By Thomas Chow由週達明

The International Law News, which is the American Bar Association’s publication for the 在國際法律的新聞，這是美國律師協會的刊物為 International Law Section 國際法律科 , recently published an article by Law Professor ，最近發表了一篇文章，由法學教授 Richard Gruner 理查德古納亞爾 entitled “Intellectual Property in the Four Chinas”.  Now, you might be wondering if there are four Chinas in the first place since most people think there is one China.  If you are a firm supporter of Taiwan, which is technically the Republic of China, that would give you two Chinas at best. 題為“知識產權在我國的四個” 。現在，你可能不知道，如果有4我國擺在首位，因為大多數人認為是有一個中國。如果你是一個堅定支持者，在台灣，這是技術上中華人民共和國是中國的，這將讓您二我國在最好的。

On that note, Professor Gruner argues astutely:就說明，古納亞爾教授辯稱，敏銳：

The analysis of IP laws and their enforcement in China has been hobbled by oversimplifying China itself. 分析知識產權法律和執法，在中國一直陷入oversimplifying中國本身。 A number of astute observers of the developing business environments . 一些精明的觀察員廣大發展中國家的營商環境。 . 。 . 。

in China have recognized that there are at least four distinct regional situations–that is, the “four Chinas” within the [PRC]–that are developing as the country emerges into a period of greatly heightened commercial activity. 在中國已經認識到，有至少四個不同區域的情況-即“四我國” [中華人民共和國] -正在制訂該國出現了一個時期，大大提高商業活動。

The regional characteristics . 區域特色。 . 。 . 。 of the four regions of the PRC discussed here create four very different sets of opportunities and problems for IPR holders. 上述四個地區的中華人民共和國這裡所討論的創造四個非常套不同的機會和問題，為知識產權持有人。 The impact of IP varies in different regions of the country because a combination of local differences in types of dominant businesses in local areas, variations of the local political clout of businesses that infringe IPR, and the ability of local officials to grant or withhold strong IP enforcement due to the regional nature of IP enforcement mechanisms in China. 影響IP的不同，在不同地區的國家，因為結合當地的差異類型的主導企業，在局部地區，變化的地方的政治影響力的企業，侵犯知識產權，並有能力的地方官員給予或不強烈的IP執法由於區域性質的知識產權執法機制，在中國。

I cannot agree more.我不能同意。 China, while it is trying to unify its laws and enforcement of IP law (and its other laws, for that matter), is a huge nation.  I keep reminding people that China has a landmass that is far more comparable to the entire EU than to America.  Inevitably, there are bound to be differences.  Even in America, the law can vary dramatically from state to state.  Louisiana isn’t even a common law state.  If people forum shop in the US because courts and laws are different, imagine forum shopping in a landmass that encompasses more than three times America’s population.  I think you get the picture.中國，而它正試圖統一其法律和執行知識產權法（和其他法律，因為這件事） ，是一個龐大的國家，我不斷提醒人們，中國有地塊是到目前為止，更具可比性，以整個歐盟比到美國。難免會有一定會有差異，即使在美國，法律可以顯著不同的州與州之間。路易斯安那州甚至沒有一個共同的法律的國家，如果人民論壇店，在美國，因為法院和法律的不同，試想論壇商場在一個地塊包含了3倍以上，美國的人口。我認為你得到的圖片。

Gruner identities the Four Chinas as:古納亞爾特性4我國為：

1. The municipalities of Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong, and the surrounding areas under the direct control and influence of these cities, which are both commercial centers and heavily industrialized. 1 。直轄市北京，上海，香港，及周邊地區的直接領導下的控制和影響這些城市，這都是商業中心和重工業化。

2. Coastal China, the areas near China’s coastline other than the major urban centers of the First China, which are often mixed economies with many large scale manufacturing activities conducted at low product cost. 2 。沿海中國，附近地區的中國的海岸線以外的其他主要城市中心的首屆中國，這往往是混合經濟與許多大型製造業活動的進行，在低生產成本。

3. Inner China, regions immediately inland from the coastal sections of China, which are heavily dominated by agriculture. 3 。內蒙古，中國內陸地區，立即從沿海部分的中國，這是重為主的農業。

4. Outer China, the western provinces of China and desert areas, which consist mostly of economies of mineral and oil extraction. 4 。外層空間的中國，西部省份的中國和沙漠地區，其中大多是經濟的礦產和石油提取。

This should be no surprise to China watchers.這應該是毫不奇怪，以中國觀察家。 The differences between the “tiered” cities mirror some of these observations.  Many colleagues and clients will assume that enforcement in China is enforcement in China.  It is not, and it is important to consider the characteristics of various regions.之間的分歧“分層”城市的一面鏡子，一些這些意見，很多同事和客戶將假定在中國的執法是執法，在中國，這不是，這是重要的是要考慮的特點，各地區。

Gruner observes that in the First China, “local authorities have strong motivations to pursue IPR enforcement as a means to both reward and enhance local innovators and to entice outsiders .古納亞爾指出，在首屆中國“ ， 地方當局有強烈的動機，追求知識產權執法作為一種手段，既獎勵和提升本地創新者和吸引外人。 . 。 . 。 to inject new technologies into the local economy through IP licensing.” He approximates the level of IP interest as being similar to those of highly technical western counties like the US 注入新的技術納入本地經濟，通過知識產權許可“ ，他接近的水平，知識產權的利益作為類似那些技術性很強的西方國家和美國一樣

