武汉市土地储备管理办法

作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-03 14:16:11   浏览:9161   来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载

武汉市土地储备管理办法

湖北省武汉市土地行政主管部门


武汉市土地储备管理办法


第一章 总则
第一条 为盘活存量土地资产,加强政府对城市土地供应的宏观调控,优化土地资源配置,合理利用土地,根据《中华人民共和国土地管理法》、《中华人民共和国城市房地产管理法》等法律、法规规定、结合本市实际、制定本办法。
第二条 本市行政区域范围内的土地储备管理,适用本办法。
第三条 本办法所称土地储备,是指土地储备机构依照本办法的规定,将其以收购方式取得的土地和政府依法收回、征用的土地纳入政府土地储备库予以储存,并进行前期开发整理,合理配置土地资源的行为。
第四条 土地储备应当根据国民经济和社会发展中长期计划、土地利用总体规划、城市总体规划、年度土地供应计划和土地市场供需状况,统一规划、统一储备整理、统一供应。
第五条 市人民政府设立市土地资产经营管理委员会,负责统筹、协调、决定土地储备供应中的重大事项。
市土地行政主管部门负责对全市土地储备工作监督管理。
市计划、经济、建设、财政、物价、规划、房产等部门应按照各自职责,做好土地储备的相关工作。
第六条 市土地整理储备供应中心具体承担江岸、江汉、硚口、汉阳、武昌、青山、洪山区范围内土地储备供应的日常工作。
东西湖、汉南、蔡甸、江夏、黄陂、新洲区以及武汉经济技术开发区、武汉东湖新技术开发区土地储备机构,具体承担本辖区土地储备供应的日常工作,并接受市土地整理储备供应中心的业务指导和监督。

第二章 土地储备
第七条 市土地行政主管部门应根据国民经济和社会发展中长期计划、土地利用总体规划、城市总体规划、年度土地供应计划和土地市场供需状况,制定土地储备计划,报市土地资产经营管理委员会批准后纳入国民经济和社会发展年度计划,由市土地整理储备供应中心具体组织实施。
(一)为社会公共利益需要由政府依法收回的土地;
(二)土地出让等有偿使用合同约定的使用期限届满,土地使用者在规定的时间内未申请续期或者申请续期未获批准被依法收回的国有土地;
(三)依法收回的荒芜、闲置的土地;
(四)依法没收的土地;
(五)改变原批准用途用于商业、旅游、娱乐、商品住宅等各类经营性项目的土地;
(六)因单位搬迁、解散、撤销、破产、产业结构调整或者其他原因调整出的原划拨国有土地;
(七)以出让方式取得土地使用权后无力继续开发、又不具备转让条件由土地使用者申请交回政府的土地;
(八)因实施城市规划需要由政府指令收购的土地;
(九)依法征用用于商业、旅游、娱乐、商品住宅等各类经营性项目的新增建设用地;
(十)转让价格明显低于市场价格,政府行使优先购买权收购的土地;
(十一)无主土地;
(十二)其他需要进行储备的国有土地。
第九条 土地储备实行预报制度。凡符合本办法规定储备条件的国有土地,用地单位或其主管部门应提前向土地储备机构申报。
第十条 属本办法第八条规定的土地,政府依法收回、收购和征用后,由土地储备机构按照国家、本市有关法律、法规、规章和本办法的规定,对土地使用进行补偿并办理有关手续后,予以储备。
第十一条 土地收购补偿按以下方式确定:
(一)以出让方式取得的土地,根据土地剩余使用年限和土地使用者对土地的实际投入给予适当补偿;
(二)涉及城市房屋拆迁的,依据有关城市房屋拆迁法规、规章的规定给予补偿;
(三)政府行使优先购买权购买的土地,按照土地转让申报价格给予补偿。
第十二条 土地储备机构收购土地,按下列程序办理:
(一)申请收购:符合收购条件的国有土地,由土地使用权人向土地储备机构申请收购;
(二)权属核查:土地储备机构对申请人提供的土地的有情况进行实地调查和核实。
(三)确定规划条件:由规划行政主管部门根据批准的城市规划方案,提出储备地块的具体规划使用条件;
(四)方案报批:土地储备机构根据土地权属情况和规划使用条件,提出土地收购方案报土地行政主管部门审批。其中,涉及重大储备项目资金投入的,还须报市土地资产经营管理委员会讨论决定;
(五)签订协议:收购方案经批准后,由土地储备机构与原土地使用权人签订国有土地使用权收购协议;
(六)收购协议:土地储备机构根据国有土地使用权收购协议约定的金额、期限和方式,向原土地使用权人支付土地收购补偿费用。实行土地置换的,进行差价结算;
(七)权属变更:土地储备机构和原土地使用权人按规定办理土地、房产权属变更或注销手续,原土地使用权人向土地储备机构交付土地和地上建(构)筑物。

