In Death, Birth

Sometimes, in life, you think the gurus who spout aphorisms might be right; or, perhaps, that chaos theory has individual-life applicability. In theory, unexpected and rare events are random, and should only happen once in a while. Yet they don't and, like traffic, they bunch.

This morning, I lost my father-in-law. It feels funny to say it in English, because the title has little meaning. Instead, I write something about him, a man no one, including himself, thought worthy of mention.

He was born in Shandong Province, the same place where Qingdao (TsingTao) beer is brewed. It was the 40's and China was at war, he was born before China was liberated -- in 1944. He had a dozen brothers and sisters. Several, including his parents, died of hunger during the famine of the Great Leap.

He went to Xinjiang, a remote and desolate province, to work under the shangshanxiaxiang ("go up into the mountains, and down into the villages") directive of the cultural revolution era.

There he spent a dozen years, the prime of his youth, raising chickens and working the earth to create a better China.

After Deng's reform of China, he went with his wife, step-daughter, and son back to their hometown, Changzhou, a city in southern Jiangsu Province (near Shanghai).

In 30 years, he never learned the language. When I met him in 2000, and until he left this earth this morning, he never could speak Changzhou-ese. He understood every word. And, even today, he was the only in-law I could completely understand.

He ethos was conservation. If you turned on the light at dusk, he would shut it off when you went to the bathroom. He brusquely turned down any invites for public showers or karoke. He took pride that his household consumed the lowest number of watts every month. A cost-benefit analysis of glasses versus electricity was moot.

That conservation and saving can be born of need is a fact too often lost to modern environmentalists and free-market Greenspanians.

It was me, a foriegner, who brought this man to the Great Wall for the first time in Beijing. I take pride in that.

A saver, a conservationist, and yet a man who would rather you eat and smoke until you are painfully sick than that you abstain out of courtesy.

Yes, a rare man, an unknown man. Not a model of life, or of death, but a model nonetheless.

You will be missed, Ren Yongshan -- the mountain of eternity.

Green China

Green China

Why are environmental activists not cheering for China?

Recently (June 1, 2008), China banned (yes, banned) plastic bags thinner than 0.025 millimeters (0.001 inches). In addition, regular plastic bags are not longer allowed to be given away with purchases by retailers, including 7-11’s (convenience stores), grocery stores, and supermarkets. On average, plastic bags costs between 0.20 and 0.30 yuan (3 - 4 cents).

Reference to the story can be found here.

Of course, one of the negative consequences of this is that supermarket and convenience stores employees now feel like they don’t have to put your purchases in plastic bags at all (if you bring them from home). It seems lazy people will always find a way to skirt their responsibilities.

The green party, or environmental activities in the West, should be celebrating China as a paradigm.

But there is more: in China, almost everyone (I estimate 99.9%) air dries their clothing. I have never seen a dryer in China, and any walk through an apartment complex will immediately reveal colorful apartment balconies decorating with clothes of 1.3 billion people. How much energy is saved by this phenomena? Is there an “anti-dryer” movement in the West? Shouldn’t there be?

One more characteristic of green China: transportation. It is almost ironic that the environmental movement arose in the West, no less in the United States. Americans love their cars, and waste gallons of gas (and now money) based on the love. Public transportation in China is the rule rather than the exception. Of course, buses and subways are crowded. The alternative is bicycles. I am aware that bicycles take up more space in transporting people than buses, making them impractical users of space (especially in crowded cities), but compared to automobiles, there is no comparison. China bikers and bus-riders are truly the motor of green China.

I am not an environmentalist. But an objective analysis of existing states of affairs in the China and the U.S. makes clear that China is “going green” with much more fervent and commitment than the U.S. I only hope the “gas price crisis” will wake people up to the need for more public transportation.

Making Matters Worse

Making Matters Worse: Intimidation from China’s Bloggers

All people in China, regardless of race, birthplace, economic class, or nationality, are deeply saddened by the tragedy in Sichuan. Our hearts go out to Wenchuan, to the families of children, and to the courageous leaders who have persisted in the face of disaster. (Please see my previous post to donate to the U.S. Red Cross and assist in the re-development of Wenchuan). But amidst this tragedy, a hegemonic force has raised its head, with pernicious consequences: the wrong-headed and misguided blogging community of China.

They have not only misplaced their efforts, directing energy at innocent people, they have damaged the reputation of China and the Internet by their actions.

I refer to the case of Wang Shi, the Chairman of China’s top real estate company, Vanke.

On 5.12, May 12, Vanke donated over 2 million RMB to the earthquake disaster victims. It was one of the quickest to respond, as it also did with the snow disaster that hit China before the Spring Festival (Chinese New Year).

