Intellectual Property Theory and Practice

This book explains China's intellectual property perspective in the context of European theories, through a critical examination of intellectual property theory and practice focused on China's compliance with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The author's critical review of contemporary intellectual property philosophy suggests that justifying intellectual property protection through Locke or Hegel's property theories internalizes a theoretical paradox.

Professor Wenwei Guan's treatment of intellectual property law and practice in the PRC offers new perspectives that enrich an already active field of study . . . This book will be a useful contribution to academic and policy discourses examining conceptual and operational dimensions of China's intellectual property protection system and the broader process of China's international engagement.

Dr. Pitman B. Potter, Professor of Law, University of British Columbia, Canada

Dr. Guan reminds us of the daunting challenge of the public-private divide in forming and reforming TRIPS regime; how this regime has failed to address development needs and public concerns in developing countries like China; and how TRIPS's 'birth defect' can be overcome and its evolution can be put back on the right track.

Dr. Yahong Li, Associate Professor at Faculty of Law, Hong Kong University

Examines China's compliance with TRIPS in the perspective of tensions between private and public law Offers solutions grounded in broad notions of pluralism and diversity Proposes a jurisprudential reconstruction building on relational instead of self-sufficient ontology to restore international compliance Includes supplementary material: sn.pub/extras

Contenu
Intellectual Property: Concept, History, and Contentions.- Private-Public Dynamics: the Paradox of Intellectual Property Philosophy.- Public-Private Dynamics in China's IP Regime and TRIPS Compliance.- IP Perceptions Survey: the Dynamics in Reality.- TRIPS' Legitimacy Deficit and the Myth of Modern law.- Conclusion: Ontology, Legitimacy, and Time.