Comment: iPad trademark case exposed the intellectual property system disadvantages
Mei Xinyu (researcher, Ministry of Commerce) after lengthy litigation battle, Apple with Proview in Shenzhen over iPad trademark dispute finally settled. Some media accused Shenzhen Proview. Good, although Shenzhen Proview is not iPad products, Apple iPad the market value of the brand is created, but under the existing intellectual property systems, Shenzhen Proview to Apple claimsPerfectly legal. Links to many Chinese companies in emerging overseas rush-China trademark event in victims as well, so hands of Shenzhen Proview from Apple to get $ 60 million will certainly make many people feel vent one's anger. However guild wars 2 power leveling
, Shenzhen Proview unearned, in any case also exposed the existing intellectual property system is not reasonable at all. We always need to keep in mind: intellectual propertyIs not the purpose of protection of the intellectual property itself, but to stimulate innovation, maintaining social justice, thus promoting overall socio-economic progress. However, practice proved stringent intellectual property protection often motivation is moral hazard. To curb competition, enterprises have a strong incentive to use the stringent intellectual property protection system set up obstacles for competitors. In particular,Countries often to "infringement of intellectual property rights" in the name of trade barriers to developing countries, are to be criticized as "removing the ladder of development of developing countries". Bias of Western intellectual property system has spawned a number of Western countries "patent pirate" (PatentTroll or PatentPirate), or "patent hooligans". These machinesStructure itself is not the inventor of the patented technology, but specifically from the ownership or use of other institutions and individuals buying patents, and then the banner of "intellectual property protection" flag launch a blackmail patent litigation, making a profit.
Such a system, was conducive to technological innovation of incentive? Of course, Apple iPad trademark dispute with Shenzhen Proview has exposed the intellectual property systemUnreasonable, does not mean that we are the unilateral initiative to reform the existing intellectual property system in international competition, doing the equivalent "Shamao" acts, China had only adjusted with the major economies change related regulations, will not suffer. In view of the current intellectual property system was established and still in the West by the Western-dominated, its not reasonable as long asSo for their benefit, we cannot expect them to support change, and only allow them to feel others will use these unreasonable profit for themselves, and often played much better than their superb gw2 power leveling
, they suffered losses, they would have an incentive to modify. In this sense, I would like to applaud for Proview.