Here is the program description:

Interested in developing an international law career? These programs, geared towards both law students and practitioners, will feature a panel of seasoned attorneys practicing in several fields in the international law area. The panelists will discuss their respective paths in pursuing an active international law practice, provide advice about starting or growing an international law practice in this challenging market and answer questions from attendees.

Panelists:
Cedric C. Chao / Morrison Foerster
Dean Fealk / DLA Piper
Amy Reinhorn / Reinhorn & Associates
Neil A. Smith / Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Daniel R. Zimmerman / Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP

Should be interesting since they have very different practices: international arbitration (Cedric Chao), corporate (Dean Fealk, Daniel Zimmerman), IP (Neil Smith), and immigration (Amy Reinhorn).

I would attend myself, but I am trying to close two M&A transactions at once, one of them being cross-border. As you can imagine, I haven’t slept much (Baby China Esquire notwithstanding), and as a result, the blog has been third priority. Apologies for the late notice!

It’s been a crazy year so far and I’ve been overwhelmed with some interesting stuff at work: some cross-border M&A, foreign entity tax registrations, intellectual property strategy and enforcement, and plenty of contracts and agreements to keep me busy. I can only hope that all of you are having wonderful new years, with plenty of interesting work and issues, as well as a good week of rest (for those of you in China or Asia). Those of us in America wish we also had an entire week for spring festival too!

An article from the Washington Post summarizes:

The Chongqing Municipality No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court upheld Li’s conviction but reduced his original sentence by one year because he repeatedly admitted to the charges against him during the latest trial, the court said on its Web site, without referring to any kind of plea bargain.

So what were the shenanigans this time that made it worth posting about?

But the Beijing Evening News reported that Li Zhuang yelled out in the court after the punishment was announced that he only confessed during the appeal after a “relevant official” told him that doing so would get him a suspended sentence.

Li apparently believed he had struck a deal with prosecutors ahead of the sentencing, the Beijing Evening News reported. He spoke out angrily, saying “I didn’t confess, the confession during this appeal was fake,” the paper reported, citing his lawyer Gao Zicheng.

“Li Zhuang yelled in the court, ‘Before the trial started, a relevant official promised that as long as I confessed, they would give me a suspended sentence’,” Gao was quoted as saying.

A standard defense lawyer tactic, the plea bargain, apparently doesn’t work in China either. Why? Because you have to have an honest prosecution to make it happen. Obviously, that wasn’t the case here. You know its a bad sign the prosecution is a conniving slime ball, and not the defense lawyer. (caveat: I don’t believe all defense lawyers are slime balls, I’m just having fun with imagery here) At the same time, I’m not all that surprised that various players in China’s justice system play fast and loose with their words (i.e., the truth), though it makes me think that some of the various reports of substantial progress for the Chinese justice system are a tad overplayed. (and yes, I do believe that it is making progress)

I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry about all of this frankly.

Our selling point: how many non-profit orgs can offer you a chance to work on cutting edge international legal issues, in-house counsel corporate style experience, and a good environment in a sustainable, socially-minded enterprise business model?  We’d like to think we’re the only one.  More details after the jump.

General duties may include:

•    Perform general in-house counsel type work for our organization, such as reviewing and drafting contracts, working with pro-bono counsel on international matters, and researching international law dealing with tax and non-profit organizations
•    Handle intellectual property and trademark work, such as doing trademark searches and analysis
•    Work on the NGO repository to understand 501(c)(3) tax law and equivalency internationally, and then work on basic qualifying

You may also get involved with other aspects of the organization, such as business planning and project management, depending on your interests and project availability.  So how many non-profits can offer a corporate or international tax associate this sort of experience during their deferral year?  Not many.  Come and hone your transactional skills by getting some real experience on cutting edge legal matters and international business transactions.  Help the world and build your career, instead of just doing some legal work that you might have zero interest in.

