¤E¨÷¤Q¤C´Á¡@90¦~09¤ë16¤é

¥»¡@´Á¡@´£¡@­nHEADLINES


1.¬d¸T¥é«_°Ó«~¤p²Õ¤E¤Q¦~²Ä¤G©u°õ¦æ«OÅ@´¼°]Åv¤u§@¦¨®Ä

¨Ì¾Ú¸gÀÙ³¡¬d¸T¥é«_°Ó«~¤p²Õ²Î­p¸ê®Æ©ÜÅS¡A¤E¤Q¦~¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë¸Ó²Õ³B²z®üÃö²¾°e¤§ºÃ¦ü¥é«_®×¥ó­p106¥ó¡]§t4¤ë39¥ó¡B5¤ë35¥ó¤Î6¤ë32¥ó¡^¡B¨ü²zÀËÁ|®×¥ó¦@84¥ó¡]¥]¬A4¤ë36¥ó¡B5¤ë24¥ó¤Î6¤ë24¥ó¡^¡C¥t¸Ó²Õ©ó¬O¶µ´Á¶¡®Öµoĵ½Õ¤H­û¥Ó½Ð¬d½r¥é«_¼úª÷®×¥ó¦@278¥ó­p2,214,253¤¸(¬dÀò¤§¥é«_°Ó«~¦ô­È¬°62,870,406¤¸)¡A¥]§t4¤ë107¥ó¡]§t¬A°Ó¼Ð35¥ó¡B±M§Q3¥ó¤ÎµÛ§@Åv69¥ó¡^800,633¤¸(¬dÀò¤§¥é«_°Ó«~¦ô­È¬°24,437,300¤¸)¡B5¤ë94¥ó¡]¥]§t°Ó¼Ð31¥ó¡B¤ÎµÛ§@Åv63¥ó¡^903,697¤¸(¬dÀò¤§¥é«_°Ó«~¦ô­È¬°21,472,526¤¸)¡B6¤ë77¥ó¡]§t°Ó¼Ð12¥ó¤ÎµÛ§@Åv65¥ó¡^509,923¤¸(¬dÀò¤§¥é«_°Ó«~¦ô­È¬°16,960,580¤¸)¡C

Work by the Anti-Counterfeiting Committee in 2nd Quarter of 2001

According to statistics released by the Anti-Counterfeiting Committee (ACC) of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, during the period from April to June 2001, the ACC investigated 106 cases of suspected counterfeiting (being 39 in April, 35 in May, and 32 in June) and 84 complaint cases (36 in April, 24 in May, and 24 in June). During this period, the ACC approved a total of 278 applications by police and investigators for rewards for anti-counterfeiting efforts, totaling NT$2,214,253 (the value of counte-
rfeit products seized is estimated at NT$62,870,406). Reward applications consist of 107 applications in April totaling NT$800,633 (35 trademark, 3 patent, and 69 copyright cases, with total estimated value of seized counterfeit products being NT$24,437,300), 94 applications in May totaling NT$903,697 (31 trademark and 63 copyright cases, with total estimated value of seized counterfeit products being NT$21,472,526), and 77 applications in June totaling NT$509,923 (12 trademark and 65 copyright cases, with total estimated value of seized counterfeit products being NT$16,960,580).
2.ĵ¬F¸p¤E¤Q¦~²Ä¤G©u«OÅ@´¼°]Åv¤u§@¦¨ªG

¯÷¾Ú¤º¬F³¡Äµ¬F¸p²Î­p¸ê®Æ«ü¥X¡A¸Ó¸p¤E¤Q¦~¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë¨Ì¯A¶û«I®`´¼¼z°]²£Åv¦Ó²¾°e°»¿ì¤§®×¥ó­p1,253¥ó¡]1,448¤H¡^¡A¤À§O¬°¯A¶û¥é«_°Ó¼Ð®×¥ó181¥ó236¤H¡]§t4¤ë71¥ó90¤H¡B5¤ë53¥ó71¤H¤Î6¤ë57¥ó75¤H¡^¡B«I®`±M§QÅv®×¥ó43¥ó59¤H¡]¥]¬A4¤ë11¥ó16¤H¡B5¤ë15¥ó21¤H¤Î6¤ë17¥ó22¤H¡^»P«I®`µÛ§@Åv®×¥ó1,029¥ó1,153¤H¡]¥]§t4¤ë319¥ó361¤H¡B5¤ë352¥ó392¤H¤Î6¤ë358¥ó400¤H¡^¡C
¦Ó¬O¶µ´Á¶¡¯A¥~µÛ§@Åv®×¥ó­p33¥ó34¤H¡A¬Ò¬°¯A¬ü®×¥ó¡]§t4¤ë16¥ó17¤H¡B5¤ë9¥ó9¤H¤Î6¤ë8¥ó8¤H¡^¡C
¦¹¥~¡A¸Ó´Á¶¡¬dÀò¤§¥é«_°Ó«~¥«»ù¦ô­È¬°·s¥x¹ô2,326,691,008¤¸¡]§t4¤ë231,335,313¤¸¡B5¤ë491,345,232¤¸¤Î6¤ë1,604,010,463¤¸¡^¡C

