中国政府 塞拉利昂共和国政府


中华人民共和国政府和塞拉利昂共和国政府关于中国派遣医疗队赴塞拉利昂工作的议定书


（签订日期１９８１年１１月２５日 生效日期１９８２年１月２３日）
　　中华人民共和国政府和塞拉利昂共和国政府，为了发展两国卫生事业的友好合作关系，经协商，达成协议如下：

　　第一条　应塞拉利昂共和国政府（以下简称塞方）邀请，中华人民共和国政府（以下简称中方）同意派遣由十五人左右组成的医疗队（包括译员、厨师等）赴塞拉利昂进行工作。

　　第二条　中华人民共和国医疗队（以下简称中国医疗队）的任务是与塞拉利昂医务人员密切合作，协助塞方开展医疗工作（不包括承担法律责任的医疗工作），并通过医疗实践交流经验，相互学习。

　　第三条　中国医疗队进行工作的地点是罗蒂芬克医院。

　　第四条　中国医疗队在塞拉利昂工作期间所需的医疗设备、器械、药品（包括中成药和针灸用具）、医用敷料和化学试剂由中方供应并由中国医疗队直接保管使用。上述医疗设备、器械、药品、医用敷料和化学试剂的费用在一九七一年七月二十九日中、塞两国政府签订的经济技术合作协定规定的贷款项下支付。

　　第五条　中国提供中国医疗队使用的药品、器械和其他物品（包括生活用品）由中方负责运至弗里敦港。塞方负责它们的报关、提取手续和在塞拉利昂境内的运输，并支付各种税款和费用。

　　第六条　中国医疗队人员赴塞拉利昂的旅费及在塞拉利昂工作期间的工资由中方负担。他们回国的旅费及在塞拉利昂工作期间的住房（包括必要的家具、卧具、水、电）、交通（包括交通工具及其维修、油料、司机）和生活费（每人每月３００利昂）、办公费、出差费、医疗费由塞方负担。
　　中国医疗队人员的生活费由塞方按月拨付给中国驻塞拉利昂大使馆经济参赞处。如遇到塞拉利昂物价变动超过百分之十时，中、塞双方将进行协商，对原定费用标准做相应调整，并换文确认。

　　第七条　中国医疗队人员在塞拉利昂工作期间，塞方免除他们应缴纳的直接税款，并为他们提供开展工作的便利条件。

　　第八条　中国医疗队人员享有中方和塞方规定的假日。每工作期满十一个月享有一个月的休假，休假期间的生活费按本议定书第六条规定办理。如因工作需要，不能在当年休假，可保留在下年度补休。

　　第九条　中国医疗队应尊重塞方的法律和规定及其人民的风俗习惯。

　　第十条　本议定书如有未尽事宜或在执行中发生异议，应由两国政府通过友好协商解决。

　　第十一条　本议定书有效期为两年，从一九八二年一月二十三日起至一九八四年一月二十二日止。
　　本议定书于一九八一年十一月二十五日在弗里敦签订。共两份，每份都用中文和英文写成，两种文本具有同等效力。

　　　中华人民共和国政府代表　　　　　　　　塞拉利昂共和国政府代表
　　中华人民共和国驻塞拉利昂　　　　　　　　　塞拉利昂共和国
　　　　共和国特命全权大使　　　　　　　　　　　　卫生部部长
　　　　　　田　　平　　　　　　　　　　　弗朗西斯·米谢克·米纳赫
　　　　　　（签字）　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　（签字）
Stratic Advice on Intellectual Property Investment in Asia

苏冉


IssueⅠ: Legal framework of protection on software copyright in P.R.C and Singapore
A) P.R.C
In conjunction with China’s astonishing economic growth over the past two decades, especially after the entrance to WTO, China has steadily improved its legal framework on Software Copyright by checking and clearing large-scale regulations both in domestic and international activities.
Frankly speaking, China joined in three vital international treaties relate to copyright: the Berne Convention , TRIPs and Universal Copyright Convention. Moreover, China and US signed MOU especially for software in January 1992. All these Conventions are regarded as a milestone to reflect China’s dramatic promotion and strong determination to build a satisfactory environment for foreign software investors.
Similarly to US, P.R.C has chosen to protect software under copyright law rather than trademark, patent, or contract law. One year after Copyright Law Amendment in 2001, Chinese Council corrected its software-specific “Computer Software Protection Rules” , to deal with new problems prevailing in software protection nowadays. Under the Rule, software is defined as two particular types: computer program and their relevant documentation. Furthermore, since MOU came into force, computer software is protected as a literary work. Third, according to the conditional nation treatment here, foreigners are required to comply with “connecting factor”, to sum up, either first publication or nationality/residence of the author in China or in any of these countries ,between the work and China or a country who is a member of the WTO, or the Berne Convention. So, despite your software products first being published in US, you can still enjoy the original copyright and the legal protection on in China.
Except from the above rules, other laws also have supportive stipulation on the protection of software copyrights as follows:
(a)The General Principle of Civil Law, the country’s current basic civil law, has authorized the author’s copyright in general;
(b)The Criminal Code has a section of articles referring to piracy offences, with “Dual Punishment Principle” in front of copyright encroachment;
(c)The newly amended Foreign Trade Law (adopted in Feb).