If the job isn’t good enough, here’s a little about TSG:

Founded in 1987 as The CompuMentor Project, TSG is a recognized leader in bringing technological empowerment and philanthropy to social benefit organizations across the world.  TSG is a non-profit organization that serves other non-profits (in the US and globally) by making technology more accessible.  TSG works closely with Microsoft, Cisco, Symantec, and other donors to create programs where non-profits and NGOs can qualify with TSG (as a clearinghouse), and then receive donated software for a nominal administration fee.  Since its founding, TSG has helped to distribute over 1.5 billion dollars in software and hardware to global nonprofit and NGOs.

So what’s the catch?   Not much.  You need to be an incoming associate at a large law firm (or an associate if your firm is like Skadden and offers a Sidebar style program)  We’d like to get a full year commitment.  You’d have to do real-world work.  Of course, if you’re already in Biglaw, I figure you’re pretty self motivated.  And finally, you’d had to live in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Somehow I can’t imagine that would be too much of a hindrance.

If you’re interested, please send an email my way to legalinternships [AT] techsoupglobal [DOT] org with resume, transcripts, and writing sample.  Feel free to spread this posting all around.  Good luck!

And here’s to hoping that readership at China Esquire: Law and Business Blog will continue to grow in the coming year. I want to become more active again, though it’s difficult with Baby China Esquire around–and either way, I don’t think I can match the rapid pace of my blogging activity in 2008. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

Best wishes to you and your family & friends in 2010!

Again, caveat: I normally don’t just go into attack mode like this anymore. (I don’t litigate on a regular basis anymore and I try to turn off this gear that’s internal to my brain) But if you want to read on, feel free.

Let’s just get right into each argument, one by one. It’s easier to do it that way. And for me to call out each of these alleged “experts” as a bunch of people manufacturing lame arguments for the sake of their national pride.

China’s Criminal Law stipulates that the trafficking of more than 50 grams of heroin is punishable by death.

“According to China’s Criminal Law, the death sentence given to him is legitimate and it has nothing to do with human rights concerns,” said Wang Mingliang, professor of criminal law at Shanghai-based Fudan University.

Sure, that’s true… absent any context. The criminal law says you cannot do certain things. But the law isn’t blind. Law is applied to factual scenarios. And in this case, if you are going to appeal to the law to justify your conduct, then please read my last post where I call this out as the Nuremberg style appeal.

“Some Western countries also retain capital punishment, and its existence does not equate to a lack of human rights,” Wang said.

IRRELEVANT. Yes, some western countries retain capital punishment for particular offenses. But capital punishment’s existence isn’t the issue. It’s the use and/or implementation of capital punishment in this situation: on someone who is incoherent and mentally ill/disturbed. The fact of the matter is that China executed a man who had a very valid defense/mitigating factor. And they did it in a way that mocked any notion of judicial due process and fairness. That’s the human rights issue, not the existence of capital punishment itself. Sorry Professor Mingliang Wang, this argument is a loser.

Xue Jinzhan, professor of criminal law at the East China University of Political Science and Law, also in Shanghai, said the administration of the death penalty related to a country’s history, culture and other conditions.

China strictly enforced the law without discrimination in handling the case, Chinese legal experts told Xinhua.

Again, irrelevant. Agreed, the death penalty is not uniform. However, the issue isn’t the fact that the death penalty is or is not administered. It’s how. The “discrimination” language is a red herring here. The Chinese courts didn’t discriminate. They just exercised massive incompetence to the point of leaving justice at the doors of their courtroom. They didn’t allow a man to get a mental examination and wanted him to prove up his own mental condition. How? Did you leave your common sense at the door when you became a judge? It’s idiocy in action. This is not about discrimination, unless you mean the Chinese courts decided really to discriminate against a mentally ill person.

“It’s human nature to plead for a criminal who is from the same country or the same family, but judicial independence should be fully respected and everyone should be equal before the law,” Xue said.

I disagree. Judicial independence is not to be fully respected if its frankly bad and/or incompetent. This case was probably a little of both. Judicial independence is a trait that we value, but that does not mean we cannot criticize the obvious failings of another country’s judicial system. That’s not independence. That’s turning a blind eye to someone blatant.