IPR Protection Work by National Police Administration in 2nd Quarter of 2001

According to statistics released by the National Police Administration (NPA) of the Ministry of Interior, during the period from April to June 2001, the NPA handled a total of 1,253 cases of alleged infringement of IPR (1,448 defendants). This consists of 181 cases of alleged trademark infringement involving 236 defendants (being 71 cases with 90 defendants in April, 53 cases with 71 defendants in May, and 57 cases with 75 defendants in June), 43 cases of patent infringement involving 59 defendants (being 11 cases with 16 defendants in April, 15 cases with 21 defendants in May, and 17 cases with 22 defendants in June), and 1,029 cases of copyright infringement involving 1,153 defendants (being 319 cases with 361 defendants in April, 352 cases with 392 defendants in May, and 358 cases with 400 defendants in June).
During this period, 33 cases with 34 defendants involved infringement of foreign-owned copyright (being 16 cases with 17 defendants in April, 9 cases with 9 defendants in May, and 8 cases with 8 defendants in June), all of which involved infringement of U.S.-owned copyright.
The total market value of counterfeit products seized during this period is NT$2,326,691,008 (consisting of NT$231,335,313 in April, NT$491,345,232 in May, and NT$1,604,010,463 in June).

3.®üÃö¤E¤Q¦~²Ä¤G©u¬dÀò¥X¤f³fª«°Ó¼Ð¥Ó³ø¤£²Å®×¥ó³B²z±¡§Î

®Ú¾Ú®üÃö¤E¤Q¦~¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë¥÷¬dÀò¥X¤f³fª«°Ó¼Ð¥Ó³ø¤£²Å®×¥ó³B²z±¡§Î²Î­p¸ê®Æ©ÜÅS¡G¹B°Ê¾¹§÷­ã¤©©ñ¦æ¡]©Î¨ãµ²©ñ¦æ¡^ªÌ12¥ó¡B¨T¡]¾÷¡^¨®¹s¥ó­ã¤©©ñ¦æ¡]©Î¨ãµ²©ñ¦æ¡^¤Î¨ä¥LªÌ¦U¦³2¥ó»P¤A¥ó¡B¤ÆùÛ«~­ã¤©©ñ¦æ¡]©Î¨ãµ²©ñ¦æ¡^ªÌ2¥ó¡B¹q¸£²£«~­ã¤©©ñ¦æ¡]©Î¨ãµ²©ñ¦æ¡^¤Î³d¥O°hÃö¤À§O¦³11¥ó¤Î1¥ó¡B¥úºÐ²£«~³d¥O°hÃöªÌ5¥ó¡B¶ì½¦»s«~­ã¤©©ñ¦æ¡]©Î¨ãµ²©ñ¦æ¡^¤Î³d¥O°hÃö¦U¦³5¥ó¤Î1¥ó¡B¯¼Â´«~­ã¤©©ñ¦æ¡]©Î¨ãµ²©ñ¦æ¡^¤Î³d¥O°hÃö¦U¬O6¥ó¤Î2¥ó¡B¹q¤l¹s¥ó­ã¤©©ñ¦æ¡]©Î¨ãµ²©ñ¦æ¡^¤Î³d¥O°hÃö¦U¦³2¥ó¤Î1¥ó¡B¨ä¥L³f«~¤§­ã¤©©ñ¦æ¡]©Î¨ãµ²©ñ¦æ¡^¡B³d¥O°hÃö¡B¨Ìªk¬d¦©¤Î¨ä¥LªÌ¤À§O¦³42¥ó¡B4¥ó¡B1¥ó¤Î2¥ó¡C