第三章 储备土地前期开发整理与利用
第十三条 土地储备机构应当按照城市规划要求,对储备的土地进行前期开发整理,达到通水、通电、通路和场地平整等市政配套条件。
第十四条 储备土地开发整理涉及城市房屋拆迁的,土地储备机构应当负责拆迁,或者委托有拆迁资质的单位实施拆迁;成片开发需要拆迁的,也可由所在区人民政府组织拆迁。
第十五条 储备土地出让前,土地储备机构可以依法将储备土地使用权单独或连同地上建(构)筑物出租、抵押、临时改变用途等方式加以利用。
储备土地出租、抵押或临时改变用途,土地储备机构应依法到有关部门办理相关审批或登记手续。

第四章 储备土地供应
第十六条 储备土地供应实行年度计划管理,纳入当年国民经济和社会发展计划。土地行政管理部门应当根据年度土地供应计划、土地储备计划和土地市场需求情况、制定储备土地供应计划。储备土地的供应应严格按照计划执行。
第十七条 储备土地供应必须坚持公开、公平、公正的原则,任何单位和个人不得干预。
第十八条 土地储备机构应当将土地供应信息以公告方式公布。公布内容包括拟供应土地位置、面积、用途、土地使用条件等。
第十九条 用于商业、旅游、娱乐、商品住宅等各类经营性项目的土地,应当依法采取拍卖、招标、挂牌方式进行出让。
严格限制协议方式出让土地。因城市重大引资、投资确需以协议方式供应土地的,必须在地价评估基础上,经市土地资产经营管理委员会集体研究批准,并将协议结果予以公布。
第二十条 储备土地的供应,按下列程序办理:
(一)土地储备机构根据年度土地供应计划,确定拟供应土地地块;
(二)土地储备机构拟订储备土地供应方案,经土地行政主管部门审核后,报市土地资产经营管理委员会批准;
(三)根据已批准的土地供应方案,土地储备机构公开发布土地供应信息;
(四)依法采取拍卖、招标、挂牌或协议方式确定土地受让人;
(五)土地行政管部门与土地受让人签订国有土地使用权出让合同,土地受让人缴纳土地出让金,土地储备机构供应土地;
(六)土地受让人向土地行政主管部门申请办理土地登记发证等手续。
第二十一条 经批准以划拨方式使用储备土地的,用地单位须与土地储备机构签订储备土地开发补偿协议,按规定支付开发补偿费,凭缴费凭证向土地行政主管部门申领建设用地划拨决定书,并办理土地登记等手续。

第五章 土地储备资金
第二十二条 市、区人民政府建立土地储备专项资金。土地储备专项资金来源包括政府财政投入、土地收益和银行贷款等。
土地储备专项资金用于土地储备、开发整理、不得挪作他用。
第二十三条 土地出让收益(含开发补偿费)的收取办法,由市财政部门会同市土地部门拟订,按照审批权限报批后执行。

第六章 法律责任
第二十四条 按照本办法第八条规定应当纳入储备的土地,土地使用权人未申请进行土地储备而擅自转让土地使用权及其地上建(构)筑物的,有关部门不得为其办理相关审批和登记手续。
第二十五条 土地储备机构未按协议规定支付土地收购补偿费的,原土地使用权人有权解除改购协议,并按协议约定有追究原土地使用权人的违约责任。
第二十六条 原土地使用权人未按本办法规定交付土地及地上建(构)筑物的,或者在交付土地的同时,擅自处理其地上建(构)筑物的,土地储备机构有权要求原土地使用权人改正,并按协议约定追究原土地使用权人的违约责任。
第二十七条 用地单位在国有土地使用权出让合同签订后,未按本办法规定缴纳土地出让金,土地行政主管部门有权解除国有土地使用权出让合同,已交付的出让金不予返还。
第二十八条 有关当事人因土地收回、收购、储备发生纠纷的,可依法向仲裁机构申请仲裁或者向人民法院提起诉讼。
第二十九条 政府有关部门和土地储备机构工作人员玩忽职守、滥用职权,给国家、集体造成重大损失和利用职务上的便利,索取或非法收受他人财物,由所在单位或监察部门依法给予相应的行政处分;构成犯罪的,依法追究刑事责任。

