Doctor Danny and the Roaring Dragon; Spicy IP

The IPKat is delighted to learn that his learned friend Danny Friedmann has gained his doctorate. Under the watchful eye of thesis advisors Professor P. Bernt Hugenholtz and Professor Peter K. Yu, Danny has created the intriguingly-titled "Paper Tiger or Roaring Dragon: China's TRIPs Implementations and Enforcement".

The thesis asks whether China’s IPR enforcement laws are TRIPs-compliant. According to its author:

"At least on paper most of China’s IPR procedural laws are compliant with specific TRIPs provisions. China’s IPR laws are certainly non-compliant to the more general provisions of TRIPs, due to incompatible extra-judicial factors. Nevertheless, no unequivocal preference for a WTO case against China can be given. Another option, although more complicated, to tackle China’s IPR enforcement challenges is to be preferred: to address China’s transparency, market access, uniform application of law, integrity and impartiality of the courts and expertise in and respect for IPR".
You can read the thesis here in pdf format. Danny welcomes your comments if you email them to him here.

CORRECTION! Danny has since told the IPKat that his thesis is "only" a Masters dissertation, not a doctorate. The Kat has told him to hurry up with his doctorate!

The exciting and well-informed Spicy IP blog is one of the best things to have come out of India in a long time. It has a strong team of writers and a wealth of lively and controversial subject-matter to discuss. Notwithstanding this, the blog is looking for further co-bloggers. According to Spicy IP activist Shamnad Basheer,
"We are particularly interested in folks that can blog on non patent related IP matters (copyright, trade marks, traditional knowledge, GIs) or even "innovation" more generally or any other IP/innovation theme that has some relevance for India. The understanding between us now is that each blogger post at least once a week.

We intend to make this blog a one stop shop for leading IP news/cases/comments pertaining to India. The scope of the blog has expanded in the recent past to include a regular column on recent news (SpicyIP tidbits), comments (SpicyIP comments). It will soon feature updates on IP events (SpicyIP events), IP Scholarship (SpicyIP Scholar), IP Jobs (SpicyIP Jobs) and an online journal for IP articles (SpicyIP journal)

The blog is read by a fairly wide audience comprising practitioners, academics, students, NGO's, government folks etc".
So if you wish to be part of his exciting endeavour and make your voice heard, please let Shamnad know by emailing him here.
Doctor Danny and the Roaring Dragon; Spicy IP Doctor Danny and the Roaring Dragon; Spicy IP Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, September 16, 2007 Rating: 5


  1. Maybe, due to "incompatible extra-judicial factors", China's IPR laws is non-compliant (I presume it's correct). However, such a problem of enforcement of law is suffered not only by IPR laws, but any other laws. That's, any law in China has been sticking with "incompatible extra-judicial factors"!
    So, is it fair to ask China to give more priority to the enforcement of "IPR" laws? I'd like to take labor law, price law, administration licensing law as priority!
    What I want to say about this thesis is that the arguement, "China’s IPR laws are certainly non-compliant to TRIPs", can not be supported by a universal defects of China's law enforcement system. So, technically speaking, I wound't buy the arguement in this essays.
    Moreover, I won't deny there are lots of things need to be done in China, including inprove the enforcement of laws.

  2. 153 pages for a Master's thesis. That is hard work. Congratulations!


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.