A different point of view on Piracy

I despise spam. I hate spam. I usually want to punish those who spam. Today, however, I read an email message that I was glad to have received. I have done earlier posts on the Chinese governments position to the WTO on intellectual property rights and I am very interested in this topic.

The email is reproduced below. I cannot verify the accuracy or integrity of the source or any facts, however it is an interesting story and a potentially troubling set of facts concerning multi-nationals and transitioning economies.

Happy holidays and fight injustice where you can.

Reprint:

If pirates should be punished, how about Du Pont, the SWINDLER?


如果盗版者应该处罚，对杜邦(诈骗犯)应该如何处理？



您（美国知识产权所有者）能不为流氓杜邦的无耻诈骗行为承担损失吗？


（如果您上www.google.com网站搜索，复制"美国杜邦化学公司" 八 个汉字的全名粘贴在"搜索框"中，就可在从第1网页开始的10多个网页内搜索到我已经发表过的10多封英文或/及中文公开信。）

If pirates should be punished, how about Du Pont, the SWINDLER?

Could you (intellectual property proprietors in U.S.A.) avoid shouldering loss for SWINDLER Du Pont's shameful behaviors for profit?

(If you log on www.google.com, copy and paste the 8-Chinese character full name of Du Pont "美国杜邦化学公司", you could see more than 10 published English or/and Chinese open letters by me on more than 10 pages from the first one.)

All intellectual property proprietors in U.S., how are you?

Your government sued Chinese government for "not doing its best to fight against piracy" to WTO on April 9, 2007. (Technoracle note: this can be verified) Chinese government publicly reiterated its resolution to strictly crash piracy, and compensated related companies in your country with several billions USD for their loss. As a result, enterprises involved in piracy were devastatingly struck, but related company in your country still thought Chinese government was not in its best to crash piracy. If now your government still fails to convince or force Du Pont to fulfill its obligations in Agreement 1995, world public may have a series of doubt and concern below. Since Du Pont could 100% publicly possessed by power (exclusive possession) Mr. Huang's patent technology of effective and nontoxic agricultural pesticide, why venders in other countries were accused of violation of law for just selling some piratical disks, which is far from 100% publicly possessing by power the right of production and sales of the disks worldwide? Why could Du Pont distain and trample the law, but venders have to observe all laws? Why must laws be strictly enforced by other country's government? Although other country's government has the intention to strictly enforce the laws and take relevant actions, since Du Pont's behaviors-publicly possession of Mr. Huang's patent by force, refusing to fulfill its commitments in Agreement 1995 to pay patent fee and license fee to Mr. Huang for many years, slandering China "a raffish country", and Mr. Huang "a rascal", writing letter to threaten and intimidate Mr. Huang and bringing false charge against him before Chinese police-did not deserve what they should have, with the feeling of unfairness and negative mentality caused in the public worldwide, would that take the effect of "strictly enforcing the laws" as expected? Whether it would instigate a minority of people to breach your intellectual property as revenge? Whether it will lead to a vicious circle of competitively violating the others' intellectual property? If these doubt and concerns unfortunately come true, would it be an absurd situation in which other intellectual property proprietors in your country should shoulder the loss for Du Pont's unashamed violation of agreement? Then why should trade intellectual propertyproprietors' legal benefits for illegal benefits of Du Pont and its accomplice? Why?Why??Why??? Is it necessary?

Implementation of a law, regulation or agreement should rely on not only compulsory measures adopted by government, but also, or more important, on conscious abidance of related parties worldwide. To achieve that goal, related law-executing departments must bear "all are equal before the law" in mind during execution process,but must not ignore open and brutal trample of laws, regulations and agreements of one certain member, who is with great power or has special interest relations with the executor. Otherwise, any agreement between governments will become blank beforepublic without any sanction.

Disputes between Mr. Huang and Du Pont comprise of adequate fact evidence and clear legal relations (rights and obligations), namely Du Pont has been fully entitled to the rights regulated in Agreement 1995, now simply carrying out the corresponding obligations will solve all problems. What we are waiting for now is just forced fulfillment of Du Pont of obligations in Agreement 1995 by law-executing departments in your country.



Best wishes!

Universal Agent: SXF 2007-11-15