Intellectual Property Research (Volume 13)

Author: Tang Guangliang
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-04-01
Features: Most of the articles in this volume are research findings closely related to socially significant issues widely discussed in the field recently, organized into sections such as Theory and Practice, Research Reports, Global Perspectives, Graduate Corner, Overseas Submissions, and Translations of Foreign Laws. The development of intellectual property is inseparable from the development of information technology. Historically, every technological revolution in information has triggered a transformation in intellectual property. For example, the emergence of network dissemination technology in the 1990s made the reproduction and dissemination of works easier and faster. To strengthen copyright protection, WIPO adopted two new copyright treaties in 1996. It is evident that WIPO intended to use these two new treaties to enhance authors' control over their works and to regulate the behavior of online service providers. However, information dissemination technology quickly evolved again, as we have seen with the so-called "P2P" technology, which blurred the boundaries among the three roles in the "copyright realm"—authors, publishers, and readers—or, in other words, every internet user could potentially become an online service provider, information provider, or ordinary netizen. In this environment, how to define the right of information network dissemination and how to hold or control suspected infringement of copyright transmission has become a pressing issue we must address. On this matter, traditional or familiar intellectual property theory has proven inadequate. In fact, the intellectual property we are familiar with has long ceased to be its original form. Just 20 years ago, respected German intellectual property professors taught us that "no creation, no copyright." However, when we see the EU's 1996 Database Protection Directive, databases lacking creation are still enjoying "quasi-copyright" or "special rights." When I had the opportunity to ask German professors directly, they gave me various explanations, but ultimately failed to answer how the "law" of "no creation, no copyright" was overturned. The same thing is happening today with many, including myself, who are researching the intellectual property protection of traditional knowledge. For traditional knowledge in the "public domain," "unowned," or "ancient," using the familiar intellectual property theory to explain it will never yield a positive answer. The articles published in this volume, whether related to copyright, patents, trademarks, or trade secrets, are all connected to information protection, and thus could all be placed under the category of "Information Law." I have categorized them separately merely for the convenience of readers. To clarify, the term "Information Law" is a direct translation from English "Information Law." It should not be misinterpreted as "Intelligence Law," and like how "Intellectual Property" was mistakenly translated as "" (which should have been "Knowledge Property" or "Intellectual Property"), there may be a better translation for "Information Law." Now that people say "intellectual property," it is almost as if they are making the best of a mistake.