Coastal China’s manufacturing “involves technologies originating in other parts of China or copied (often without proper IP licenses) from foreign sources.中國沿海的製造業“涉及的技術原產於中國其他地區或複製（往往沒有適當的IP許可）從外國來源。 The interests of this region are thus largely tied to the . 的利益，這個地區，從而在很大程度上掛鉤。 . 。 . 。 profitability of local manufacturing without any reciprocal concern over the lack of IP-based rewards for local innovators.” Gruner concludes about this area: 盈利能力的本土製造業沒有任何相互的關注，缺乏基於IP的獎勵為本地革新者。 “古納亞爾結束關於這方面的：

This region represents the greatest challenges for IP enforcement in China due to both its present economic interests in weak IP enforcement and the breathtaking scope of its infringement capacity in large-scale, low-cost manufacturing of unlicensed goods covered by IPR. 這一地區的代表所面臨的最大挑戰，為知識產權執法在中國，由於其目前的經濟利益，在薄弱的知識產權執法和激動人心的在其職權範圍內侵犯的能力，在大規模，低成本生產的無牌商品所涵蓋的知識產權。

Gruner argues that Inner China, on the other hand, will find IP enforcement largely irrelevant except “IP-protected products or services used in agriculture.” On the whole, inner China is more like “unindustrialized portions of Africa.”古納亞爾認為，中國內蒙古，另一方面，會發現知識產權執法，主要是不相干的除外“知識產權保護的產品或服務的使用在農業方面。 ”就整體而言，內，中國是越來越像“ unindustrialized部分非洲” 。

Finally, outer China also finds IPR enforcement irrelevant except where mining and oil extraction take place, because businesses “may have significant opportunities to use advanced technologies.最後，外中國還認定，知識產權執法無關的除外採礦和石油開採發生，因為企業“可能有重大的機會，利用先進的技術。 While there may be some local innovation in these technologies . 雖然可能會有一些地方創新在這些技術。 . 。 . 。 , these are probably outweighed by the commercial advantages of tolerating infringement.” Gruner believes that enforcement here will be similar to Inner China. ，這些都是可能抵銷了由商業的優勢，容忍侵犯。 “古納亞爾認為，執法在這裡將類似於中國內蒙古。

While I agree generally with Gruner’s conclusions up to this point, I want to note a few things.  First, he does not define what cities fall under the urban category or the coastal category.  Areas “under control” of Beijing-Shanghai-Hong Kong is only more confusing.雖然我同意，一般與古納亞爾的結論了這一點，我要注意幾件事：第一，他並不界定什麼是城市屬於市區類別或沿海類別。地區“的控制下， ”北京-上海-香港只是更加混亂。

Second, it is increasingly difficult to try to segregate out Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong (the “first tier” cities) from other major “second-tier” cities, such as Qingdao, Tianjin, or Dalian.  Ironically, most of these second tier cities happen to be the Coastal Regions.  Which do they fall under?其次，它是越來越困難，設法隔離出北京，上海和香港（ “第一級”城市）由其他主要的“第二級”城市，如青島，天津，大連或諷刺的是，大多數這些第二層城市發生被沿岸地區。其中，他們屬於？

And how about a second tier city like Hangzhou?  It is neither coastal nor within the direct influence of Shanghai.  And yet, it is the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court that made headlines with the G2000 v. 2000 case.  There, the court assessed damages of 20 million yuan–far beyond the damages of any of other China’s first-tier courts.以及如何對第二層的城市一樣，杭州？這是既不沿海，也不符合直接影響上海。然而，這是杭州市中級人民法院審理認為，作出的頭條新聞與縱橫二千五， 2000年的情況有，法院評估賠償2000.0萬元-遠遠超出而造成的任何損害其他中國的第一梯隊法院。

I think the first two categories are problematic to some degree.  I still agree that the Beijing-Shanghai-Hong Kong triumvirate will provide greater IPR enforcement in general.  But I also believe that Coastal China and China’s second-tier cities are much harder to group.  Some areas will have strong enforcement while others fall directly into Gruner’s description.  A better categorization would be that urbanized areas and coastal China outside of the 3 major cities fall within a sliding scale that is hard to determine.  If you or your clients plan to be in these areas, then you need to do your due diligence to understand the extent of IPR enforcement.我認為，前兩類有問題在一定程度上，我仍然一致認為，北京-上海-香港三人將提供更大的知識產權執法的一般，但我也相信，中國沿海和中國的二線城市困難得多組。一些地區將有強有力的執行，而其他屬於直接排入古納亞爾的描述。更好的分類將是城市化地區和沿海中國以外的3個主要城市範圍內滑動的規模是難以確定，如果你或您的客戶計劃，要在這些領域，那麼你需要做您的盡職調查，了解的程度，知識產權執法。

In the end, Professor Gruner argues that a multi-regional view of IP in China is necessary.  I definitely agree with that.在年底，古納亞爾教授認為，一個多區域，鑑於知識產權在中國是必要的。我絕對同意這一點。

Thomas Chow is an attorney with the San Francisco office of 週達明是一個檢察長與舊金山辦事處 Gartenberg Gelfand Wasson & Selden LLP 邁克爾gelfand wasson ＆塞爾登LLP公司 . His practice includes counseling Chinese clients on US domestic matters, including entity formation, business transactions, employment matters, and IP/trademark prosecution. He also represents Chinese clients in US based litigation involving intellectual property (copyright, trademark, trade secrets), contracts, real estate, securities, and products liability. 他的做法，包括諮商的中國客戶對美國國內的事項，包括實體的形成，商業交易，僱傭事宜，和IP /商標起訴。他還代表中國客戶在總部設在美國的訴訟涉及知識產權（版權，商標，商業秘密） ，合同，房地產，證券和產品責任。