Responding to an anonymous blogger, who complained that 2 million yuan was a huge disappointment from Vanke, Wang Shi on his May 15 blog (in Chinese) wrote a response entitled “After All, Life is Primary (Response to Web-Friend No. 56)” (“毕竟，生命是第一位的（答网友56）”, here (in Chinese)).

Wang Shi: “China is a country where disasters occur frequently. Charity for disaster victims is the norm. Companies’ charity drives should be sustainable, and not become a burden. Vanke Group’s internal charity drive has a condition: for each collection, ordinary employees can only donate a maximum of 10 yuan. The reason is so that donations do not become burdens.”

According to numerous sources, including the China Securities Journal, the online community in China has vociferously and vituperatively attacked Wang Shi for these comments (here, in Chinese). The result, as Wang Shi feared, is that donations have become a burden that companies cannot avoid: one could argue a “Wenchuan tax” has thusly been applied to any company in China. This is not corporate responsibility but a hegemonic civil society that blindly seeks scapegoats for a true human tragedy.

Under relentless pressure, Wang Shi and Vanke relented, pledging 100 million yuan in reconstruction assistance over the next 3-5 years on May 20 (see Shenzhen Securities Exchange announcement here (in Chinese)). This decision was approved by the Vanke board of directors last Friday, June 6 here (in English). At the meeting, Wang Shi appeared pale and weak, apologizing to the masses he had somehow disappointed. The force and power of hegemonic civil society is truly frightening, and its channeling through the blogosphere is a blow to any cheerleader of democracy.

Background

Wang Shi was born in 1951 in Liuzhou, Guangxi Province. He comes from a military family. He is a heroic entrepreneur, as Liu Chuanzhi, Wang Wenjing, and others are in Zhongguancun. He is famous for having climbed Mount Everest, among other feats. He is a powerful advocate for private industry and reform in China.

Vanke (Shenzhen 000002, 200002, website) is the largest market capitalization real estate company listed in China. Its most recent results, reported in the 20081Q quarterly report, yielded 718.1 million yuan (103.7 million USD) in profit on 6.06 billion yuan of revenue (875.3 million USD). Vanke has ongoing sales in Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Chengdu, with new projects starting in 20081Q in Wuhan, Chengdu, Tianjin (2), and Dongguan. The majority of construction and sales occurs in the Pearl River Delta, Yangzi River Delta, and the Bohai Rim. Vanke has assets at the end of 20081Q totaling 107.8 billion yuan (15.57 billion USD).

Love Wenchuan

"If there is the littlest hope, we will use all of our effort"

Great words, and a great man.

5.12, and you were there. Looking pensive.

My words fail me.




What is a leader? Who is a hero?

I was there for Katrina. There, the heroes failed us.

Is this a hero?




















Words fail again, only tears.

The hardest of times, and the strongest of men.

There are no words...
















Love Wenchuan, love Chengdu.

Thank you Wen Jiabao!

Donations to Red Cross to rebuild the beauty of Wenchuan!

三面向公司的“游击战”

谢谢王教授的介绍。今天我想讲的是“三面向公司的‘游击战’”

对社科院知识产权中心的李明德来讲，中国传统文化对版权和知识产权可以用两个概念来描写：一是“窃书不算偷”，或者“偷书不算偷”。这里的意识是普及知识的内在善良、知识内容的无形形式。书只是纸及墨水，根本没有什么价值；软件只是磁带及0和1，根本不值钱。二是“传媳不传女”。这里的意思是女儿是要嫁出去，如果她知道家里的商业或知识秘密，那么其他的家庭将抢本家的饭碗。保护知识产权最理想的办法是非公开的、小规模的发展[1]。

没有物质形式的东西没有价钱和不公开小规模的发展这两个概念在网络社会有什么不搭界？从改革开放以来，中国保护不同类似的产权有没有受到这两个概念的影响？

改革开放一直以来经常见到“模糊”产权。从乡镇企业的所有制度和单位“小公家”的房子到私营公司戴红帽子再到盗版软件，免费mp3下载，和好莱坞拷贝电影，中国当代的产权没有明晰的解释。那么，在这种情况下，三面向的行为是否不恰当的？三面向的“游击战”阻挡了中国版权、知识、社会共识等发展吗？

我个人意见是否。原因在于中国信息产业、网络软件、技术开发等高科技的发展到目前为止已经发展到了一定的程度。为了保护这些公司和机构的将来盈利和持续发展，中国需要更多的像三面向这样的公司来打击模糊产权。

