Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 251287 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
AEMR ASEC AMGT AE AS AMED AVIAN AU AF AORC AGENDA AO AR AM APER AFIN ATRN AJ ABUD ARABL AL AG AODE ALOW ADANA AADP AND APECO ACABQ ASEAN AA AFFAIRS AID AGR AY AGS AFSI AGOA AMB ARF ANET ASCH ACOA AFLU AFSN AMEX AFDB ABLD AESC AFGHANISTAN AINF AVIATION ARR ARSO ANDREW ASSEMBLY AIDS APRC ASSK ADCO ASIG AC AZ APEC AFINM ADB AP ACOTA ASEX ACKM ASUP ANTITERRORISM ADPM AINR ARABLEAGUE AGAO AORG AMTC AIN ACCOUNT ASECAFINGMGRIZOREPTU AIDAC AINT ARCH AMGTKSUP ALAMI AMCHAMS ALJAZEERA AVIANFLU AORD AOREC ALIREZA AOMS AMGMT ABDALLAH AORCAE AHMED ACCELERATED AUC ALZUGUREN ANGEL AORL ASECIR AMG AMBASSADOR AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL ADM ASES ABMC AER AMER ASE AMGTHA ARNOLDFREDERICK AOPC ACS AFL AEGR ASED AFPREL AGRI AMCHAM ARNOLD AN ANATO AME APERTH ASECSI AT ACDA ASEDC AIT AMERICA AMLB AMGE ACTION AGMT AFINIZ ASECVE ADRC ABER AGIT APCS AEMED ARABBL ARC ASO AIAG ACEC ASR ASECM ARG AEC ABT ADIP ADCP ANARCHISTS AORCUN AOWC ASJA AALC AX AROC ARM AGENCIES ALBE AK AZE AOPR AREP AMIA ASCE ALANAZI ABDULRAHMEN ABDULHADI AINFCY ARMS ASECEFINKCRMKPAOPTERKHLSAEMRNS AGRICULTURE AFPK AOCR ALEXANDER ATRD ATFN ABLG AORCD AFGHAN ARAS AORCYM AVERY ALVAREZ ACBAQ ALOWAR ANTOINE ABLDG ALAB AMERICAS AFAF ASECAFIN ASEK ASCC AMCT AMGTATK AMT APDC AEMRS ASECE AFSA ATRA ARTICLE ARENA AISG AEMRBC AFR AEIR ASECAF AFARI AMPR ASPA ASOC ANTONIO AORCL ASECARP APRM AUSTRALIAGROUP ASEG AFOR AEAID AMEDI ASECTH ASIC AFDIN AGUIRRE AUNR ASFC AOIC ANTXON ASA ASECCASC ALI AORCEUNPREFPRELSMIGBN ASECKHLS ASSSEMBLY ASECVZ AI ASECPGOV ASIR ASCEC ASAC ARAB AIEA ADMIRAL AUSGR AQ AMTG ARRMZY ANC APR AMAT AIHRC AFU ADEL AECL ACAO AMEMR ADEP AV AW AOR ALL ALOUNI AORCUNGA ALNEA ASC AORCO ARMITAGE AGENGA AGRIC AEM ACOAAMGT AGUILAR AFPHUM AMEDCASCKFLO AFZAL AAA ATPDEA ASECPHUM ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
ETRD ETTC EU ECON EFIN EAGR EAID ELAB EINV ENIV ENRG EPET EZ ELTN ELECTIONS ECPS ET ER EG EUN EIND ECONOMICS EMIN ECIN EINT EWWT EAIR EN ENGR ES EI ETMIN EL EPA EARG EFIS ECONOMY EC EK ELAM ECONOMIC EAR ESDP ECCP ELN EUM EUMEM ECA EAP ELEC ECOWAS EFTA EXIM ETTD EDRC ECOSOC ECPSN ENVIRONMENT ECO EMAIL ECTRD EREL EDU ENERG ENERGY ENVR ETRAD EAC EXTERNAL EFIC ECIP ERTD EUC ENRGMO EINZ ESTH ECCT EAGER ECPN ELNT ERD EGEN ETRN EIVN ETDR EXEC EIAD EIAR EVN EPRT ETTF ENGY EAIDCIN EXPORT ETRC ESA EIB EAPC EPIT ESOCI ETRB EINDQTRD ENRC EGOV ECLAC EUR ELF ETEL ENRGUA