第七章 附则
第三十条 本办法中的具体应用问题由市土地行政主管部门负责解释。
第三十一条 本办法自2002年7月10日起施行。


下载地址: 点击此处下载
执行处分的既判力现实性考察
----执行异议驳回后不具有另行起诉的权力

【问题的提出】
陕西省高级人民法院(1999)陕经—初字第27号民事判决发生法律效力后,申请人市第三建筑工程公司依法申请执行。2000年7月29日省高级人民法院向被执行人侨安公司发出了(2000)陕执经字第21号执行通知书,责令其限期履行义务。由于被执行人未履行义务,陕西省高级人民法院遂对在诉讼和执行阶段查封的被执行人所有的“民乐大厦”进行评估,并委托拍卖机构于2001年10月15日对其进行了公开拍卖,竞买人裕华公司以最高价竞买成交。在执行中案外人省电力公司等以所查封的“民乐大厦”系其定向投资、与侨安公司合作建设,“民乐大厦”相应部分产权归其所有,法院无权全部查封和拍卖为由提出执行异议。陕西省高级人民法院驳回了案外人省电力公司等的执行异议,并于2002年1月14日以(2000)陕执经字第21-6号民事裁定依法将“民乐大厦”过户于买受人裕华公司名下。
案外人省电力公司在陕西省高级人民法院驳回了执行异议后遂以执行异议原理由向陕西省高级人民法院提起诉讼,要求确认其定向投资的“民乐大厦”相应部分房产归其所有。陕西省高级人民法院于2002年4月23日以(2001)陕民初字第3号民事判决确认“民乐大厦”相应部分归省电力公司所有。
省电力公司以同—理由在被驳回异议后另行起诉,标的物“民乐大厦”先后两次被陕西省高级人民法院裁决给两个当事人。竞买人裕华公司因支付了7500万元得不到“民乐大厦”而奔走,合作人省电力公司因投资了7800万元而呼号。究竟问题出在何处?
《民事诉讼法》第208条规定,“在执行过程中,案外人对执行标的提出异议的,执行员应当按照法定程序进行审查”。最高人民法院《关于人民法院执行工作的若干规定》第49条的规定,“经审查认为案外人的异议理由不成立的,裁定驳回其异议”。从《民事诉讼法》和最高人民法院的司法解释看,法律授权由执行员在执行程序中以裁定解决实体权利纠纷,用执行程序代替审判程序,且不得上诉。尽管对此规定有不同的意见 ,但在民事诉讼法未修改之前 仍应遵守“游戏规则”执行员有权在执行程序中解决实体权利纠纷。
对于这种实践中存在的同一案件有两个不同的裁判的状况,—般作法是由当事人申请再审,让再审法院否定其中—个确定裁判。然而,在当事人未申请再审、都要求执行的情况下,法院应当怎么办?有的学者认为:“通常认为后一个确定的判决有效,即后判优于前判 ”要正确回答这个问题,必须借助于民事诉讼理论,从? 凹扰辛Α闭庖恢贫热胧帧?br>【执行处分的既判力】
既判力观念渊于罗马法,盛行于德、日、法等大陆法系国家,“是指确定的终局判决裁判的诉讼标的对当事人和法院的强制通用力。按此,当事人和法院不得就已裁判的诉讼标的为不同的主张和裁判 ”。简单地说,判决的既判力是“诉讼上所表现的一事不再理的理念而已 ”。由此不难看出,既判力的概念讲的是判决的强制通用力,而视乎不包括裁定的强制通用力问题。那么,作为执行处分的裁定有没有既判力呢?
民事裁定就其内容而言,从《民事诉讼法》第140条的规定看有不予受理、对管辖权有异议的、驳回起诉、财产保全和先予执行、准许或不准许撤诉、中止或者终结诉讼、补正判决中的错误、中止或者终结执行、不予执行公证机关赋予强制执行效力的债权文书和其他需要裁定解决的事项等11种裁定形式。就效力而言,从《民事诉讼法》第141条规定看对于确定的裁定“是发生法律效力的裁定”。按照我国民事诉讼法学界通说,“民事裁定是人民法院依法作出的,是法律规定在具体程序问题上的适用,因而民事裁定也具有法律上的约束力”。但又“由于民事裁定是对诉讼中的具体程序问题作出的决定,一般只涉及参与诉讼的人,不涉及诉讼程序以外的其他人,不需要诉讼程序以外的其他人协助履行或遵守,因而,民事裁定一般只对当事人和其他诉讼参与人以及作出裁定的人民法院有拘束力,而对社会没有普遍拘束力” 。由此可知,我国学界认为裁定一般是解决程序问题的,仅具有形式上的确定力(即有拘束力),而不具有实质上的确定力,在此前提下是不承认裁定有既判力的。
从大陆法国家看,德国、日本的民事诉讼法学界一般认为,“法院就实体权利争点所作的意思表示原则上以判决行之,以裁定行之者乃属意外;而法院就程序事项所为的意思表示,原则上以裁定行之,以判决行之者也属例外 ”。但是,从法律规范上看并没有严格区分判决与裁定的适用范围,而对于基于诉讼要件或上诉的合法要件有欠缺而以诉或者上诉不合法为由判定予以驳回的也称为诉讼判决 。由于德、日学理普遍认同诉讼判决的既判力,因而,其认同的理由同样可以适用在裁定上。台湾地区的民事诉讼法学者认为法院“裁定如以实体权利或法律关系之存否为内容,既有既判力,否则无既判力可言 ”。我国一些民事诉讼法学者也认为“就立法论而言,无论裁定的客体是以实体权利或法律关系为内容,还是以程序事项为内容,均有既判力 ”。基于此,执行处分的裁定无论其是以实体权利为内容,还是以程序事项为内容,都有既判力。【执行处分的现实性分析】
通过对执行处分的既判力考察,我们观在可以看出两份裁判相矛盾根源题在于:陕西省高级人民法院的后一份判决〔(2001)陕民初字第3号民事判决〕没有遵循既判力理论,案外人省电力公司在执行异议驳回后不具有另行起诉的权力。当然,从完善执行异议之诉的角度讲,我国现行民事诉讼法由执行员在执行程序中以裁定解决实体权利纠纷,用执行程序代替审判程序的设计存在一定的问题。其一,审判程序的职能是确认民事权利义务;而执行程序的职能是实现民事权利义务的。这样的设计混淆了审判程序与执行程序的功能。其二,由执行员审查执行异议违背了审、执相分离的原则。其三,以审查代替审理无法保障案外人行使诉权。其四,由于案外人对执行处分的判定不能上诉,因而违背了二审终审的审判原则。合理的思路是设立案外人的执行异议之诉,从立法上规范案外人提起执行异议之诉的条件、时间,执行异议之诉的管辖法院、审理期限以及审理程序。这样才能彻底解决案外人对执行异议驳回后的另行起诉问题。