Everyone should be equal before the law. Actually, not always. The law is applied to factual scenarios and circumstances. That’s why there are mitigating circumstances, defenses, etc. That is a misapplication of that phrase. Everyone has to obey the law, that’s for sure. But the application of the law, particularly punishments, are not “equal”. They are often specifically tailored. (That’s why people hate mandatory sentencing guidelines in the U.S. now) Or at least, they should be. Guilty/not guilty, yes everyone is equal. Sentencing/retribution/punishment, no, not everyone is equal. Do thieves who steal $25 and $25 million get equal sentences? No. You are supposed to tailor the sentence for a mentally ill person.

Wang said it could be understood that British media ran emotional stories and local people reacted with sorrow or anger as Britain did not retain the death penalty.

“But one country should respect judicial independence of another country, without any interference in internal affairs,” Wang said.

“Shaikh’s case serves as a testimony to China’s judicial justice, which deserves full respect from other countries.”

Here is China pullings its, “we’re handling internal affairs, look away now” card. Come on. Or better yet, just shut up. Countries meddle in each other’s affairs all the time. That’s the point of diplomacy. I don’t believe for a second that China doesn’t the do the same with other nations. Because they don’t.

And sadly Professor Wang, if you really think the Chinese judicial system deserves respect for this case handling, you are badly mistaken. It deserves disrespect in every way, shape, and form. And I don’t think you even believe your own words on this one.

Western reports said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown condemned Shaikh’s execution in a statement issued on Tuesday and that Brown had even personally spoken to a senior Chinese leader about the case.

“It would have interfered with China’s judicial authority if the senior leader had accepted Brown’s request. How could a criminal be exempted from the death penalty only because he was British?” Wang said.

Red herring again. No one said he was exempt because he was British. Why make the argument if you know its a loser?

Experts said courts in China had the right to decide whether a psychiatric assessment was necessary.

“The court, based on available evidence, decided not to do the assessment, and it was strictly in line with the law,” Wang said.

China’s Supreme People’s Court on Tuesday issued a statement, saying it had reviewed and approved the death sentence against Akmal Shaikh and there was no reason to cast doubt on Shaikh’s mental state.

Again, I call Nuremberg. Sure it was in line with the law… at least, that’s what you’re saying. (But as Professors Cohen and Clarke note, actually, it’s not in line with the law because even the Chinese codes afford mentally disturbed people a defense) But was it in line with real justice, fairness, due process? No. (Again, see my last post if you need details) The court, based on available evidence, conducted judicial error by refusing to proceed. If this happened with a trial judge here, the appeals court would have no problem calling that judge out for this.

The Supreme People’s Court here was a rubber stamp if you ask me.

So ultimately, you have two “educated” law professors going on the record in Chinese media to say that the execution was legitimate. So what? So you can force more Kool Aid on the populace? To save face for the nation? To be the expert propaganda? Whatever the reason is, these two law professors lost their credibility with me.

]]> http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/12/examining-chinas-expert-defense-of-the-uk-execution/feed/ 1 http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/12/execution-of-mentally-ill-man-is-two-steps-back-for-china/ http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/12/execution-of-mentally-ill-man-is-two-steps-back-for-china/#comments Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:56:48 +0000 Thomas Chow http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/?p=462 CNN just published an article, “China executes British citizen for drug smuggling”. I normally don’t try to weigh in and blatantly criticize the Chinese justice system despite certain corrupt documented incidents and obvious issues because it’s been improving over the years, and I have been hopeful that the rule of law has a chance to survive there. I am, however, severely disturbed about the recent execution of the mentally ill British man when there were obvious due process issues, despite The Global Times insisting that “the trial process was extremely careful”.

The CNN article reads:

Akmal Shaikh was convicted of carrying up to 4 kilograms (8.8 pounds) of heroin at the Urumqi Airport in September 2007. China says he received due process under its laws, and he exhausted his appeals last week.

The British Foreign Office confirmed Tuesday’s execution, however, there was no immediate comment from China.

Ahead of carrying out the death sentence, China said it had followed the law.

“This case has always been handled according to law. During the trial, the defendant has been guaranteed his legal rights,” Jiang Yu, spokeswoman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said last week. “Everyone knows that international drug smuggling is a grave crime.”