Customs Inspections of Export Product Trademark Declarations in 2nd Quarter 2001

According to statistics released by the Customs concerning discovery of inaccurate export product trademark declarations during the period from April to June 2001:
- Sporting goods: 12 cases released with authorization or bond;
- Automobile components: 2 cases released with authorization or bond, 1 case with other measures taken;
- Cosmetics: 2 cases released with authorization or bond;
- Computer goods: 11 cases released with authorization or bond, 1 case exportation denied;
- Compact disks: 5 cases exportation denied;
- Plastic goods: 5 cases released with authorization or bond, 1 case exportation denied;
- Textile goods: 6 cases released with authorization or bond, 2 cases exportation denied;
- Electronic components: 2 cases released with authorization or bond, 1 case exportation denied;
- Other goods: 42 cases released with authorization or bond, 4 cases exportation denied, 1 case seized, and 2 cases with other measures taken.

4.·s»D§½¤E¤Q¦~²Ä¤G©u¬d¦©¹Hªk¿ý¼v¸`¥Ø±a·~¦¨ªG

¤E¤Q¦~¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë¦æ¬F°|·s»D§½¤Î¦a¤è¬F©²¦³Ãö³æ¦ì¦@¬d¹î¤Î¨ú½lMTV237®a¦¸¡]§t4¤ë74®a¦¸¡B5¤ë80®a¦¸¤Î6¤ë83®a¦¸¡F¨ä¤¤±ß¶¡8®É¥H«á¬d¹î¨ú½l135®a¦¸¡A¥]¬A4¤ë50®a¦¸¡B5¤ë36®a¦¸¤Î6¤ë49®a¦¸¡^¡B¿ý¼v¸`¥Ø±a¯²°â©±757®a¦¸¡]¥]§t4¤ë231®a¦¸¡B5¤ë295®a¦¸¤Î6¤ë231®a¦¸¡^¤Î¨ä¥L¦@129®a¦¸¡F¦@­p¬d¦©¹Hªk¿ý¼v¸`¥Ø±a1,741¨÷¡]§t¬A4¤ë805¨÷¡B5¤ë396¨÷¤Î6¤ë540¨÷¡^¡B¼vºÐ116,585¤ù¡]§t4¤ë13,691¤ù¡B5¤ë101,128¤ù¤Î6¤ë1,766¤ù¡^¤Î¬d¦©¹OÅv¸`¥Ø±a781¨÷¡]§Y4¤ë33¨÷¡B5¤ë347¨÷¤Î6¤ë401¨÷¡^¡F¨Ì«IÅv¤Î§«®`­·¤Æ²¾°e°»¿ì®×¥ó¦@31¥ó¡]§t4¤ë12¥ó¡B5¤ë9¥ó¤Î6¤ë10¥ó¡^¤Î¼s¹qªk®Ö³B®×¥ó­p130¥ó¡]¥]§t4¤ë13¥ó¡B5¤ë76¥ó¤Î6¤ë41¥ó¡^¡C
¥t¬O¶µ´Á¶¡¡A°]¹Îªk¤H¹q¼v¤Î¿ý¼vµÛ§@«OÅ@°òª÷·|®Ú¾Ú¸Ó§½¬d¹î¨ú½l¸ê®Æ¡A³w¦æ²¾°e°»¿ì®×¥ó¡A­p¦³¯A¶û«I®`µÛ§@Åv®×¥ó3¥ó¡]§Y4¤ë2¥ó¤Î6¤ë1¥ó¡^¡C

Results of GIO Investigations of Video Rental Industry in 2nd Quarter 2001

During the period from April to June 2001, the Government Information Office (GIO) and the local government agencies jointly conducted 237 raids on MTV parlors (74 in April, 80 in May and 83 in June; 135 of these raids were conducted after 8pm, being 50 in April, 36 in May, and 49 in June). They also conducted 757 raids on video rental stores (231 in April, 295 in May, and 231 in June) and 129 investigations into other business establishments. As a result, the authorities seized 1,741 illegal videotapes (805 in April, 396 in May, and 540 in June), 116,585 laser disks (13,691 in April, 101,128 in May, and 1,766 in June), as well as 781 videotapes whose licenses had expired (33 in April, 347 in May, and 401 in June). 31 cases were referred to the prosecutors for infringement and violation of public morals (being 12 cases in April, 9 in May, and 10 in June), while 130 were subject to administrative sanctions under the Broadcasting and Television Law (being 13 cases in April, 76 in May, and 41 in June).
During this period, based on the results of GIO investigations, the Film and Video Works Protection Foundation (FVWP) also referred 3 cases to the prosecutors' office for suspected copyright infringement, being 2 cases in April and 1 case in June.