张士顺等:《试论我国执行异议制度的缺陷及完善》,载《法学天地》,1997年第7号。
中国政法大学杨荣新教授主持的《中华人民共和国强制执行法(专家建议稿草案)讨论稿》第10 1条设计为“第三人异议之诉,由执行法院的审判机构管辖,依民事诉讼普通程序进行审理并作出裁判”。
张卫平著:《程序公正实践中的冲突与衡平》,成都出版社,1993年版第347页。
江 伟主编:《中国民事诉讼法专论》,中国政法大学出版社,1998年版第153页。
日本民事诉讼法著名学者三月 章语,转自台湾学者陈荣宗《举证责任分配与民事程序法》,三民书局,1983年版,第172页。
柴发邦主编:《民事诉讼法学新编》,法律出版社,1992年版,第381-382页。
江 伟主编:《中国民事诉讼法专论》,中国政法大学出版社,1998年版第184页。
“诉讼判决”是大陆法上的概念,按照台湾学者陈清秀的观点意指“诉讼因不具备法定程序或欠缺诉讼要件而以诉讼不合法驳回”。如日本《民事诉讼法》202条是也。
陈荣宗《诉讼当事人与民事程序法》,三民书局,1987年版,第233页。
江 伟主编:《中国民事诉讼法专论》,中国政法大学出版社,1998年版第184页。
Stratic Advice on Intellectual Property Investment in Asia

