Cardozo Law Review, China Re-Rising
posted by Cardozo Law Review
Symposium on China’s Transition from Manufacturing to Innovation Economy Hosted by Cardozo Law Review’s Online Journal
NEW YORK, NY, April 29, 2013 — All eyes are on China in the twenty-first century, as it emerges as one of the fastest growing economies in the world. At the same time, losses in various industries are attributed to piracy—a substantial amount of which is alleged to occur within China’s borders—and the Chinese government is routinely criticized for its weak enforcement measures against counterfeiting activities and intellectual property infringement on its soil.Cardozo Law Review de•novo’s online symposium, “China Re-Rising?: Innovation and Collaboration for a Successful Twenty-First Century” focuses on China’s overall transition from a manufacturing to an innovation economy and how this transition affects IP policies and industries around the world.
The online symposium – located at http://cardozolawreview.com/de-novo-2013.html - features articles from practitioners, industry corporate counsel, professors, and Chinese IP law specialists. Esteemed participants include Chen Wang, the Deputy Chief IP Counsel of E.I. du Pont de Nemours Company; Jonathan Sallet, a Partner at O’Melveny & Myers LLP; and Professor Peter Yu, the Kern Family Chair in Intellectual Property Law and Director of the Intellectual Property Law Center at Drake University Law School.
About the Articles:
Professor Yu discusses the slowly-begun change in discourse around China’s intellectual property system, particularly in the field of patents. He presents the reader with five key questions on the state of Chinese intellectual property law and policy. His answers suggest that the future of China’s intellectual property system is dualistic and dynamic—while massive piracy and counterfeiting does continue, this ongoing issue is balanced by China’s rise as a patent power.
Professors Murphy and Orcutt discuss China’s patent subsidy program—an aspect of China’s national innovation strategy that aims to increase domestic patents and innovation through government subsidies to pay for domestic inventors’ legal costs associated with obtaining patents. Noting that the program has been criticized for failing to fund truly valuable or innovative patents, the Authors propose a unique two-stage, three-dimensional relative value technique for the Chinese government to implement in evaluating whether to fund a given patent application through the subsidy program.
Ms. Wang and Mr. Sallet in turn criticize the Chinese government’s metric-based approach to innovation. They posit that China’s emphasis on numerical goals to domestic patenting actually hampers Chinese innovation by directing resources away from research and the development of truly valuable inventions. The Authors further discuss how China’s metric-based approach frustrates the ability of multi-national corporations to collaborate effectively with Chinese companies. They conclude by identifying steps the Chinese government can take to increase local innovation through effective international collaboration.
Professor Shao calls for a holistic perspective of the Chinese innovation economy, law, and policies. His Article offers a historical and cultural perspective that aims to make a holistic approach possible for Western scholars and practitioners, who lack the knowledge of Chinese history and culture necessary to understand the context of China’s current policies. He concludes by proposing that innovation still can, and should, be the bridge to China’s successful economic transition.
Professors Murphree and Breznitz discuss China’s innovation strategy through the lens of its failed attempts to develop globally successful technology standards. The Authors attribute these failures to fragmented production and structured uncertainty implicit in the Chinese domestic market. Despite these failures, the Authors acknowledge that Chinese companies’ participation in even failed attempts does produce tangible benefits, like receiving lower royalty rates on goods they produced.