5.·s»D§½¤E¤Q¦~²Ä¤G©u¬dÀò¤K¤Q¤K®a¦¸¹H³W¦³½u¹qµø(¼½°e)¨t²Î·~

¤E¤Q¦~¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë¦æ¬F°|·s»D§½¤Î¦a¤è¬F©²¦³Ãö³æ¦ì¬d¹î¨ú½l¦³½u¹qµø(¼½°e)¨t²Î·~¦@480®a¦¸¡]§t4¤ë171®a¦¸¡B5¤ë157®a¦¸¤Î6¤ë152®a¦¸¡F¨ä¤¤±ß¶¡8®É¥H«á¬d¹î¨ú½l87®a¦¸¡A¥]¬A4¤ë33®a¦¸¡B5¤ë29®a¦¸¤Î6¤ë25®a¦¸¡^¡A¤À§O¬O¾÷©Ð¬dÅç162®a¦¸¡]¥]§t4¤ë52®a¦¸¡B5¤ë54®a¦¸¤Î6¤ë56®a¦¸¡^¡A¦@¬dÀò4®a¦¸¹H¤ÏÅv§Q«OÅ@³W©w¤Î2®a¦¸»P1®a¦¸¦U¹H¤Ï¼s§i¤Î¶O¥Îªk³Wµ¥¡A¦Ó´ú¿ý«h¬dÅç318®a¦¸¡]§t¬A4¤ë119®a¦¸¡B5¤ë103®a¦¸¤Î6¤ë96®a¦¸¡^¡A­p¬dÀò75®a¦¸»P5®a¦¸¤À§O¹H¤Ï¼s§i¤Î¸`¥Øµ¥ªk³W¤Î1®a¦¸¯A¶û«IÅv²¾°e°»¿ì¡C
¦¹¥~¡A¬O¶µ´Á¶¡¸Ó§½³B²z¥Á²³¥Ó¶D¤Ï¬M®×¥ó­p933¥ó¡]§t4¤ë293¥ó¡B5¤ë362¥ó¤Î6¤ë278¥ó¡^¡A¤À§O¬O¯A¶û¹H¤Ï¸`¥Ø³W©w74¥ó¡]§t4¤ë22¥ó¡B5¤ë25¥ó¤Î6¤ë27¥ó¡^¡B¹H¤Ï¼s§i³W©w184¥ó¡]§Y4¤ë67¥ó¡B5¤ë64¥ó¤Î6¤ë53¥ó¡^¡B¹H¤Ï¶O¥Î³W©w279¥ó¡]¥]§t4¤ë97¥ó¡B5¤ë135¥ó¤Î6¤ë47¥ó¡^¤Î¹H¤ÏÅv§Q«OÅ@³W©w396¥ó¡]§t¬A4¤ë107¥ó¡B5¤ë138¥ó¤Î6¤ë151¥ó¡^¡C

GIO Uncovers 88 Violating Cable TV Operators in 2nd Quarter 2001

During the period from April to June 2001, the Government Information Office (GIO) and local government agencies jointly conducted 480 raids on cable TV operators (being 171 in April, 157 in May and 152 in June; 87 of these raids were conducted after 8pm, being 33 in April, 29 in May and 25 in June). These investigations consisted of 162 investigations of primary broadcasting facilities (being 52 in April, 54 in May and 56 in June), uncovering 4 violations of rights protection regulations, 2 violations of advertising regulations, and 1 violation of fees regulations; and 318 investigations of secondary broadcasting facilities (being 119 in April, 103 in May and 96 in June), uncovering 75 violations of advertising regulations, 5 violations of programming regulations, and 1 suspected rights infringement that was referred to the prosecutors' office.
In addition, the GIO handled 933 cases of consumer complaints (being 293 in April, 362 in May and 278 in June). They are respectively 74 suspected programming violations (22 in April, 25 in May and 27 in June), 184 advertising violations (67 in April, 64 in May and 53 in June), 279 fees regulation violations (97 in April, 135 in May and 47 in June), and 396 rights protection regulation violations (107 in April, 138 in May, and 151 in June).