苏冉


IssueⅠ: Legal framework of protection on software copyright in P.R.C and Singapore
A) P.R.C
In conjunction with China’s astonishing economic growth over the past two decades, especially after the entrance to WTO, China has steadily improved its legal framework on Software Copyright by checking and clearing large-scale regulations both in domestic and international activities.
Frankly speaking, China joined in three vital international treaties relate to copyright: the Berne Convention , TRIPs and Universal Copyright Convention. Moreover, China and US signed MOU especially for software in January 1992. All these Conventions are regarded as a milestone to reflect China’s dramatic promotion and strong determination to build a satisfactory environment for foreign software investors.
Similarly to US, P.R.C has chosen to protect software under copyright law rather than trademark, patent, or contract law. One year after Copyright Law Amendment in 2001, Chinese Council corrected its software-specific “Computer Software Protection Rules” , to deal with new problems prevailing in software protection nowadays. Under the Rule, software is defined as two particular types: computer program and their relevant documentation. Furthermore, since MOU came into force, computer software is protected as a literary work. Third, according to the conditional nation treatment here, foreigners are required to comply with “connecting factor”, to sum up, either first publication or nationality/residence of the author in China or in any of these countries ,between the work and China or a country who is a member of the WTO, or the Berne Convention. So, despite your software products first being published in US, you can still enjoy the original copyright and the legal protection on in China.
Except from the above rules, other laws also have supportive stipulation on the protection of software copyrights as follows:
(a)The General Principle of Civil Law, the country’s current basic civil law, has authorized the author’s copyright in general;
(b)The Criminal Code has a section of articles referring to piracy offences, with “Dual Punishment Principle” in front of copyright encroachment;
(c)The newly amended Foreign Trade Law (adopted in Feb).

B) Singapore
The general legal framework of software copyright protection in Singapore is almost the same as P.R.C, but with some characteristics of its own. Actually, different from P.R.C based on Civil law background, laws and litigations in Singapore are principally modeled on the English system under Common law system till nowadays. Pursuant to certain legal revolutions, modern copyright legislation contains the same international conventions as P.R.C: the Berne Conventions, Universal Copyright Convention, and TRIPs. But, Singapore signed ASEAN Framework on Intellectual Property Cooperation and the WIPO Copyright Treaty as a member of ASEAN. Turning to its domestic laws, the latest Copyright Act 1999(revised edition) is the principle one, with some other relevant regulations for enforcement. And it also definites software program into literary work under protection. In addition, Singapore owes large resources of case laws so as to make its legal conditions more particular than that in P.R.C.
The amended Act is first purposed to address issues arising from the use of copyright materials in a digital environment, especially provide legal certainty for the use of copyright in cyberspace. For instance, the extension of concept “reproduction” .Second, the Act plays another role in enhancing performer’s rights, offering two new defenses to allegations of copyright infringement. Therefore, merely surfing the Web doesn’t constitute software copyright infringement, if it’s necessary to browse. Even , Singapore passed the Electronic Transactions Act 1998 to give statutory protection of Network Service Providers. At these points, Singapore seemingly forwards a step further than P.R.C, declining its attention on encouraging the growth of a knowledge-based economy and promoting E-commerce and creative innovations. Last but the most significant point, Singapore and the United State signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) on May 6th 2003, and entered it into force from January 1st 2004. Virtually, this is the first FTA between US and an Asia country .So it’s doubtlessly the greatest advantage for Singapore to attract US investors, apart from other Asian countries. They would encourage the entrepreneurship, investment, job creation and growth in our own technology, science and creative industries as well as set the stage for Singapore’s emergence as a global IP hub.

Issue Ⅱ: Implementation on Software Copyright Law in P.R.C and Singapore
Sufficient and effective enforcement is more useful and practical than recorded documents, with no exception to P.R.C and Singapore.
(ⅰ)Role of Government
A)P.R.C
Learned from Annual Report on the Protection of Intellectual Property Right in China during the past 5 years by the head officer Jingchuan Wang in TableⅠ , you can see copyright administration at various levels make remarkable progress in encouraging innovation, promoting industrial development, regulating market order, and even improving the opening-up policy.
As a matter of fact, the People’s Courts, the People’s Prosecution Department, National Copyright Administration Centre and Public Security compose the backbone of the implementation of copyright law in China with civil remedies, criminal sensations and administrative punishments, such as fine. And border enforcement assistance to copyright owners by the Customs and Excise Department is also available.
TableⅠ:
The Administration on Software Copyright In P.R.C
Year Registration Prosecute Cases Resolved Cases Resolved Cases Rate Seized Pirates(M) Top 1 Region of Piracy
1999 1,041 1,616 1,515 93.75% 20.14 Shenzhen
2000 3,300 2,457 1,980 95.30% 32.60 Guangdong
2001 4,620 2,683 2,327 97.52% 61.75 Guangdong
2002 4,860 2,740 2,604 99.02% 67.90 Guangdong
2003 5,020 6,120 5,793 97.64% 73.28 Beijing
Statistics from NCAC (National Copyright Administration Centre
Fortunately, China has begun to regard software as an industry with strategic significance while formulating effective policies in areas including anti-piracy and anti-monopoly. To adapt to the legal framework, China has shifted its attention upon educating software users and strengthening the law. “Government departments are being asked to show a good example in using copyrighted software only and make software budget each year”. For example, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong buy over 3,000 software products every year through public bidding. What’s more, the National Software Government Procurement Regulation will probably act in the near future. Eventually, Chinese government is trying to treat all software companies equal in P.R.C, no matter domestic or foreign countries.
Nevertheless, given China’s vast geography and population, it would be an awesome task for the central government to manage pirating activities throughout the entire country. On the other hand, due to lack of resources, the lack of judicial expertise, the unpredictability of trial outcomes, and large costs, litigation in Chinese courts remains a risky and expensive response to Chinese copyright violations. Another administrative difficulty arises from the increasing decentralization of the Chinese government. Much of China's copyright enforcement takes place at the provincial and local levels; the national government lacks the resources and control to effectively monitor nationwide pirating activity and to impose national enforcement policies.