Oh yes, I agree that it’s a grave crime. I am not minimizing what happened because it is serious. But frankly speaking, so is murder. The fact that China has to go back to the defense of “we followed the law” attests to the fact that (1) this really is an atrocious situation, (2) they probably know better but are unwilling to do anything about it, and (3) care more about saving their face (as usual) than about actual justice. In fact, these words remind of one thing: the Nuremberg trials. The Germans insisted that they followed the laws in annihilating the Jewish people during the Holocaust too. No, this situation isn’t quite as atrocious as that, but there is something chilling when this is your fall back excuse.

For those of you who haven’t been following this case, just how much due process has there been here? I will let Professor Jerome Cohen speak to this, courtesy of Professor Donald Clarke’s blog:

Chinese legislation exempts from criminal responsibility someone unable to recognise or control his misconduct, and provides for reduction of punishment in cases of partial mental capacity. But Shaikh’s 30-minute first instance trial ignored this major aspect of justice.

By the time of Shaikh’s second instance trial, on May 26, the London-based rights organisation, Reprieve, had sent British forensic psychiatrist, Dr Peter Schaapveld, to Urumqi in the hope of conducting an examination that would confirm Shaikh’s condition and inform the court’s review. Unfortunately, without explanation, Schaapveld was denied an interview with Shaikh. He was also not permitted to attend the judicial hearing.

Moreover, the authorities, which had initially indicated that they would allow a local doctor to evaluate Shaikh, changed their mind. The reviewing court thus had the benefit of no expert opinion on this crucial issue. It did, however, apparently allow the defendant the opportunity, against the advice of his lawyers, to deliver a rambling, often incoherent, statement that caused the judges to openly laugh at him.

The second instance court affirmed Shaikh’s death sentence and, although both his fitness to stand trial and his mental state at the time of the offence were in doubt, the Supreme People’s Court has now agreed.

Yet there has been no indication that the mental condition of the condemned has ever been professionally evaluated, despite concerns expressed by the British government and the EU, as well as Reprieve and other organisations that have compiled massive evidence that Shaikh has long suffered from a serious bipolar disorder.

I don’t think I need to comment at length about this. Even an elementary school (primary school) student could probably tell you that something is seriously wrong about this. 30 minute trial? Judges laughing at someone who is obviously mentally disturbed? Denying a local professional evaluation? Need I say more? This is a miscarriage of justice… though the Chinese adamantly claim that they followed proper procedures, thereby implying that justice was done. It wasn’t.

On a tangent, people often wonder why Americans stay on death row for so long and criticize that fact. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a strong supporter of this practice, but then again, I’m still on the fence about capital punishment outside of very extreme circumstances) The positive effect: repeated appeals and an long habeas can sometimes lead to revelations of procedural mishaps, ineffective counsel, etc., which gets them out of their death sentences. Maybe China could learn something from America and at least allow some time before executing a person–particularly in a case like this that has attracted international attention.

This is one step back for the development of the Chinese judicial system. So why do I say two steps back? It’s the fact that China has lashed out against the criticism in its usual hear-no-evil-see-no-evil-do-no-evil sort of delusion, intentional blindness, or whatever you want to call it. Professor Clarke blogged this:

As I was getting on a plane in Beijing on Dec. 23rd, I picked up a copy of the nationalistic ???? (Global Times), which saw the UK government’s protest as a hypocritical plea for special treatment for foreigners. “?????????????????‘??” (Don’t the Westerners most emphasize “all are equal before the law”?), asked the reporter (this wasn’t even an op-ed piece!) sarcastically.

Apparently China’s government feels that national honor depends on executing this pathetic and deluded man.

Special treatment? Please. All are equal before the law, but the law isn’t blind. The law looks at facts and circumstances, including mental illness. I also find it ironic that if this happened to a Chinese person in a western nation, the public outcry of the Chinese would be out of control and probably be much nastier, far more rabid, and more widespread on the internet. This is not a hypocrisy issue. And I think Professor Clarke nails it on the head: China, as always, thinks that their national honor and face is at stake. It is. Sadly, the nation got it wrong this time. Dead wrong. For someone to admit there is a problem is not saving face. It’s being stupid and then deluded about it too.

