Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Data and algorithms are the lifeblood of the data-driven economy. Big data and big algo are bringing new challenges and legal issues to the fore. This article deals with some aspects of these issues and tries to put forward an analytical framework for typifying, securing access to and use of data, and ultimately maximizing the generation and flow of data. This article then deals with algorithms and endeavours to propose six principles for auditing algorithms and a brand new international governance framework for algorithms and their auditing via a treaty and relevant mechanisms.

Unlike some European jurisdictions, Taiwan does not have a supplementary protection certificate that grants a patentee an independent, sui generis IP right. Rather, under Taiwan Patent Act, a patent term extension is available only on two occasions. Firstly, when a patentee of an invention of pharmaceuticals (excluding veterinary drugs), agrochemicals, or the manufacturing processes thereof, obtains the market authorization by another authority from the central government required by law for the exploitation of the patented invention after the patent was granted by the Taiwan IP Office (TIPO).442 Secondly, Article 66 of Taiwan Patent Act allows a patentee of an invention unable to practice his/her patent due to war between Republic of China (ROC more commonly known as Taiwan) and other foreign countries to extend his/her patent term once for a period of between 5 to 10 years. However, patentees from the foreign county that is in war with Taiwan are not eligible for patent term extension. In patent practice the patent term extension regime is rarely used in Taiwan. Unless otherwise specified, patent term extension mentioned hereinafter refers only to extension for pharmaceutical and agrochemicals patents and the manufacturing processes thereof.

The Taiwanese Patent Act foresaw from its inception in 1944 compulsory licence (CL) and government use. The provisions on the former have been amended several times, moving away from the Paris Convention model, while provisions on the latter were revised once, only to narrow its scope. Overall speaking, the regime on compulsory licensing and government use is in regress and fails to fulfil its function of balancing public and private interests. Thus far in Taiwan, two CL have been granted and implemented with the second being annulled later, and only one government use has been granted and yet not implemented due to its precondition not being satisfied. The Fair Trade Commission has not yet seen CL as one of the "necessary corrective measures" of the Fair Trade Act, although it did find violation of the Fair Trade Act in the Philips CD-R case.

In an effort to become an industrialized country, Taiwan, the Republic of China (ROC) has relied heavily on technology transfers and investment from abroad. The Taiwanese government adopted a heavy-handed policy of regulating investments made by foreigners and overseas Chinese in 1954. These policies include the Foreigner Investment Act (FIA) and the Overseas Chinese Investment Act (OCIA), which require all foreigners and overseas Chinese to obtain the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) approval prior to making any investments.1 Such investments may also be in the form of patents, trademarks, copyright, know-how, and other intellectual property (IP).2 In 1962, the Technology Cooperation Law (TCL) was enacted to regulate those investments that provided patents and know-how in return for royalties instead of capital stock.3 The TCL marked the commencement of an era in which state-directed intervention was used to control the direction and results of technology transfer from a strategic viewpoint of national development and the optimal use of scarce foreign exchange reserves. The TCL was complemented with a network of laws providing a variety of incen

Although the use of trademarks in China can be traced back over one thousand years (Liu's needle shop with the "white rabbit" mark ca. A.D. 960-1126), a statutory regulation of trademarks was not undertaken until very late in the Qing dynasty, and this only happened due to foreign pressure.' In 1904, the British Herd helped draft the "Shang Piao Chu Ts'e Shih Pan Chang Ch'eng," which never took effect.2 In 1923, the government promulgated the Trade Mark Act and in 1927 the "Ch'iian Kuo Chu Ts'e Chii Chu Ts'e T'iao Li."3 In 1930, the "New Trade Mark Act," 4 which is commonly considered as the first trademark act in the nation's history,5 became effective. Given the fact that before 1949 more than half of the registered trademarks were owned by foreigners, it can be concluded that the Trade Mark Act mainly served the needs of foreigners who also enjoyed extraterritoriality. This especially was the case with regard to the protection of well-known marks. In 1949, the Nationalist government of the Republic of China moved to Taiwan.

"The pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by the US marks a new era for trade deals and possibly for intellectual property (IP). The TPP is evolving to become the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for TPP (CPTPP) as the remaining 11 members try to resurrect the TPP by suspending some of its provisions, over half of which are IP-related. While the TPP excludes the two Asian giants -India and the People's Republic of China (PRC)- the ongoing Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) includes both of them. The first part of this edited collection sets out to re-examine some basic principles of trade negotiation, such as choosing the right representatives to negotiate, enhancing transparency as a cure to the public's distrust against trade talks; moreover, it analyses how CPTPP might impact on RCEP's IP chapter and examines the possible norm setters of Asian IP, and focuses on PRC's trade and IP strategy against the backdrop of the power games between PRC, India and the US. The second part of the book reflects on issues related to investor-state dispute settlement and its relationship with IP, such as how to re-calibrate the balance in international investment arbitration, the judicialisation of ISD in Singapore, and whether compulsory license of IP constitutes expropriation in India, PRC and select ASEAN countries. The third part of the book questions and strives to improve some of the proposed IP provisions, and to redefine some aspects of international IP norms, such as pre-grant patent opposition & experimental use exception, patent term extension, patent linkage & data exclusivity for the pharmaceutical sector, plant variety protection, pre-established damages for copyright infringement and the restructuring of copyright limitations in the public interest"--

The first part of this open access book sets out to re-examine some basic principles of trade negotiation, such as choosing the right representatives to negotiate and enhancing transparency as a cure to the public's distrust against trade talks. Moreover, it analyses how the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) might impact on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership's (RCEP) IP chapter and examines the possible norm setters of Asian IP. It then focuses on the People's Republic of China's (PRC) trade and IP strategy against the backdrop of the power games between the PRC, India and the US. The second part of the book reflects on issues related to investor–state dispute settlement and its relationship with IP, such as how to re-calibrate the balance in international investment arbitration, and whether compulsory license of IP constitutes expropriation in India, the PRC and select ASEAN countries. The third part of the book questions and strives to improve some of the proposed IP provisions of CPTPP and RCEP and to redefine some aspects of international IP norms, such as: pre-grant patent opposition and experimental use exception; patent term extension; patent linkage and data exclusivity for the pharmaceutical sector; plant variety protection; pre-established damages for copyright infringement; and the restructuring of copyright limitations in the public interest. The open access edition of this book is available under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence on bloomsburycollections.com. Open access was funded by the Applied Research Centre for Intellectual Assets and the Law in Asia, School of Law, Singapore Management University.

Abstract
Intellectual property (IP) laws are an important instrument for promoting cooperation and peace in Asia. In their own ways, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and India all serve as IP success stories. Structural features of the IP landscape in major Asian jurisdictions include the following: technocrat-driven IP law, national IP strategies and specialized IP or patent judges. In addition, there are five distinctively Asian developments worth noticing: the sweeping criminalization of copyright infringement, an explosion in the number of registered trademarks, the very limited use of compulsory patent licensing and the convergence on certain standards for the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs). On the other hand, it is notable that an open-ended and general fair use clause has had a mixed reception in Asian copyright and trademark law. Finding ways to enhance cooperation across Asia, steering IP regimes through trade deals and free trade agreements (FTAs), envisioning a fairer (or at least more functional) mechanism for paying creators, and improving the quality and performance of IP or patent judges are among the important issues that need addressing in the continuing effort to leverage IP laws as a tool for prosperity and peace in Asia.