EVIN EARI ESCAP EID ERIN ELAN ENVT EDEV EWWY EXBS ECOM EV ELNTECON ECE ETRDGK EPETEIND ESCI ETRDAORC EAIDETRD ETTR EMS EAGRECONEINVPGOVBN EBRD EUREM ERGR EAGRBN EAUD EFI ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ETRO ENRGY EGAR ESSO EGAD ENV ENER EAIDXMXAXBXFFR ELA EET EINVETRD EETC EIDN ERGY ETRDPGOV EING EMINCG EINVECON EURM EEC EICN EINO EPSC ELAP ELABPGOVBN EE ESPS ETRA ECONETRDBESPAR ERICKSON EEOC EVENTS EPIN EB ECUN EPWR ENG EX EH EAIDAR EAIS ELBA EPETUN ETRDEIQ EENV ECPC ETRP ECONENRG EUEAID EWT EEB EAIDNI ESENV EADM ECN ENRGKNNP ETAD ETR ECONETRDEAGRJA ETRG ETER EDUC EITC EBUD EAIF EBEXP EAIDS EITI EGOVSY EFQ ECOQKPKO ETRGY ESF EUE EAIC EPGOV ENFR EAGRE ENRD EINTECPS EAVI ETC ETCC EIAID EAIDAF EAGREAIDPGOVPRELBN EAOD ETRDA EURN EASS EINVA EAIDRW EON ECOR EPREL EGPHUM ELTM ECOS EINN ENNP EUPGOV EAGRTR ECONCS ETIO ETRDGR EAIDB EISNAR EIFN ESPINOSA EAIDASEC ELIN EWTR EMED ETFN ETT EADI EPTER ELDIN EINVEFIN ESS ENRGIZ EQRD ESOC ETRDECD ECINECONCS EAIT ECONEAIR ECONEFIN EUNJ ENRGKNNPMNUCPARMPRELNPTIAEAJMXL ELAD EFIM ETIC EFND EFN ETLN ENGRD EWRG ETA EIN EAIRECONRP EXIMOPIC ERA ENRGJM ECONEGE ENVI ECHEVARRIA EMINETRD EAD ECONIZ EENG ELBR EWWC ELTD EAIDMG ETRK EIPR EISNLN ETEX EPTED EFINECONCS EPCS EAG ETRDKIPR ED EAIO ETRDEC ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ERNG EFINU EURFOR EWWI ELTNSNAR ETD EAIRASECCASCID EOXC ESTN EAIDAORC EAGRRP ETRDEMIN ELABPHUMSMIGKCRMBN ETRDEINVTINTCS EGHG EAIDPHUMPRELUG EAGRBTIOBEXPETRDBN EDA EPETPGOV ELAINE EUCOM EMW EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM ELB EINDETRD EMI ETRDECONWTOCS EINR ESTRADA EHUM EFNI ELABV ENR EMN EXO EWWTPRELPGOVMASSMARRBN EATO END EP EINVETC ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID ELTRN EIQ ETTW EAI ENGRG ETRED ENDURING ETTRD EAIDEGZ EOCN EINF EUPREL ENRL ECPO ENLT EEFIN EPPD ECOIN EUEAGR EISL EIDE ENRGSD EINVECONSENVCSJA EAIG ENTG EEPET EUNCH EPECO ETZ EPAT EPTE EAIRGM ETRDPREL EUNGRSISAFPKSYLESO ETTN EINVKSCA ESLCO EBMGT ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EFLU ELND EFINOECD EAIDHO EDUARDO ENEG ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EFINTS ECONQH ENRGPREL EUNPHUM EINDIR EPE EMINECINECONSENVTBIONS EFINM ECRM EQ EWWTSP ECONPGOVBN