This is two steps back for China because now China will: (1) have to continue to justify itself for at least some period of time, leading to an adamancy that does not help judicial progress and change; (2) act like nothing is wrong, and set a precedent for the future… in a bad way. How can the nation ever admit that it screwed up in the past? Especially a nation so proud and so concerned about its image as China? It will be near impossible. (3) Continue to try to message to its people using its state owned propaganda… I mean media… and end up forcing its people to drink the Kool Aid a little longer. Which will harm your nation if your people don’t know how to be critical, how to properly dissent, etc.

I know my posts normally don’t contain this sort of tone. Again, I try to not criticize as harshly on a normal basis. But in this case, I had to because I found this so startling a situation. The second to last paragraph of the CNN article states:

Before the execution, Philip Alston, the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, said it would be a “major step backwards for China” to execute a mentally ill man.

I couldn’t agree more. What do others think?

]]> http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/12/execution-of-mentally-ill-man-is-two-steps-back-for-china/feed/ 0 http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/12/a-belated-merry-christmas-to-all/ http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/12/a-belated-merry-christmas-to-all/#comments Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:57:02 +0000 Thomas Chow http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/?p=457 Yes, a little late, but I just wanted to wish you all a Merry Christmas. (Sheng Dan Kuai Le)

We just got back from Macau/Hong Kong a few days ago and remain very badly jetlagged. Baby China Esquire still doesn’t want to sleep at a bedtime in any U.S. timezone, making our holidays this year a little different.

Still, just wanted to wish everyone the best this holiday season and looking forward to 2010.

]]> http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/12/a-belated-merry-christmas-to-all/feed/ 0 http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/12/standard-defense-lawyer-tactics/ http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/12/standard-defense-lawyer-tactics/#comments Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:38:41 +0000 Thomas Chow http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/?p=455 Apparently, there is a crackdown on corrupt officials and organized crime in Chongqing. Others caught up in the sting? Defense lawyers. It’s like the tuna nets that end up picking up a few dolphins along the way. The only problem is this: the defense lawyer here is just doing his job. At least, he’s doing his job, in my opinion, as any normal defense advocate would do here.

The details after the jump.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

On Sunday, Chongqing police detained a defense lawyer on suspicion of providing false evidence and obstruction of justice, Xinhua reports.

The lawyer, Li Zhuang, of the Beijing Kangda law firm, is one of several high-profile criminal defense lawyers brought in to represent some of the alleged top gangsters in the Chongqing crackdown, which to date has resulted in the arrests of more than 800 people. Li was representing Gong Gangmo, who faces a long list of charges including murder, leading a criminal organization, drug dealing and gun-running.

According to Xinhua, Li and several other unnamed people encouraged Gong to say that he had been tortured by police during his interrogation. Gong said that Li, who was reportedly paid 2.45 million yuan ($360,000) by Gong’s family, had instructed him to say things like, “I was strung up for eight days and nights and tortured to incontinence” during their three face-to-face meetings, according to the report.

Of course, if you read the other accounts, you can tell that the views are skeptical of the lawyering that’s happening here. ESWN (h/t CDT) translated an article, which reads in part:

In Jiangbei District, the police noted that the suspected gang leader Gong Gangmo appeared seriously vexed and taciturn after he met with his defense lawyers including Li Zhuang. On December 4, after his third meeting with Li Zhuang, Gong Gangmo was especially troubled as he sat still all day refusing food and water.

The police spoke to him many times and asked him to face the court hearings with a proper frame of mind.

After much pondering, Gong Gangmo finally could not stand the pressure within himself and pressed the bell to summon the police: “I have something important to say!”

Gong Gangmo told the case investigators about the secret that has been tormenting him for days: His wife had just hired the lawyers Li Zhuang and Ma Xiaojun from the Kangda Law Firm in Beijing. During three meetings between Gong and the lawyers, Li Zhuang taught him five tricks to “overturn the case”: The first trick was to corroborate the false testimony of his wife so that he turned from “gang boss” to “victim” and “charitable citizen.” The second trick was to claim falsely to the court that his confession had been extracted by torture and therefore he was recanting his previous statements. The third trick was to provide false testimony to the court so that his case can be reversed. The fourth trick was for the lawyers to read to him the statements made by his co-defendants so that he would know what to say. The fifth trick was to disrupt the court proceedings by insisting on a medical examination of his injuries so that the trial had to be postponed until a later date.