6.IFPI¤E¤Q¦~²Ä¤G©u°õ¦æ¤Ïµs¿ý¤u§@¦¨®Ä

¨Ì¾Ú°]¹Îªk¤H°ê»Ú°Û¤ù·~¥æ¬y°òª÷·|(IFPI, Members' Foundation in Taiwan)´N¦³Án¥Xª©«~¨ú½lªº²Î­p¸ê®Æ©ÜÅS¡A¤E¤Q¦~¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë¸Ó·|¨ó¦Pĵ¹î¾÷Ãöµ¥¬ÛÃö³æ¦ì¬d¹î¨ú½l«IÅv¤§¦³Án¥Xª©«~®×¥ó­p572¥ó¡A¥]¬A©]¥«Åu³c553¥ó¡B¤u¼t3¥ó¡B­Ü®w3¥ó¡Bªù¥«2¥ó¡BMP3³c½æ5¥ó¡BCD-R³c½æ3¥ó¤Î¦í®a3¥ó¡A¦@¬d¦©µsª©¥d±a7,456¨÷¡BCD 262,470¤ù¡BMP3 454¤ù¡BCD-R 586¤ù¡BVCD81¤ù¤Î¾÷±ñ³]³Æ»P¥b¦¨«~¤A§å¡A¥«³õµû¦ô·l¥¢¬ù260,451,990¤¸¡C¦¹¥~¡A¸Ó©u¬dÀò¯A¶û«I®`µÛ§@Åv¦Ó²¾°e°»¿ì¤§¶ûºÃ¥Ç­p657¤H¡C

Work by IFPI in 2nd Quarter 2001

According to statistics recently released by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, Members' Foundation in Taiwan (IFPI), the IFPI had assisted police and other related agencies with a total of 572 raids for infringing audio products dur-
ing the period from April to June 2001. These consisted of 553 raids on night market vendors, 3 factories, 3 warehouses, 2 retailers, 5 MP3 vendors, 3 CD-R vendors, and 3 residential premises, resulting in seizures of 7,456 pirated cassettes, 262,470 pirated CDs, 454 MP3 disks, 586 CD-Rs, 81 VCDs, and a set of machinery, equipment and semi-finished goods. This constitutes an estimated loss of NT$260,451,990 at market value. In addition, a total of 657 defendants were referred to the Prosecutors' Office for suspected infringement of copyright.

7.FVWP¤E¤Q¦~²Ä¤G©u¤Ïµs¿ý¤u§@¦¨ªG

®Ú¾Ú°]¹Îªk¤H¹q¼v¤Î¿ý¼vµÛ§@«OÅ@°òª÷·|¡]FVWP¡^´NµøÅ¥µÛ§@ª«¤§½Õ¬d¡B¨ú½l¤Î¨ä¯u«~¥­¦æ¿é¤J¤§³B²zªº²Î­p¸ê®Æ©ÜÅS¡A¤E¤Q¦~¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë¸Ó·|¨ü²z®üÃö°õ¦æµøÅ¥µÛ§@ª«¯u«~¥­¦æ¿é¤J¥æ¥I¬d¸ß¤§®×¥ó­p¦³¤A¥ó¡A¬d¸ßµ²ªGµLºÃ¦ü¥¼¸g¦Xªk±ÂÅv¤§®×¥ó¡C
¬O¶µ´Á¶¡¡AFVWP¨Ã°w¹ï¿ý¼v±a¥X¯²©±¡BMTVµøÅ¥¤¤¤ß¡B¼vºÐ¡]LD¡^¥æ´«¤¤¤ßµ¥¶i¦æ¤F126¥ó½Õ¬d¡A¥t·|¦P¦æ¬F°|·s»D§½µ¥¬ÛÃö¬F©²¾÷Ãö°õ¦æ52¥ó¨ú½l¤u§@¡A¦@­p¬d¦©¿ý¼v±a¡B¼vºÐ¡BVCD¡BDVDµ¥779¨÷¡]¤ù¡^¡C
¦¹¥~¡AFVWP¥N²z¬ü°ê¹q¼v¨ó·|¡]MPAA¡^ªº·|­û¤½¥q¦V§Ú°êªk°|´£°_126¥ó¶D³^®×¡C

