protection, is not very clear. And juridical interpretations and more specific implementing regulations on the AML have not yet appeared. This has led to a lot of uncertainty for the operations of foreign enterprises, particularly IP related enterprises in China. This iBrief will provide an overview of possible impacts of the AML on the IP protection and commercialization in China. First, it will provide a brief overview of the AML, including both major compliments and criticism. Second, it will examine both opportunities and potential legal risks of foreign IP holders and investors when operating in China, particularly focusing on the impacts of Article 55, the IP-related provision. Thirdly, it will provide some practical suggestions and strategies for foreign IP holders and technology-driven companies to operate in China, such as some useful defenses for potential IP lawsuits. Finally, it will provide some suggestions for future interpretation and implementation of Article 55 in the AML by drawing on lessons from the experiences of the United States and the European Union.


Archived Articles >>>

Title:

Date Posted
THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION: POTENTIAL BIAS, HOLD-UP, AND THE NEED FOR REFORM 12/04/2009
EXPERIMENTING WITH TERRITORIALITY: PAN-EUROPEAN MUSIC LICENSE AND THE PERSISTENCE OF OLD PARADIGMS 9/22/2009
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WIPO'S BROADCASTING TREATY: THE ORIGINALITY AND LIMITED TIMES REQUIREMENTS OF THE COPYRIGHT CLAUSE9/25/2006
PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD: NEXT STOP--THAILAND3/27/2006
MINING THE COMMON HERITAGE OF OUR DNA: LESSONS LEARNED FROM GROTIUS AND PARDO3/8/2006
CHINA'S WAPI POLICY: SECURITY MEASURE OR TRADE PROTECTIONISM?6/15/2005
THE SPS AGREEMENT: CAN IT REGULATE TRADE IN NANOTECHNOLOGY?5/16/2005
THE EUROPEAN UNION 'SOFTWARE PATENTS' DIRECTIVE: WHAT IS IT? WHY IS IT? WHERE ARE WE NOW?5/1/2005
THE TRADE OF CROSS-BORDER GAMBLING AND BETTING: THE WTO DISPUTE BETWEEN ANTIGUA AND THE UNITED STATES11/5/2004
A MANIFESTO ON WIPO AND THE FUTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY9/8/2004
EUROPE: OPEN MARKET… OPEN SOURCE?11/3/2003
FROM NAPSTER TO KAZAA: THE BATTLE OVER PEER-TO-PEER FILESHARING GOES INTERNATIONAL3/28/2003
ICANN – NOW AND THEN: ICANN'S REFORM AND ITS PROBLEMS4/11/2003
THE FUTURE OF WIRELESS SPAM10/28/2002
MICROSOFT AND THE EUROPEAN UNION FACE OFF OVER INTERNET PRIVACY CONCERNS8/21/2002
U.S. EXPORT CONTROLS ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS8/29/2001
INTERNATIONAL LIABILITY IN CYBERSPACE7/5/2001
OFFSHORE OFFERINGS BY FOREIGN ENTITIES: HOW FAR WILL THE SEC REACH TO REGULATE?2/28/2001
Search:
Related Sites: