• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog

Chinese Trade Secret Case Answers Few Questions

Submitted by Eric Perrott on April 12, 2010 – 2:21 PM22No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2010%2F04%2F12%2Fchinese-trade-secret-case-answers-few-questions%2FChinese+Trade+Secret+Case+Answers+Few+Questions2010-04-12+19%3A21%3A31Eric+Perrotthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D22

On April 29th, 2010, China sentenced Australian-citizen Stern Hu, an executive at the British/Australian Rio Tinto Company, to 10 years in prison.   In January, the Chinese government detained several employees of the British-Australian company in the wake of a large contract that made China the largest marketed served by Rio. China decided to prosecute four of the employees for acquisition of state trade secrets and allegedly accepting close to ten million USD in bribes.

Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister called this sentence, “harsh,” and the international community expressed surprise and outrage for the unusually long sentence given to the foreign executive. Other lower employees received lesser sentences that are currently being appealed.

Unfortunately for those in the international intellectual property community, this case did not answer many questions. While many believed that this case would clarify China’s opaque trade secret laws, the focus of the verdict and international media coverage centered on the massive bribery element. Meanwhile, the case serves as a stern warning to western companies to carefully observe all trade secret regulations while operating in China, or face serious consequences.

By Eric Perrott

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Eric Perrott

Eric is a Washington College of Law alumnus and was the 2011-2012 Editor-in-Chief of the IPBrief. Eric enjoys writing and playing music with his band, movies, and eating.

Eric Perrott has written 44 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright

3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright

3D printing is the hot new topic in the tech world and with it come some possible issues related to safeguarding intellectual property. This two part post evaluates the possible issues that may arise due to 3D printing and why there isn’t any cause for alarm, yet.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Following the explosions on April 15, “Boston Strong” emerged as a viral hashtag on Twitter, a rallying cry at public events, and a logo on all kinds of apparels. It does not take too long for business opportunists to take advantage of this national tragedy.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Pento-Cost: Supreme Court of Canada Delivers Five Copyright Decisions From On High Expanding Users Rights and Defining Royalty Entitlements in the Digital Age. Short Circuit: February 22 - March 8, 2013 Humphrey Bogart Won’t Allow His Name to Go on Just Any Loveseat Combo FIFA Taking Extreme Measures to Protect World Cup™ IP Cupcake Wars Judge in Lawsuit Over Store Name Google Strikes Back: Challenging Europe’s Copyright Laws Facebook Friending = False Advertising?  An Intriguing Case to Watch May Have the Answer Rethinking Performance Royalties for Sound Recordings
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • 3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright
  • Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?
  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License