KFLO KPKO KDEM KFLU KTEX KMDR KPAO KCRM KIDE KN KNNP KG KMCA KZ KJUS KWBG KU KDMR KAWC KCOR KPAL KOMC KTDB KTIA KISL KHIV KHUM KTER KCFE KTFN KS KIRF KTIP KIRC KSCA KICA KIPR KPWR KWMN KE KGIC KGIT KSTC KACT KSEP KFRD KUNR KHLS KCRS KRVC KUWAIT KVPR KSRE KMPI KMRS KNRV KNEI KCIP KSEO KITA KDRG KV KSUM KCUL KPET KBCT KO KSEC KOLY KNAR KGHG KSAF KWNM KNUC KMNP KVIR KPOL KOCI KPIR KLIG KSAC KSTH KNPT KINL KPRP KRIM KICC KIFR KPRV KAWK KFIN KT KVRC KR KHDP KGOV KPOW KTBT KPMI KPOA KRIF KEDEM KFSC KY KGCC KATRINA KWAC KSPR KTBD KBIO KSCI KRCM KNNB KBNC KIMT KCSY KINR KRAD KMFO KCORR KW KDEMSOCI KNEP KFPC KEMPI KBTR KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNPP KTTB KTFIN KBTS KCOM KFTN KMOC KOR KDP KPOP KGHA KSLG KMCR KJUST KUM KMSG KHPD KREC KIPRTRD KPREL KEN KCSA KCRIM KGLB KAKA KWWT KUNP KCRN KISLPINR KLFU KUNC KEDU KCMA KREF KPAS KRKO KNNC KLHS KWAK KOC KAPO KTDD KOGL KLAP KECF KCRCM KNDP KSEAO KCIS KISM KREL KISR KISC KKPO KWCR KPFO KUS KX KWCI KRFD KWPG KTRD KH KLSO KEVIN KEANE KACW KWRF KNAO KETTC KTAO KWIR KVCORR KDEMGT KPLS KICT KWGB KIDS KSCS KIRP KSTCPL KDEN KLAB KFLOA KIND KMIG KPPAO KPRO KLEG KGKG KCUM KTTP KWPA KIIP KPEO KICR KNNA KMGT KCROM KMCC KLPM KNNPGM KSIA KSI KWWW KOMS KESS KMCAJO KWN KTDM KDCM KCM KVPRKHLS KENV KCCP KGCN KCEM KEMR KWMNKDEM KNNPPARM KDRM KWIM KJRE KAID KWMM KPAONZ KUAE KTFR KIF KNAP KPSC KSOCI KCWI KAUST KPIN KCHG KLBO KIRCOEXC KI KIRCHOFF KSTT KNPR KDRL KCFC KLTN KPAOKMDRKE KPALAOIS KESO KKOR KSMT KFTFN KTFM KDEMK KPKP KOCM KNN KISLSCUL KFRDSOCIRO KINT KRG KWMNSMIG KSTCC KPAOY KFOR KWPR KSEPCVIS KGIV KSEI KIL KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KQ KEMS KHSL KTNF KPDD KANSOU KKIV KFCE KTTC KGH KNNNP KK KSCT KWNN KAWX KOMCSG KEIM KTSD KFIU KDTB KFGM KACP KWWMN KWAWC KSPA KGICKS KNUP KNNO KISLAO KTPN KSTS KPRM KPALPREL KPO KTLA KCRP KNMP KAWCK KCERS KDUM KEDM KTIALG KWUN KPTS KPEM KMEPI KAWL KHMN KCRO KCMR KPTD KCROR KMPT KTRF KSKN KMAC KUK KIRL KEM KSOC KBTC KOM KINP KDEMAF KTNBT KISK KRM KWBW KBWG KNNPMNUC KNOP KSUP KCOG KNET KWBC KESP KMRD KEBG KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KPWG KOMCCO KRGY KNNF KPROG KJAN KFRED KPOKO KM KWMNCS KMPF KJWC KJU KSMIG KALR KRAL KDGOV KPA KCRMJA KCRI KAYLA KPGOV KRD KNNPCH KFEM KPRD KFAM KALM KIPRETRDKCRM KMPP KADM KRFR KMWN KWRG KTIAPARM KTIAEUN KRDP KLIP KDDEM KTIAIC KWKN KPAD KDM KRCS KWBGSY KEAI KIVP KPAOPREL KUNH KTSC KIPT KNP KJUSTH KGOR KEPREL KHSA KGHGHIV KNNR KOMH KRCIM KWPB KWIC KINF KPER KILS KA KNRG KCSI KFRP KLFLO KFE KNPPIS KQM KQRDQ KERG KPAOPHUM KSUMPHUM KVBL KARIM KOSOVO KNSD KUIR KWHG KWBGXF KWMNU KPBT KKNP KERF KCRT KVIS KWRC KVIP KTFS KMARR KDGR KPAI KDE KTCRE KMPIO KUNRAORC KHOURY KAWS KPAK KOEM KCGC KID KVRP KCPS KIVR KBDS KWOMN KIIC KTFNJA KARZAI KMVP KHJUS KPKOUNSC KMAR KIBL KUNA KSA KIS KJUSAF KDEV KPMO KHIB KIRD KOUYATE KIPRZ KBEM KPAM KDET KPPD KOSCE KJUSKUNR KICCPUR KRMS KWMNPREL KWMJN KREISLER KWM KDHS KRV KPOV KWMNCI KMPL KFLD KWWN KCVM KIMMITT KCASC KOMO KNATO KDDG KHGH KRF KSCAECON KWMEN KRIC
PREL PINR PGOV PHUM PTER PE PREF PARM PBTS PINS PHSA PK PL PM PNAT PHAS PO PROP PGOVE PA PU POLITICAL PPTER POL PALESTINIAN PHUN PIN PAMQ PPA PSEC POLM PBIO PSOE PDEM PAK PF PKAO PGOVPRELMARRMOPS PMIL PV POLITICS PRELS POLICY PRELHA PIRN PINT PGOG PERSONS PRC PEACE PROCESS PRELPGOV PROV PFOV PKK PRE PT PIRF PSI PRL PRELAF PROG PARMP PERL PUNE PREFA PP PGOB PUM PROTECTION PARTIES PRIL PEL PAGE PS PGO PCUL PLUM PIF PGOVENRGCVISMASSEAIDOPRCEWWTBN PMUC PCOR PAS PB PKO PY PKST PTR PRM POUS PRELIZ PGIC PHUMS PAL PNUC PLO PMOPS PHM PGOVBL PBK PELOSI PTE PGOVAU PNR PINSO PRO PLAB PREM PNIR PSOCI PBS PD PHUML PERURENA PKPA PVOV PMAR PHUMCF PUHM PHUH PRELPGOVETTCIRAE PRT PROPERTY PEPFAR PREI POLUN PAR PINSF PREFL PH PREC PPD PING PQL PINSCE PGV PREO PRELUN POV PGOVPHUM PINRES PRES PGOC PINO POTUS PTERE PRELKPAO PRGOV PETR PGOVEAGRKMCAKNARBN PPKO PARLIAMENT PEPR PMIG PTBS PACE PETER PMDL PVIP PKPO POLMIL PTEL PJUS PHUMNI PRELKPAOIZ PGOVPREL POGV PEREZ POWELL PMASS PDOV PARN PG PPOL PGIV PAIGH PBOV PETROL PGPV PGOVL POSTS PSO PRELEU PRELECON PHUMPINS PGOVKCMABN PQM PRELSP PRGO PATTY PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PGVO PROTESTS PRELPLS PKFK PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PARAGRAPH PRELGOV POG PTRD PTERM PBTSAG PHUMKPAL PRELPK PTERPGOV PAO PRIVATIZATION PSCE PPAO PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PARALYMPIC PRUM PKPRP PETERS PAHO PARMS PGREL PINV POINS PHUMPREL POREL PRELNL PHUMPGOV PGOVQL PLAN PRELL PARP PROVE PSOC PDD PRELNP PRELBR PKMN PGKV PUAS PRELTBIOBA PBTSEWWT PTERIS PGOVU PRELGG PHUMPRELPGOV PFOR PEPGOV PRELUNSC PRAM PICES PTERIZ PREK PRELEAGR PRELEUN PHUME PHU PHUMKCRS PRESL PRTER PGOF PARK PGOVSOCI PTERPREL PGOVEAID PGOVPHUMKPAO PINSKISL PREZ PGOVAF PARMEUN PECON PINL POGOV PGOVLO PIERRE PRELPHUM PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PBST PKPAO PHUMHUPPS PGOVPOL PASS PPGOV PROGV PAGR PHALANAGE PARTY PRELID PGOVID PHUMR PHSAQ PINRAMGT PSA PRELM PRELMU PIA PINRPE PBTSRU PARMIR PEDRO PNUK PVPR PINOCHET PAARM PRFE PRELEIN PINF PCI PSEPC PGOVSU PRLE PDIP PHEM PRELB PORG PGGOC POLG POPDC PGOVPM PWMN PDRG PHUMK PINB PRELAL PRER PFIN PNRG PRED POLI PHUMBO PHYTRP PROLIFERATION PHARM PUOS PRHUM PUNR PENA PGOVREL PETRAEUS PGOVKDEM PGOVENRG PHUS PRESIDENT PTERKU PRELKSUMXABN PGOVSI PHUMQHA PKISL