B) Singapore
The general legal framework of software copyright protection in Singapore is almost the same as P.R.C, but with some characteristics of its own. Actually, different from P.R.C based on Civil law background, laws and litigations in Singapore are principally modeled on the English system under Common law system till nowadays. Pursuant to certain legal revolutions, modern copyright legislation contains the same international conventions as P.R.C: the Berne Conventions, Universal Copyright Convention, and TRIPs. But, Singapore signed ASEAN Framework on Intellectual Property Cooperation and the WIPO Copyright Treaty as a member of ASEAN. Turning to its domestic laws, the latest Copyright Act 1999(revised edition) is the principle one, with some other relevant regulations for enforcement. And it also definites software program into literary work under protection. In addition, Singapore owes large resources of case laws so as to make its legal conditions more particular than that in P.R.C.
The amended Act is first purposed to address issues arising from the use of copyright materials in a digital environment, especially provide legal certainty for the use of copyright in cyberspace. For instance, the extension of concept “reproduction” .Second, the Act plays another role in enhancing performer’s rights, offering two new defenses to allegations of copyright infringement. Therefore, merely surfing the Web doesn’t constitute software copyright infringement, if it’s necessary to browse. Even , Singapore passed the Electronic Transactions Act 1998 to give statutory protection of Network Service Providers. At these points, Singapore seemingly forwards a step further than P.R.C, declining its attention on encouraging the growth of a knowledge-based economy and promoting E-commerce and creative innovations. Last but the most significant point, Singapore and the United State signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) on May 6th 2003, and entered it into force from January 1st 2004. Virtually, this is the first FTA between US and an Asia country .So it’s doubtlessly the greatest advantage for Singapore to attract US investors, apart from other Asian countries. They would encourage the entrepreneurship, investment, job creation and growth in our own technology, science and creative industries as well as set the stage for Singapore’s emergence as a global IP hub.

Issue Ⅱ: Implementation on Software Copyright Law in P.R.C and Singapore
Sufficient and effective enforcement is more useful and practical than recorded documents, with no exception to P.R.C and Singapore.
(ⅰ)Role of Government
A)P.R.C
Learned from Annual Report on the Protection of Intellectual Property Right in China during the past 5 years by the head officer Jingchuan Wang in TableⅠ , you can see copyright administration at various levels make remarkable progress in encouraging innovation, promoting industrial development, regulating market order, and even improving the opening-up policy.
As a matter of fact, the People’s Courts, the People’s Prosecution Department, National Copyright Administration Centre and Public Security compose the backbone of the implementation of copyright law in China with civil remedies, criminal sensations and administrative punishments, such as fine. And border enforcement assistance to copyright owners by the Customs and Excise Department is also available.
TableⅠ:
The Administration on Software Copyright In P.R.C
Year Registration Prosecute Cases Resolved Cases Resolved Cases Rate Seized Pirates(M) Top 1 Region of Piracy
1999 1,041 1,616 1,515 93.75% 20.14 Shenzhen
2000 3,300 2,457 1,980 95.30% 32.60 Guangdong
2001 4,620 2,683 2,327 97.52% 61.75 Guangdong
2002 4,860 2,740 2,604 99.02% 67.90 Guangdong
2003 5,020 6,120 5,793 97.64% 73.28 Beijing
Statistics from NCAC (National Copyright Administration Centre
Fortunately, China has begun to regard software as an industry with strategic significance while formulating effective policies in areas including anti-piracy and anti-monopoly. To adapt to the legal framework, China has shifted its attention upon educating software users and strengthening the law. “Government departments are being asked to show a good example in using copyrighted software only and make software budget each year”. For example, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong buy over 3,000 software products every year through public bidding. What’s more, the National Software Government Procurement Regulation will probably act in the near future. Eventually, Chinese government is trying to treat all software companies equal in P.R.C, no matter domestic or foreign countries.
Nevertheless, given China’s vast geography and population, it would be an awesome task for the central government to manage pirating activities throughout the entire country. On the other hand, due to lack of resources, the lack of judicial expertise, the unpredictability of trial outcomes, and large costs, litigation in Chinese courts remains a risky and expensive response to Chinese copyright violations. Another administrative difficulty arises from the increasing decentralization of the Chinese government. Much of China's copyright enforcement takes place at the provincial and local levels; the national government lacks the resources and control to effectively monitor nationwide pirating activity and to impose national enforcement policies.