网络是共享为主的神话：一方面对于三面向公司的批判是它买断了一个共享资料，侵犯网络基本上的精神。不过，不管是西方国家也好，中国也罢，网络不是免费共享来发展的。中国的QQ、百度、优酷、土豆网都是直接与广告公司签订合同并收费才能够持续发展。这些知识产品表面上可以免费装载，但实际上每次使用必须参加市场活动。

两种反对可以提出来：一、三面向公司是以实行版权为主收益，并没有出版和普及知识的目的。那么，三面向的“买断”是它公司的营业模式，利用它与学者之间的合法合同来投资并出版一些文章来获得盈利。是否三面向将来会开发一个“许可证”之类的产品，我们无法知道，但三面向的法律战略明晰了出版和发表文章的产业。因为出版后的文章版权是跟着作家而不是跟着出版社，那么作家怎么处理自己的版权完全是他个人的事。

二、因为三面向主要买断了一些与“三农”有关的文章，那么文章的内容大大超过了任何个人或公司的业主权。我认为这样的想法还是找错了对象。如果一篇文章是对中国三农问题那么重要，而不是知识，不是讲话，不是某个教授的研究结果，那么作家卖出这篇文章等于是自己轻视了三农问题。我相信将来这样的事情不再会继续发生。

最后，我在这里提两个网络社会和知识产权的例子：第一来自我母亲。我母亲是一名专职顾问专门提供各种大学信息。自从与我父亲离婚起，为了谋生她成立了一家个人企业，帮助高中学生进入自己梦想的大学。2004年她请了一个设计师为她的企业设计了一个网站，专门介绍自己的服务。2006年她收到了一个（格蒂代表摄影师公司的）通知：她的网站所使用的图片是有版权的，而拥有图片的版权公司准备起诉她，要罚款2000至4000美元。后来，我母亲付了罚款然后从那家公司的营业部门用3730美元买到了该图片2年的使用“许可证”。

第二的例子来自中关村。在清华大学校内有一家公司自己研发一个产品叫“电子鼻子”。发明后拿到了国家专利权并开始生产和销售。一段时间后，另外一些公司，主要在深圳，打开“电子鼻子”的外壳和仿冒了里面的电路板和功能。结果，因为深圳的那些公司没有研发费用，它们可以以很便宜的价钱销售同样的产品。清华那家公司的老板不愿意起诉那些深圳公司因为“第一它们在外地，一旦起诉，将花大量的金钱，而这家公司很快瞬间蒸发。然后另外一家新的公司会成立，开始做一样的是事情”这位老板说。2004年，这位老板终于起诉一家公司：百度。他说起诉百度的重要原因是百度收了假冒公司的广告费用（搜索“电子鼻子”会找到假冒公司的广告）而造成他公司的损失，加上百度公司很大，不会跑掉。

总结一下：中国现在的网络社会越来越发达，也许从某种程度来讲，它已经超过了下线社会的发展。那么，模糊产权对发达网络社会和发展中的民间社会永远带来好处吗？从小规模的角度来看，模糊产权会降低创业、普及知识、和开发产品的成本。但同时模糊产权也影响公司和机构的盈利收入，减少创业、普及、开发等的机会。三面向确实在这方面给我们一个非常及时的提醒。

谢谢大家！

---

[1] 李明德，2003，“当代中国的智慧财产权制度与社会发展”，台湾清华大学当代中国研究中心的演讲，在 www.iolaw.org.cn/showarticle.asp?id=878，2008年3月4日访问。

The Sanmianxiang Company and IPR

(A version of this was presented at the "'Sanmianxiang Phenomena' Roundtable Forum" held on March 9, 2008 at Shanghai University. It was subsequently published in Chinese by China Business Network here.)

Background: Sanmianxiang (三面向) is the name of a company in Beijing. It was established on October 27, 2004 with registered capital of 2 million RMB and 10 employees. Sanmianxiang is headed by the venerable Zhan Qizhi, a former assistant professor at Henan Finance and Economics University. Sanmianxiang has signed copyright transfer contracts with 150 authors that include over 1000 articles. With copyright contracts in hand, Sanmianxiang has sued hundreds of government, university, and other websites over unlawful transmission and downloading of copyrighted articles. While initially promising authors that Sanmianxiang would publish large collections, instead Sanmianxiang focuses on prosecuting intellectual property scofflaws.

