The agreement on the protection of intellectual property rights reached at the fifth round of negotiations on the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) between Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) seriously affects plant variety protection (PVP) rights in two major ways.
First, it implies that each side recognizes the priorities of the other and that both agree to process applications for intellectual property rights protection for plant varieties.
At the same time, negotiations are also being held on expanding the scope of plant varieties to which intellectual property rights can be applied. Unfortunately, Taiwan stands to lose a lot from this agreement because the basis for “farmer’s exemptions” vary widely between the two countries.
According to China’s plant variety protection law, Chinese farmers can breed seedlings of protected plant varieties without infringing intellectual property rights, as long as they do not sell the seedlings. For example, a Chinese farmer can buy a seedling of a Taiwanese peach subject to PVP in China, breed another 1,000 seedlings and then plant it in his own orchard. In other words, although farmers do not sell the seedlings, they are permitted to sell the produce of the peach trees year after year without being guilty of infringement.
This situation arises because China’s concept of farmer’s exemptions applies to all plant varieties and plant variety rights do not extend to the yield from a growing season. In contrast, Taiwanese farmers doing the same thing with peaches grown by Chinese farmers subject to PVP in Taiwan would be guilty of infringement because Taiwan’s protection act covers the yield from a growing season, while the farmer’s exemption is restricted to plant varieties announced by the government. At the moment, paddy rice is the only variety subject to such an exemption.
Taiwan and China’s PVP acts differ because they are based on different versions of the same international convention. Taiwan’s regulations are based on the 1991 version of the UPOV Convention (Union International Pour la Protection des Obtentions Vegetables, or International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants), while China’s is based on the 1978 version.
The earlier version preferred by Beijing stated that the farmer’s exemption was applicable to all varieties. It remained in place for 10 years until it was found to be riddled with loopholes. These effectively rendered PVP acts meaningless because of the farmer’s exemption and the fact that growers of new varieties gained almost no royalties for their innovations. Recognition of these problems led to call for the act to be revised, resulting in a new updated version in 1991.
However, due to the national importance of some crops, a certain degree of flexibility was maintained. This ensured that farmers in some countries, depending on national needs, would continue to enjoy exemptions, with the express purpose of growing crops for domestic consumption.
This analysis indicates that, in terms of agriculture, at least, Taiwan has made significant losses as a result of signing the ECFA.
Warren Kuo is a professor in the Department of Agronomy at National Taiwan University.Shieh Ming-yan is a professor in the College of Law at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Chinese strongman Xi Jinping (習近平) hasn’t had a very good spring, either economically or politically. Not that long ago, he seemed to be riding high. The PRC economy had been on a long winning streak of more than six percent annual growth, catapulting the world’s most populous nation into the second-largest power, behind only the United States. Hundreds of millions had been brought out of poverty. Beijing’s military too had emerged as the most powerful in Asia, lagging only behind the US, the long-time leader on the global stage. One can attribute much of the recent downturn to the international economic
Asked whether he declined to impose sanctions against China, US President Donald Trump said: “Well, we were in the middle of a major trade deal... [W]hen you’re in the middle of a negotiation and then all of a sudden you start throwing additional sanctions on — we’ve done a lot.” It was not a proud moment for Trump or the US. Yet, just three days later, John Bolton’s replacement as director of the National Security Council, Robert O’Brien, delivered a powerful indictment of the Chinese communist government and criticized prior administrations’ “passivity” in the face of Beijing’s contraventions of international law
In an opinion piece, Chang Jui-chuan (張睿銓) suggested that Taiwan focus its efforts not on making citizens “bilingual,” but on building a robust translation industry, as Japan has done (“The social cost of English education,” June 29, page 6). Although Chang makes some good points — Taiwan could certainly improve its translation capabilities — the nation needs a different sort of pivot: from bilingualism to multilingualism. There are reasons why Japan might not be the most suitable role model for the nation’s language policy. Bluntly put, Japan’s status in the world is unquestioned. The same cannot be said of Taiwan. Many confuse