So basically, we have a gang boss saying that he can’t override his conscience because of the wicked and terrible things that his lawyers are trying to do. I call BS on this. This is garbage propaganda that will make defense lawyers unable to do their jobs effectively if you ask me. Why? Because these are standard things.

The first “trick” of trying to pain the defendant as a charitable citizen instead of a crime boss? Standard fare. You always do this. It’s not a matter of lying–it’s a matter of humanizing someone who is viewed upon with suspicion. And if you ask me, there’s nothing wrong with it. So you call the wife to the stand and have her say good things about her husband. What’s wrong with that? Nothing. A competent judge or jury will be able to weigh the credibility of such testimony. Usually it doesn’t work since people aren’t stupid, but you know what? If you’re a defense lawyer and you are not trying to gain sympathy for your client, you aren’t doing your job.

The second “trick” of trying to call any confession something that was given under duress/torture/whatever you want to call this process of abuse of power? Also fairly standard fare. At least it is in America… because if you’re the police, you aren’t supposed to try to pull this sort of abuse. And if you are in China and the police, I’m dead sure you’re pulling these tricks on a regular basis. The article implicitly paints the police in a positive light… and the writer of the article would probably say that the police gained a confession without any coercion and didn’t abuse anyone. Yeah right. So what’s a good defense lawyer to do? Call a confession one that was obtained under duress. And if you didn’t, again, you aren’t doing your job.

The third “trick”? Okay, this is going a bit far… and yet, I wonder what the nature of this “false” evidence is. Is it really false evidence? Or is it evidence that’s meant to counter certain claims or paint the same facts in a different light? Not really a big deal if you ask me. I’m not advocating the falsification of evidence. But I am saying that any defense lawyer worth his salt is going to (1) go after the evidence like a shark and (2) try to introduce evidence that appears to go the other way in favor of the defendant.

The fourth “trick” is not all that out of the norm either. Know what your co-defendants are going to say so you know what to say? Standard. Any good lawyer will try to work with co-defendants to make a case as air tight as possible. At least, collaborate in a way that you aren’t selling your own client down the river.

And the last “trick” of trying to delay trial? Everyone does this. Not just criminal attorneys. Even in civil litigation, everyone is trying to buy more time and avoid trial. Any good attorney should be doing this to some degree to buy more time and wear out the other side. Or you aren’t doing your job.

So of these five “tricks”, only one is truly questionable. The rest? It’s anti-lawyer propaganda meant to discourage real lawyering. Who is the judge and jury? It’s not the public. It’s the judge and jury. Simple. So while everyone acts like this stuff is such a big deal, let me just say that it isn’t. That’s the point of an adversarial trial process.

]]> http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/12/standard-defense-lawyer-tactics/feed/ 6 http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/11/lack-of-brand-innovation-in-china/ http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/11/lack-of-brand-innovation-in-china/#comments Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:18:59 +0000 Thomas Chow http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/?p=435 Was reading China Law Blog’s treatment of Chinese branding and trademarks here where Dan Harris takes issue with a Newsweek article, which states in part:

The simplest explanation for China’s failure to build global brands is cutthroat domestic competition. In most product categories, hundreds or thousands of firms compete for domestic market share, leaving profit margins razor thin. . . . And because foreign brands have taken much of the market’s high end, most companies are forced to compete on cost, leaving little room for investment in R&D or marketing. . . . Finally, the recent string of product recalls—including poisonous pet food and faulty tires—has left consumers wary of made-in-China goods.

Of course, I would take issue with this article as Dan does. His thoughts, and mine, after the jump.

First off, China’s intellectual property protection for most companies is just not that bad. Yes it is horrible for companies requiring copyright protection, like software companies that sell their product on CDs and movie companies . . . . But, China’s trademark protections are actually pretty good and there are a whole slew of foreign consumer and industrial companies making money head over fist in China . . . . China’s IP protection may explain the lack of international brands in some product categories, but it does not even begin to explain the lack of Chinese brand power across the board.