PIR PGOVZI PHUMIZNL PKNP PRELEVU PMIN PHIM PHUMBA PUBLIC PHAM PRELKPKO PMR PARTM PPREL PN PROL PDA PGOVECON PKBL PKEAID PERM PRELEZ PRELC PER PHJM PGOVPRELPINRBN PRFL PLN PWBG PNG PHUMA PGOR PHUMPTER POLINT PPEF PKPAL PNNL PMARR PAC PTIA PKDEM PAUL PREG PTERR PTERPRELPARMPGOVPBTSETTCEAIRELTNTC PRELJA POLS PI PNS PAREL PENV PTEROREP PGOVM PINER PBGT PHSAUNSC PTERDJ PRELEAID PARMIN PKIR PLEC PCRM PNET PARR PRELETRD PRELBN PINRTH PREJ PEACEKEEPINGFORCES PEMEX PRELZ PFLP PBPTS PTGOV PREVAL PRELSW PAUM PRF PHUMKDEM PATRICK PGOVKMCAPHUMBN PRELA PNUM PGGV PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PBT PIND PTEP PTERKS PGOVJM PGOT PRELMARR PGOVCU PREV PREFF PRWL PET PROB PRELPHUMP PHUMAF PVTS PRELAFDB PSNR PGOVECONPRELBU PGOVZL PREP PHUMPRELBN PHSAPREL PARCA PGREV PGOVDO PGON PCON PODC PRELOV PHSAK PSHA PGOVGM PRELP POSCE PGOVPTER PHUMRU PINRHU PARMR PGOVTI PPEL PMAT PAN PANAM PGOVBO PRELHRC

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 05TAIPEI495, IPR LITIGATION IN TAIWAN: CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05TAIPEI495.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
05TAIPEI495 2005-02-04 06:22 2011-08-30 01:44 UNCLASSIFIED American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 TAIPEI 000495 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/RSP/TC, EB/TPP/MTA/IPC, PLEASE PASS FOR 
AIT/W, USTR 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: TW IPR
SUBJECT: IPR LITIGATION IN TAIWAN: CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS 
AREAS FOR CHANGE 
 
1.  (U) Summary: A three-day seminar for Judicial Yuan 
employees sponsored by the AIT Public Affairs Section brought 
a U.S. District Court Judge, U.S Department of Justice 
Prosecutor, and an experienced U.S. legal advisor to discuss 
U.S. practice in intellectual property cases and offer advice 
on ways to improve Taiwan's legal protection of IPR. 
Comments and questions by participating members of the Taiwan 
judiciary illuminated the differences between Taiwan's 
resolution of IPR disputes through criminal courts, and 
resolution of IPR cases through the civil justice system in 
the U.S.  Panelists emphasized the need for efficient and 
fair consideration of cases to provide the best possible 
protection for IPR.  The discussions highlighted the need for 
Taiwan's planned IPR Court to handle administrative, civil, 
and criminal cases if it is to serve as an effective legal 
venue for the protection of intellectual property rights. 
End summary. 