Work by FVWP in 2nd Quarter of 2001

From April to June 2001, the Foundation for the Protection of Film and Video Works (FVWP) handled 1 case of suspected parallel importation of copyrighted audio-visual works referred by the Customs authorities, but found that it had been duly licensed.
During the same period the FVWP had conducted 126 investigations of video rental stores, MTV parlors and laser disc exchange centers. It also carried out 52 raids with the assistance of the Government Information Office (GIO) and other agencies, resulting in the seizure of 779 videotapes, laser discs, VCDs and DVDs.
In addition the FVWP has filed 126 lawsuits in Taiwan on behalf of member companies of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

8.¤E¤Q¦~²Ä¤G©u«I®`´¼¼z°]²£Åv§P¨M½T©w®×¥ó§P³B¤@¦~¥H¤WªÌ¦³¤@¢Ý¤»¤H

¨Ì¾Úªk°È³¡²Î­p¸ê®Æ«ü¥X¡A¤E¤Q¦~¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë§Ú°êªk°|¹ï©ó«I®`µÛ§@Åv¡B°Ó¼Ð±M¥ÎÅv©Î±M§QÅv§P¨M½T©w®×¥ó¡A³Q§i¦@733¤H¡A¤À§O¬°¥|¤ë295¤H¡B¤­¤ë287¤H¤Î¤»¤ë301¤H¡A¨ä¤¤§P³B¦³´Á®{¦D¡B©ë§Ð©Î»@ª÷¤§¦³¸o¬ì¦D§P¨M¦@592¤H
¡A¤À§O¬O¥|¤ë188¤H¡B¤­¤ë188¤H¤Î¤»¤ë216¤H¡C¦³¸o¬ì¦D§P¨M¤¤¡A§P³B¤»¤ë¡]§t¡^¥H¤UªÌ­p378¤H¡A¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë¦U¦³118¤H¡]§t¯A¬ü®×¥ó3¤H¡^¡B116¤H¡]§t¯A¬ü®×¥ó6¤H¡^¤Î144¤H¡]§t¯A¬ü®×¥ó4¤H¡^¡F¬ì³B¹O¤»¤ë¤@¦~¥¼º¡ªÌ¦@29¤H¡A¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë¤À§O¦³9¤H¡B11¤H¡]§t¯A¬ü®×¥ó1¤H¡^»P9¤H¡]§t¯A¬ü®×¥ó3¤H¡^¡F§P³B¤@¦~¡]§t¡^¥H¤W¤G¦~¥¼º¡ªÌ¦@­p100¤H¡A¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë¦U¬°37¤H¡]§t¯A¬ü®×¥ó1¤H¡^¡B33¤H¤Î30¤H¡]§t¯A¬ü®×¥ó2¤H¡^¡F§P³B¤G¦~¡]§t¡^¥H¤W¤T¦~¥¼º¡ªÌ¦@­p6¤H¡A¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë¦U¦³1¤H¡B2¤H¤Î3¤H¡F¬ì³B©ë§ÐªÌ¦@¦³49¤H¡A¥|¦Ü¤»¤ë¦U¬O13¤H¡B15¤H»P25¤H¡]§t¯A¬ü®×¥ó7¤H¡^¡C

106 Persons Sentenced to 1+ Years Imprisonment in Affirmed IPR Cases in 2nd Quarter 2001

According to statistical data released by the Ministry of Justice, during the period from April to June 2001, there were 733 defendants in affirmed cases of copyright, trademark or patent infringement heard by R.O.C. courts (295 defendants in April, 287 in May, and 301 in June). Amongst these, 592 were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, detention or fines (being 188 defendants in April, 188 in May, and 216 in June). 378 defendants were sentenced to 6 months or less, being 118 in April (including 3 in U.S.-related cases), 116 in May (including 6 in U.S.-related cases), and 144 in June (including 4 in U.S.-related cases). 29 defendants were sentenced to between 6 and 12 months, being 9 in April, 11 in May (including 1 U.S.-related case), and 9 in June (including 3 U.S.-related cases). 100 defendants were sentenced to 1 year or more but less than 2 years, being 37 in April (including 1 U.S.-related case), 33 in May, and 30 in June (including 2 U.S.-related cases). 6 defendants were sentenced to 2 years or more but less than 3 years, being 1 in April, 2 in May, and 3 in June. 49 were sentenced to detention, being 13 in April, 15 in May, and 25 in June (including 7 U.S.-related cases).