B) Singapore
Switching to Singapore, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is its senior administration department, and it leads Singapore to the success in copyright infrastructure. Singapore has announced a number of meaningful standards through requirements for tough penalties to combat piracy and counterfeiting, including, in civil cases, procedures for seizure and destruction of pirated and counterfeit products, and a requirement to provide for statutory and actual damages to remedy such practices. There has been a rule in Singapore that government could only allowed to use copyrighted software since 1996. In order to obtain efficiency, Singapore maintain civil remedies and criminal penalties for circumvention of technology protection measures, and it also has in place implementation allowing for border seizures of infringing articles by customs officials. For example, the copyright infringement is punished with a maximum fine of S$100,000 or five years’ imprisonment or both. So, in comparison to P.R.C, the least time for imprisonment is shorter .But due to the judge’s free power under common law system, the court is increasingly harsh in their sentencing in respect of infringement of copyright. In other words, criminal obligation will become heavier with more limitation in Singapore.
In the contrast with Chinese administrative punishments, Singapore has a large scope of interlocutory remedies to fill in the blank area between civil remedies and criminal sensations, and they are three main types:
(a) the interlocutory injunction---It is an injunction obtained before the trail often with the main objective of maintaining the Stats quo between the parties pending the outcome of the trail. The interlocutory injunction may be in a mandatory or prohibitory form.
(b) the Anton Piller Order---It’s developed from Anton Piller KG v.Mfg Processes Ltd as a safeguard system of evidence for avoiding the defendant to destroy and hide the evidence of copyright infringement, if the plaintiff shows an extremely strong prima facie that his right are being interfered with, or the damage, potential or actual are very serious to the plaintiff, or even there must be clear evidence to proof the defendants faults.
(c) the Norwich Pharmacal Order.---The further expansion of Anton Piller Order to raise over the privilege against self-incrimination from Rank Film Distributors Ltd v. Video Information Centre Virtually . However, case law in Singapore has now established that where the privilege against self-incrimination exists, an undertaking from the plaintiff/ applicant not to use the information obtained in criminal proceedings is not an adequate safeguard for the defendant’s privilege against self-crimination. Singapore courts have also held that they don’t have the power to order that the information be inadmissible in any subsequent criminal prosecution.
Relying on common law foundation, people in Singapore prefer to a lawsuit rather than mediation while more mediation in P.R.C, once in the face of a dispute. Consequently, it would like to be more time and energy consuming somehow, for it costs at least one year of a civil procedure in the High Court of Singapore.
Last but not least, along with legsilation changes, Singapore Administration departments are also mounting a public campaign targeting both consumers and businesses to increase their awareness on the benefits and other implications of the new laws. There’s broad-based public awareness initiatives like the HIP Alliance’s year-long anti-piracy campaign? “The Real thing is the Right thing”, and brain Wave, Singapore’s first reality television show on IP.
(ⅱ)Role of Anti- Piracy Organizations
Both P.R.C and Singapore joined in Business Software Alliance (BSA) ,and WIPO several years ago and established domestic anti-piracy alliances at their own respective locality. The alliances played an active part in combating piracy and protecting the interests of right holders. They always declare laws, promulgate routine reports of current protection on TV, newspapers, and Website and show different points between pirate and authorized products. In the contrast with P.R.C, Singapore has other special disputes resolution organs under its common law system, including the small claims tribunals, E-commerce disputes centre. What’s more, Singapore collaborates with other ASAEN countries to harmonize IP rights with international and regional organizations such as the Office of Harmonization of the Internal Market (OHIM), the European Union, the French National Office of Industrial Property, and IP Australia.
(ⅲ)Introduction of Judgments in Precedent Cases
A) P.R.C
In a landmark verdict on April 16, 1996 against Beijing JuRen Computer, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court delivered judgment in favor of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) upholding the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights and ordering the defendant to (a) publicly apologize to the plaintiff; (b) pay over RMB600,000 (US$70,000) in damages, including court costs and accounting costs; (c) pay additional fines directly to the court. The court also ordered the defendant to undertake not to infringe intellectual property rights in the future, and the law enforcement officials to confiscate all computers and software seized during the raid on the defendant's premises. In another case, the same court rendered a judgment against Beijing Giant Computer Co. for software copyright infringement. These were the first cases decided in favor of a US plaintiff in a Chinese court.