Talk:Intellectual property in China

Blogs as external links - please see Wikipedia:External_links#Links normally to be avoided

• Wikipedia:External_links#Links normally to be avoided - Item 11 says blogs should be avoided unless linked to a recognized authority. Reason being, blogs are subject to change, frequently are not monitored and are not reliable sources. Recommend deletion. Morenooso 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Biased nature of the article

Due to the glaring lack of any discussion on what has been a controversial topic in China - the lack of respect for IP - I am putting a POV tag up. TastyCakes (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added some much-needed viewpoint in the top article. I think it's not unlikely that this article is "maintained" by people who would prefer to ignore the fact that China churns out, well, chinese copies of just about anything that can be churned out. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The difficulties section has clear bias, and the references listed at the end of the article are almost exclusively Chinese authors with the same bias towards the official China party line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.152.42 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have tried my best to at least at a representation of the viewpoint that China, while it does indeed have a lot of laws on the books that deny these particular operations, their legislation does not actually dictate their practice. Given the current (growing) prevalence of Chinese produced counterfeit goods their enforcement of policies is lacking. In some cases, the government even sponsors the dissemination of pirated software. The Chinese government has even gone so far as to threaten US firms complaining that their software has been stolen. In light of this, as well as the emergence of China's eventual rise to economic hegemon, a more direct nature of the manner in which China respects intellectual property law must be brought to light. Shakeandstir (talk)

Another important detail that is missing from the discussion of the legal implementations is how their recent legal skirmish with the United States and the WTO was reacted to by the Chinese government. The Chinese government int erpreted it as essentially hostile, despite Schwab's desire to claim otherwise, and this may have been bolstered by the fact that it was done during the peak of Sino-American tensions with the Bush administration. As such, the legal precedent set by the WTO ruling (that China must comply with WTO standards despite not having to change the threshold by which they can domestically prosecute counterfeit dealers) stands to establish a precedent for international "slaps-on-the-back-of-the-hand" instead of actual punitive efforts from the Chinese government.

Further, the Chinese government is thought to be behind many attacks of not just American firms (such as Google and Sony) but also the Canadian government as well, with the Canadians claiming a cyberattack of Chinese origin on their trading information. Again, with the rise of China as a global economic power their strategy in gaining information for their trade decisions would most likely be looked down upon by international trade regulators. The manner in which these attacks are done (stealing the identity of executives and then attempting to plant viruses through e-mail) are inherently malicious.

References

Heya. I would have to say this article seems biased against China. The fact that Chinese piracy redirects here and the words "mere" are used to refer to damages amongst other things supports this view. It appears to me that this article is has a lot of US perspectives. Chinese Law is actually more similar to German law, which also offers near-automatic injunctions and lower damages. As for the stuff about cyber attacks... SNOWDEN is all I have to say. If I knew how to add the "bias" tags I would! LoLMithdol (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Counterfeit goods in China

• 22 July 2010, EU reports growth in fake goods from China, BBC

May be of relevance. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Government copyright?

Do national government works get copyright like in the UK or become public domain like in the U.S.? -- Beland (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Also curious. — LlywelynII 12:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the US Federal Government position is unique, as far as I know. As the state sector in China remains very large, copyright law would be largely ineffective if it didn't cover government works.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

What about before 1979?

The article doesn't answer this. You might say it's a Communist country. But see Copyright law of the Soviet Union.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jack Upland, it's been eight years since you posed this question. I've recently made some efforts to address this. Take a read if you like and let me know if specific questions remain. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at UC Berkeley supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Strong feelings on the Further Reading list?

This further reading list seems a bit indiscriminate. Are there strong opinions on what to include? As the article has developed significantly over the past 18 months or so, this list seems less useful. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)