9.USPTO±M§Q¥Ó½Ð°ÊºA

USPTO°ò©ó´î¤Ö¥Ó½Ð©Ò»Ý®É¶¡¡B²¤Æ¥Ó½Ðµ{¦¡¡B®ø°£¹q¤l¥Ó½Ðªº»Ùê¤Î´î¤Ö¤½²³©MUSPTOªº¶O¥Îµ¥¡A©ó2000¦~9¤ë26¤é¤½§G¤F¹ê¬I²Ó«h¤¤Ãö©óµo©ú±M§Q¥Ó½Ðµ{¦¡ªºÂ²¤Æ±ø´Ú¡C¨Ì·s±ø´Ú¥Ó½Ð¤H¥i±N«Üªøªº¹q¸£µ{¦¡©Î¥Íª«§Ç¦C¸ê®Æ¥HCD-ROM©Î¨ä¥L¹q¤l§Î¦¡´£¥æ¥Ó½Ð¡B¥N²z«ß®v¦³Åv±o¨ì¨ä«È¤áªº¥Ó½Ð¤å¥óµ¥¡C
¼Ú¬w±M§Q§½©ó2000¦~12¤ë8¤é¨ü²z¤F²Ä¤@¥óºô¸ô±M§Q¥Ó½Ð¡F¦ÓUSPTO¤é«e¤]¶}©ñ¤F¹q¤l¥Ó½Ð´£¥æ¨t²Î¡]electronic patent application filing system-EFS¡^¡A¨Ã«Ø¥ß¹q¤l°Ó°È¤¤¤ß¡A¥H¤ä´©EFS¦V«È¤á´£¨Ñ¥Î©ó¦bºô¸ô¤W¼¶¼g©M´£¥æ¥Ó½Ðªº³nÅé¡CEFS³nÅé¥i¥H±N¥Ó½Ð®Ñªº¦U­Ó³¡¤À¸ê®Æ¶i¦æ²Õ¦X¡B­pºâ¶O¥Î¡BÀ£ÁY¤å¥ó¡B½s½X©M¦VUSPTO ¶Ç¿é¥Ó½Ð¤å¥ó¡CUSPTO¨Ï¥Î³Ì·s§Þ³N¡]public key infrastructure-PKI¡^«OÃÒ¤F¹q¤l¥Ó½Ðªº¦w¥þ©Ê¡A¦V«È¤á´£¨Ñ«È¤á½s¸¹©M«È¤á¥i¥Hñ¦rªº¼Æ¦ìÃҮѡA½T«OEFS±q¥Ó½Ð¤HPC¾÷¤W¥þ³¡À£ÁY¨ìUSPTOªº¹q¤l¶l½c¤¤¡C
(¥»³ø¾É·J¾ã¦Û¤¤°ê¤j³°°ê®aª¾ÃѲ£Åv§½ºô¯¸®ü¥~¶Ç¯u¸ê®Æ)

Trends in USPTO Patent Applications

On September 26, 2000 the USPTO released provisions in its enforcement rules concerning the streamlining of invention patent application procedures. These new provisions were intended to reduce application time, simplify application procedures, remove barriers to electronic application, and lower costs to the public and the USPTO. Under these new provisions, an applicant may file an application in respect of a lengthy computer program or biological sequence data in CD-ROM or other electronic format, and an authorized attorney would be able to obtain his/her client's application documents.
The European Patent Office (EPO) handled its first online patent application on December 8, 2000. The USPTO has also recently made the Electronic Patent Application Filing System (EFS) available for public use, and it has established an E-Commerce Center that supports the EFS in offering applicants with software for preparing and submitting applications over the Internet. The EFS software is able to integrate information from an application, calculate fees, compress documents, issue an application number, and transmit the application documents to the USPTO. The USPTO also guarantees the security of the electronic application using the state of the art Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) technology, which provides applicants with a customer number and a digital signature, and ensures that the EFS will be able to compress all relevant documentation from the applicant's computer and transmit it to the USPTO's E-mailbox.
(The above report is compiled from information released by the PRC Intellectual Property Office website)