"The 'Guerilla Warfare Tactics' of Sanmianxiang Company"
Tyler Rooker

According to Li Mingde of the China Academy of Social Sciences Intellectual Property Center, traditional Chinese culture has two ideas that deal with copyright and IPR: one is “to steal a book is not to steal” or “to steal a book is an elegant offence.” The meaning of this is that the propagation of knowledge is inherently good, and knowledge is immaterial. Books are only paper and ink, and have not value; software is only magnetic tape and ones and zeros, essentially worthless. Two is “pass to the son not the daughter.” Daughters are married out, so if they know the families commercial or intellectual secrets, those secrets will pass out to other families who will steal the bread and butter. The ideal method for protecting intellectual property is to have closed, small-scale development. (See here).

How do the twin ideas that immaterial things have no value and closed, small-scale development is ideal become conflicted in Internet society? Since the reform and opening of China, has the protection of different kinds of property been influenced by these two ideas?

“Fuzzy” property rights are a common occurrence during the reform and opening era. From the ownership system of township and village enterprises to the “small public family” apartments in danwei, to privately-run enterprises “wearing a red hat” and even to pirated software, free mp3 downloads, and copied Hollywood movies, there is no clear interpretation of property rights in contemporary China. Then, in this situation, is the behavior of Sanmianxiang appropriate? Has Sanmianxiang’s “guerilla war” blocked the development of copyright, knowledge, and social awareness in China?

In my opinion, the answer is no. The reason is that China’s information industry, Internet software, and technology development—the high-tech industry—has already developed to an advanced degree in China. In order to protect the future earnings and continued development of companies and institutions, China needs more companies like Sanmianxiang to strike against fuzzy property rights.

It is a myth that the Internet is basically free: one of the criticisms of Sanmianxiang is that it bought out publicly-shared materials, infringing on the basic spirit of the Internet. But, whether it is the West or China, the Internet is not developed as a free, publicly-shared entity. China’s QQ, Baidu, Youku, Tudou all signed agreements with advertising companies and receive fees in order to sustain development. These intellectual products appear to be free to install and use, but in reality every use is participation in marketing activity.

Two detractions could be raised at this point: one, Sanmianxiang Company enforces property rights as its main business, and never had the goal of publishing or disseminating knowledge. In that case, Sanmianxiang’s “buy out” of copyrights is its business strategy, using its legal contract with scholars to invest and publish some articles and make money. Whether or not Sanmianxiang will create a “certificate”-type of product, that could be leased or paid for dissemination of article, we have no way of knowing. But Sanmianxiang has clarified the legal copyright issues in the publishing and issuing of articles. Because, in China, after publication, the rights to the article stay with the author rather than the press, the onus is on the author in how he/she uses these rights.

The second opposition is that Sanmianxiang bought out articles related to the “three peasant” problems, so the content of the articles far outweighs any individual or company’s ownership rights. I think this type of thinking is directed at the wrong subject. If one article is so important to China’s three peasant problems, and not the knowledge, lectures, or research results of professors, then selling the article is tantamount to belittling the three peasant problem. I believe in the future that this type of issue will not reoccur.

Lastly, I would like to present two examples on Internet society and IPR: the first is from my mother. My mother is a college-preparatory tutor, a college coach. After divorcing from my father, she founded her own company to help high school students get into the college of their dreams. In 2006, she received a notice (from Getty Photographer-Representing Company): the images on her website were copyrighted and the copyright owner was preparing to sue her, and she should pay 2000-4000 USD. After that, she bought a “certificate” for the 2-year use rights to the images for 3,730 USD.

The second example comes from Zhongguancun. There is a small company on the campus of Tsinghua University that researched and developed a product called “electronic nose.” Once it was invented and patented, production and sales began. Soon, however, other companies—mostly in Shenzhen—opened the cover of “electronic nose” and copied the circuit board and functions. As a result, because the Shenzhen companies did not have R&D or marketing fees, they could sell for a much cheaper price. The boss of the Tsinghua company would not sue the Shenzhen companies because, “for one thing, they are outside Beijing. If I sue them, I will have to pay a lot of money. Then the Shenzhen company will disappear. And another company will be founded that does exactly the same thing” the boss said. In 2004, this boss finally did sue a company: Baidu [the Google of China]. The reason for his suit was that Baidu had accepted advertising dollars from the Shenzhen companies (so that when you search for “electronic nose” you get advertisement from those companies) causing his company loses. On top of that, Baidu is a big company, and can’t run.

To summarize: China’s Internet society is more and more development. From certain respects, you might say Internet society has surpassed society. Will fuzzy property rights always bring benefits to the developed Internet society and the developing civil society? From a small-scale perspective, fuzzy property rights lower the cost of starting businesses, promulgating knowledge, and developing products. But, at the same time, fuzzy property rights negatively affect earnings and reduce opportunities to open businesses, promulgate knowledge, and develop products for companies and institutions. In this respect, Sanmianxiang has given us a very timely wakeup call.

Thank you!