View the online symposium at http://cardozolawreview.com/de-novo-2013.html
April 29, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Tags: Cardozo Law Review, china
Posted in: Innovation, Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 34, Issue 4
posted by Cardozo Law Review
Articles
Charter Schools, the Establishment Clause, and the Neoliberal Turn in Public Education
Aaron Saiger 1163
Challenging the Death Penalty with Statistics: Furman, McCleskey, and a Single County Case Study
Steven F. Shatz & Terry Dalton 1227
The Irony of a Faustian Bargain: A Reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s 1953 United States v. Reynolds Decision
David Rudenstine 1283
Undercover Policing, Overstated Culpability
Eda Katharine Tinto 1401
Municipal Securities: The Crisis of State and Local Government Indebtedness, Systemic Costs of Low Default Rates, and Opportunities for Reform
Christine Sgarlata Chung 1455
Notes
“That’s the Guy!”: Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(C) and Out-of-Court Statements of Identification
Gilbert M. Rein 1539
“Every Move That She Makes”: Copyright Protection for Stage Directions and the Fictional Character Standard
Deana S. Stein 1571
Quasi-Judicial Prosecutors and Post-Conviction Claims of Innocence: Granting Recusals to Make Impartiality a Reality
Rachel Pecker 1609
For more information on responding to any of these articles on Cardozo Law Review’s online companion, Cardozo Law Review de•novo, please visit us here.
April 19, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Tags: Cardozo Law Review, CLR
Posted in: Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 34, Issue 3
posted by Cardozo Law Review
Symposium
Constitutionalism, Ancient and Modern
“Keep the Public Rich, but the Citizens Poor”: Economic and Political Inequality in Constitutions, Ancient and Modern
John P. McCormick 879
Precautionary Constitutionalism in Ancient Athens
Adriaan Lanni & Adrian Vermeule 893
The Origins and Import of Republican Constitutionalism
Clifford Ando 917
Lifeless Writings or Living Script?: The Life of Law in Plato, Middle Platonism, and Jewish Platonizers
Melissa S. Lane 937
Tyrant-Killing Legislation and the Political Foundation of Ancient Greek Democracy
David A. Teegarden 965
Job’s Justice
Arthur J. Jacobson 983
Classifying Constitutions: Preliminary Conceptual Analysis
Pasquale Pasquino 999
Constitutionalism Ancient and Early Modern: The Contributions of Roman Law, Canon Law, and English Common Law
Janelle Greenberg & Michael J. Sechler 1021
Was the Graphe Paranomon a Form of Judicial Review?
Melissa Schwartzberg 1049
Roman Roots for an Imperial Presidency: Revisiting Clinton Rossiter’s 1948 Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies
David Rudenstine 1063
Early Modern Absolutism and Constitutionalism
Kinch Hoekstra 1079
Notes
Why Can’t We Be Friends?:
How Far Can the State Go in Restricting Social Networking Communications Between Secondary School Teachers and Their Students?
Elise Rosen Puzio 1099
Grossly Overbroad: The Unnecessary Conflict over Mixed Motives Claims in Title VII Anti-Retaliation Cases Resulting from Gross v. FBL Financial Services
Robert Tananbaum 1129
February 19, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Tags: Cardozo Law Review
Posted in: Constitutional Law, Law Rev Contents, Uncategorized
Print This Post
No Comments
Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 34, Issue 2
posted by Cardozo Law Review
Articles
Cartels as Rational Business Strategy: Crime Pays
John M. Connor & Robert H. Lande 427
Dynamic Fiduciary Duties
Andrew S. Gold 491
The Twilight of Equity Liquidity
Jeff Schwartz 531
The Cultural Analysis Paradigm: Women and Synagogue Ritual as a Case Study
Roberta Rosenthal Kwall 609
Can a Computer Intercept Your Email?
Bruce E. Boyden 669
Discovery About Discovery: Sampling Practice and the Resolution of Discovery Disputes in an Age of Ever-Increasing Information
Charles Yablon & Nick Landsman-Roos 719
Notes
Terminating Beyond the Limits: CMS Is Overreaching in Its Attempt to Regulate ACOs According to Antitrust Standards
Benjamin M. Zegarelli 781
A Power and a Duty: Prosecutorial Discretion and Obligation in United States Sentencing Guideline § 3E1.1(B)
Laura Waters 813
A New Paradigm: Domicile as the Exclusive Basis for the Exercise of General Jurisdiction over Individual Defendants
Emily Eng 845
For more information on responding to any of these articles on Cardozo Law Review’s online companion, Cardozo Law Review de•novo, please visit us here.
December 23, 2012 at 12:13 am
Tags: Cardozo Law Review
Posted in: Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