The same is true of the alleged cutthroat competition. Yes, China has cutthroat competition (what country doesn’t?) and yes price is central to the Chinese consumer. But many foreign and domestic brands are thriving.

My explanation is more elemental. Most Chinese companies just do not value brands as highly as Western companies. At least not yet. For the most part, they do not understand the value in spending massive amounts of money to create positive brand name recognition in places like the United States.

I would agree with most of his statements here. TM protection isn’t all that bad, and to me, what comes to mind is Starbucks being able to enforce its trademark. Companies do okay here with trademarks. Sure, there will always be knock-offs and stuff, but every developing nation has to deal with it. Even Korea back in the days had a gray market that thrived because people tried to sell “export quality” and pirated stuff in country to ignorant tourists. But I hardly think that’s the case. Also, if this is about global brands, then Chinese companies are free to register their trademarks (and service marks for that matter) in the U.S. as well. (heck, the EU even has 1 form application that covers twenty some countries in one fell swoop) No, I don’t think the issue is IP.

And I don’t think Newsweek got it right about saying foreign brands have taken the high end. I think that’s true, but at the same time, Chinese manufacturing/sourcing has relied on the fact that it would do the low margin production work for those high end brands. And many people haven’t broken away from the sourcing mentality just yet. If and when they do, that will be downright scary. Imagine thousands of Chinese factory owners getting the bright idea that they can do better by trying to become the next Dell Computer or Mattel, etc., rather than just sourcing for large MNCs. It can happen. It’ll take time (and frankly, culture/society is a big part of it), but give some time and watch what happens.

I also don’t think its an issue of consumers being wary of Chinese safety issues. While that exists, how many people are actually affected by this? Not many. Like it or not, Made in China is here to stay. And people know that. I really don’t think its that big of a deal. (except for when the rather annoying media outlets keep saying things like “ Chinese drywall” when plenty of the stuff made in China is just fine) Unless consumers can afford to be wary (most can’t, especially in this economy), its just rhetoric and fire drills.

I like Dan’s last point a lot. Case in point: Lenovo. Who in their right mind would discontinue use of a global trademark license for what was considered the premier business/corporate laptop brand? But somehow, Lenovo opted to move away from IBM Thinkpad to Lenovo Thinkpad early. This got enough coverage, so I won’t beat a dead horse, but I think this is dead on. No one values branding, marketing, and trademarking enough there… yet. And again, it’ll take time. But it’s only a matter of time before some companies figure it out. It’s funny because trademarking is one of the simplest things and yet, companies don’t think about it because of the “expense” which isn’t much of an expense if you do the math. Seriously. It’s just not worth it… yet. But they’ll get it sooner or later I think. At least, I hope they do–blogging about their economy won’t be fun if they don’t get it sooner or later.

]]> http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/11/lack-of-brand-innovation-in-china/feed/ 1 http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/11/happy-thanksgiving/ http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/11/happy-thanksgiving/#comments Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:47:14 +0000 Thomas Chow http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/?p=430 I just wanted to wish all of you a Happy Thanksgiving 2009! I can’t believe that the time has flown by already and that the holiday season is already upon us in the U.S. I look forward to 2010, hopefully with more active posting and interesting tidbits about China, business, law, and non-profits/NGOs. Thank you to my readers who follow this blog, even in my more inactive times (due to Baby China Esquire being a fun handful), and for those of you who also picked up on my twitter feed. I post regularly to twitter, so that’s probably a good place to follow me as well!

]]> http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/11/happy-thanksgiving/feed/ 0 http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/10/weil-gotshal-even-more-active-in-hong-kong/ http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/10/weil-gotshal-even-more-active-in-hong-kong/#comments Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:17:18 +0000 Thomas Chow http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/?p=427 Just saw this article in Legal Week about Weil Gotshal poaching 2 corporate partners in Hong Kong. Seems like the perfect time to pick up some more partner level attorneys: when the economy is down, but supposedly getting better. Article after the jump.