 
2.  (U) AIT's Public Affairs section hosted over 100 judges, 
attorneys, prosecutors, and legal scholars for a conference 
on U.S. IPR enforcement, litigation, and case management at 
the Judicial Yuan's Institute for Judicial Professionals 
January 26-28 2005.  Speakers included Steven Mayo, Director 
of the Institute for Study and Development of Legal Systems 
(ISDLS), Judge Jeremy Fogel, U.S. District Court, Northern 
California, and Chris Sonderby, Director of the Computer 
Hacking and IP (CHIP) Unit, U.S. Department of Justice, San 
Jose.  The purpose of the conference was to demonstrate how 
U.S. experts deal with IPR cases and offer suggestions for 
reform to Taiwan's judiciary as it aims to improve its 
ability to handle IPR disputes. Topics addressed include 
elements of successful civil and criminal IPR enforcement, 
strategies for reducing case loads through effective 
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) while still providing 
strong protection for IPR, and techniques for shortening the 
length of time required to resolve an IPR dispute through 
effective case management. 
 
Defining successful IPR enforcement 
----------------------------------- 
 
3.  (U) Judge Fogel opened the conference with an overview of 
the U.S. approach to resolving IPR cases, pointing out that 
IPR cases are usually handled in civil courts, rather than 
criminal courts as in Taiwan.  Fogel identified the key 
elements of successful civil enforcement of IPR, including 
quick access to the courts, provisional remedies including 
civil injunctions, an educated judiciary, technical 
expertise, enforcement of judgments, a quick appeals process, 
efficient case management, and an appropriate discovery 
process.  He further explained that effective criminal 
prosecution requires technical training for prosecutors and 
judges, appropriate and consistent penalties, pre-trial case 
management, and victim assistance.  Fogel stressed that 
whether applying a civil or criminal approach, the goal 
should be effective and timely resolution of cases, and 
enforcement of judgments.  To achieve these goals, Fogel 
argued that courts must devote their capital and human 
resources to the IPR cases that pose the greatest threats to 
the economy and/or public welfare, while resolving smaller 
disputes through alternative mechanisms. 
 
4.  (U) Prosecutor Chris Sonderby cited examples from the San 
Jose CHIP Unit to illustrate ways in which the local high 
tech industry, judges, prosecutors, victims, and 
investigators cooperate to reduce the time needed to bring 
IPR and computer hacking cases to resolution.  Sonderby 
explained that the CHIP unit works closely with Silicon 
Valley companies, meeting regularly to discuss recent IPR and 
computer related criminal activity.  These discussions have 
facilitated an understanding with the private sector of the 
types of cases the CHIP unit is able to prosecute.  Sonderby 
stated that CHIP Unit prosecutors also improve efficiency by 
collaborating with investigators and victims early in the 
investigation process to anticipate evidentiary problems and 
build better cases.  He echoed Fogel's views, explaining that 
CHIP prosecutors devote their time to prosecuting the most 
egregious IP and computer crimes.  Sonderby explained that in 
the U.S. by bringing only major crimes to trial, judges' time 
is spent on cases that will result in more severe sentences 
and greater media attention. Such cases, he explained, are 
likely to serve as examples to society and have a greater 
deterrent effect on IPR and computer crime.  He stated that 
in the long run, "it is not the amount of prosecution, but 
the rate of successful prosecution" that will have the 
greatest impact on society.  In contrast to the Taiwan 
system, where virtually every IP related case is brought in 
the criminal court, less egregious cases in the U.S. are 
typically brought as civil suits and most often settled 
before they reach a hearing. 
 
 
Participant reactions 
---------------------- 
 
5.  (U) Participants in the conference ranged from recently 
appointed judges to senior members of Taiwan's judiciary. 
Their questions focused heavily on procedural issues. 
Several judges inquired about tutorials and training held for 
judges handling cases that involve unfamiliar technology. 
Others asked about how the courts attract good mediators and 
neutral evaluators to handle Alternative Dispute Resolution 
(ADR).  Additional questions addressed concerns about 
enforcement of civil settlements, the civil appeals process, 
differences between state and federal procedures, and the 
standards for determining which IPR cases will be prosecuted. 
 
 
6.  (U) When asked by the ISDLS team about Taiwan's rationale 
for handling IPR cases through the criminal justice system, 
participants shared a variety of opinions.  One judge 
commented that in Taiwan, IPR cases are best resolved through 
criminal prosecution for two reasons. First, he stated that 
it is the most effective way for judges to collect the 
evidence needed to resolve the case.  In the absence of 
criminal charges, he explained, it is much more difficult to 
collect the evidence required to present a strong case. 
Second, he argued that there is no incentive for prosecutors 
to reduce case loads for judges.  Another senior judge agreed 
that prosecutors need to focus their efforts on major IPR 
infringements, expending less effort on smaller cases. 
 
7.  (U) On the other hand, the same judge also noted that by 
resolving IPR violations through the criminal, rather than 
civil, system, Taiwan is demonstrating the seriousness of its 
commitment to IPR enforcement.  In fact, by trying these 
cases in the criminal system, he argued, Taiwan has an even 
stronger enforcement regime than that of the U.S.  He stated 
that Taiwan is very concerned about its Special 301 status 
and argued that by prosecuting all IPR violators in criminal 
courts, Taiwan has shown that it will not tolerate IPR 
infringement. The judge further explained that a decision by 
the Judicial Yuan to handle IPR cases through the civil 
justice system or ADR may be unpopular in Taiwan, and worse 
yet, it could have a negative effect on foreign perception of 
Taiwan's IPR environment.  A senior prosecutor agreed, noting 
that the U.S. would likely reconsider its recent decision to 
remove Taiwan from the Special 301 Priority Watch List if 
fewer cases were being tried in the criminal courts. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
8.  (U) Over the past two years, Taiwan has markedly improved 
its ability to protect IPR.  Additional enforcement task 
forces and tougher laws have allowed Taiwan to slip off 
USTR's Special 301 Priority Watch List.  However, the 
judicial process remains a weakness in Taiwan's IPR 
protection system.  The lack of credible civil or 
administrative proceedings means that virtually every case 
goes through the criminal courts.  Judges and prosecutors 
must devote limited time and resources to trying cases that 
would be fairly settled through alternative means in the U.S. 
 Although Taiwan judges argue that handling IPR cases through 
criminal courts demonstrates Taiwan's commitment to IPR 
protection, the current approach ensures neither timely 
resolution of cases nor effective enforcement of judgments. 
The large number of criminal IPR cases, many of which involve 
relatively small levels of infringement, place a tremendous 
burden on an already overworked judiciary and do nothing to 
compensate rightsholders.  Despite newly adopted minimum 
sentencing requirements, Taiwan's criminal sentences for 
minor IPR infringements are a questionable deterrent. 
Companies that have lost revenue or whose reputations have 
been damaged due to IPR infringements, must subsequently file 
an expensive civil suit in order to receive damages 
compensation. In these types of cases, the civil suit is 
usually resolved only months or years after the initial 
criminal judgment, and in many cases, the civil judgment is 
not properly enforced.  Such inefficacies have reduced the 
international business community's confidence in the civil 
courts' ability to successfully enforce IPR in Taiwan. 
 
9.  (U) Taiwan's Judicial Yuan is currently developing plans 
to establish a special IP court.  This presents a unique 
opportunity for Taiwan to develop a more effective framework 
for IPR enforcement.  The appointment of judges with 
appropriate training in IPR law and current technology will 
lend credibility to the court's decisions.  Judges with 
experience in IPR will be better equipped to resolve cases in 
an efficient and fair manner.  Such benefits will not be 
realized, however, unless Taiwan adopts measures to allow 
some smaller IPR cases to be fairly handled outside the 
courtroom.  Taiwan legal experts are currently debating 
whether this new court will hear just administrative and 
civil cases, or whether criminal IPR cases will also be 
decided by the court.  To be effective in the Taiwan legal 
environment, an IP court must be capable of handling all 
three types of cases with minimal delays between criminal and 
civil trials.  Combining all types of cases in one court 
could improve the administration and enforcement of 
non-criminal judgments and might lead to credible 
alternatives for plaintiffs who are now forced to seek 
redress in the criminal courts.  In addition, Taiwan's IP 
court must be prepared to allocate sufficient judicial 
resources to the cases that have the greatest impact on 
Taiwan's larger IP environment.  The potential for mediation, 
arbitration, pre-trial conferences and other forms of ADR to 
improve Taiwan's ability to mete out punishment to smaller 
violators should not be dismissed.  AIT plans to play a role 
in facilitating training for Taiwan's judiciary as plans for 
the IP court become more concrete.  Participants in this 
conference appeared eager to part with the burden of criminal 
trials for minor IPR infringements.  Whether prosecutors and 
members of the IT industry are willing to accept this new 
approach remains to be seen. 
PAAL