Weil Gotshal & Manges has boosted its Asia practice with a double hire from Simmons & Simmons in Hong Kong.

Henry Ong has joined Weil’s Hong Kong office as a partner along with Jasson Han, who joins as a partner-level senior consultant, the same title he held at Simmons.

Ong’s practice focuses on M&A and technology, media and telecoms, while Han specialises in energy-related work.

In addition to joining Weil’s corporate department, Ong will also set up his own local law firm, Henry Ong & Co, which will operate in association with Weil, as firms must practise for three years in Hong Kong before being allowed to practice local law. Weil launched in Hong Kong in 2007.

Of course, this probably doesn’t bode well for Simmons & Simmons:

Simmons recalled two City partners from its Hong Kong office earlier this year, while the firm also laid off three corporate associates in the office in March.

Are things really picking up that much? (Folks in Hong Kong, please speak up in the comments) If you read Above the Law’s sponsored section, you would think the market is booming, but that hasn’t been my impression from people I’ve spoken with. Which explains why no associates were poached or taken from Simmons. (and that Simmons doesn’t even appear able to feed all of its associates) Sounds like firms like Weil are trying to prepare themselves for the upturn by grabbing partners they want. Anyone disagree?

]]> http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/10/weil-gotshal-even-more-active-in-hong-kong/feed/ 2 http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/10/give2asia-philippines-disaster-assistance-call-transcript/ http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/10/give2asia-philippines-disaster-assistance-call-transcript/#comments Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:16:24 +0000 Thomas Chow http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/?p=423 For all of you who weren’t able to attend the Give2Asia call about disaster response in the Philippines earlier this week, Give2Asia actually released a transcript of the conference call that I thought might be of interest. You can download a copy of it here. Enjoy!

]]> http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/10/give2asia-philippines-disaster-assistance-call-transcript/feed/ 0 http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/10/updated-twitter-feed-username/ http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/10/updated-twitter-feed-username/#comments Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:26:16 +0000 Thomas Chow http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/?p=417 Some quick updates for everyone. First, I decided to update my twitter account username. Chinaesq is shorter, but since my China Blog is China Esquire, I decided to go with the full name. Please let me know if you think its a bummer idea.

http://twitter.com/ChinaEsq

Please update accordingly.  Hopefully those following will get it updated automatically.  Second, I will be using twitter a lot more actively since I can still give my thoughts on a wider variety of matters than putting full posts together.  So if you follow the blog, I encourage you to follow the twitter too!

UPDATE: I am changing back to chinaesq based on initial feedback. Good call, Dan.

]]> http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/10/updated-twitter-feed-username/feed/ 3 http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/10/philippines-disaster-recovery-call-1019/ http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/10/philippines-disaster-recovery-call-1019/#comments Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:00:30 +0000 Thomas Chow http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/?p=415 Was invited by Give2Asia to share this information with my readers:  Give2Asia is hosting a teleconference to brief donors, advisors and friends about relief and recovery needs and effective philanthropic strategies in response to the disaster in the Philippines on Monday, October 19, 2009 at 8:30 am PST/11:30 am EST.  More details after the jump.

The call will be moderated by Mr. Joe Lumarda, Trustee of Give2Asia and SVP, Capital Group Companies.

Based in Manila, Dr. Steven Rood, Philippines Country Representative at The Asia Foundation, is monitoring first hand the destruction caused by Typhoon Ketsana, and the heavy rains brought by Typhoon Parma.  He will describe the destruction, immediate responses, on-going needs and what it will take to rebuild the lives of those affected by the disaster.

Ms.Gillian Yeoh, Program Officer at Give2Asia will reflect on lessons learned from past disasters in Asia.  She will also share how our partners on-the-ground are responding to the relief and recovery work.

Call details:
US callers: 1-800-920-7487
International callers: 1-404-920-1710
Participant code 16764888#

RSVPs to kuyenco@give2asia.org are encouraged but not required.  For friends unable to join the call, information on how to access a free recording will be available on Wednesday, on our website at www.give2asia.org.

Somber, serious topic, but this should worth joining.

]]> http://www.chinalawandbusiness.com/2009/10/philippines-disaster-recovery-call-1019/feed/ 0