B) Singapore
Switching to Singapore, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is its senior administration department, and it leads Singapore to the success in copyright infrastructure. Singapore has announced a number of meaningful standards through requirements for tough penalties to combat piracy and counterfeiting, including, in civil cases, procedures for seizure and destruction of pirated and counterfeit products, and a requirement to provide for statutory and actual damages to remedy such practices. There has been a rule in Singapore that government could only allowed to use copyrighted software since 1996. In order to obtain efficiency, Singapore maintain civil remedies and criminal penalties for circumvention of technology protection measures, and it also has in place implementation allowing for border seizures of infringing articles by customs officials. For example, the copyright infringement is punished with a maximum fine of S$100,000 or five years’ imprisonment or both. So, in comparison to P.R.C, the least time for imprisonment is shorter .But due to the judge’s free power under common law system, the court is increasingly harsh in their sentencing in respect of infringement of copyright. In other words, criminal obligation will become heavier with more limitation in Singapore.
In the contrast with Chinese administrative punishments, Singapore has a large scope of interlocutory remedies to fill in the blank area between civil remedies and criminal sensations, and they are three main types:
(a) the interlocutory injunction---It is an injunction obtained before the trail often with the main objective of maintaining the Stats quo between the parties pending the outcome of the trail. The interlocutory injunction may be in a mandatory or prohibitory form.
(b) the Anton Piller Order---It’s developed from Anton Piller KG v.Mfg Processes Ltd as a safeguard system of evidence for avoiding the defendant to destroy and hide the evidence of copyright infringement, if the plaintiff shows an extremely strong prima facie that his right are being interfered with, or the damage, potential or actual are very serious to the plaintiff, or even there must be clear evidence to proof the defendants faults.
(c) the Norwich Pharmacal Order.---The further expansion of Anton Piller Order to raise over the privilege against self-incrimination from Rank Film Distributors Ltd v. Video Information Centre Virtually . However, case law in Singapore has now established that where the privilege against self-incrimination exists, an undertaking from the plaintiff/ applicant not to use the information obtained in criminal proceedings is not an adequate safeguard for the defendant’s privilege against self-crimination. Singapore courts have also held that they don’t have the power to order that the information be inadmissible in any subsequent criminal prosecution.
Relying on common law foundation, people in Singapore prefer to a lawsuit rather than mediation while more mediation in P.R.C, once in the face of a dispute. Consequently, it would like to be more time and energy consuming somehow, for it costs at least one year of a civil procedure in the High Court of Singapore.
Last but not least, along with legsilation changes, Singapore Administration departments are also mounting a public campaign targeting both consumers and businesses to increase their awareness on the benefits and other implications of the new laws. There’s broad-based public awareness initiatives like the HIP Alliance’s year-long anti-piracy campaign? “The Real thing is the Right thing”, and brain Wave, Singapore’s first reality television show on IP.
(ⅱ)Role of Anti- Piracy Organizations
Both P.R.C and Singapore joined in Business Software Alliance (BSA) ,and WIPO several years ago and established domestic anti-piracy alliances at their own respective locality. The alliances played an active part in combating piracy and protecting the interests of right holders. They always declare laws, promulgate routine reports of current protection on TV, newspapers, and Website and show different points between pirate and authorized products. In the contrast with P.R.C, Singapore has other special disputes resolution organs under its common law system, including the small claims tribunals, E-commerce disputes centre. What’s more, Singapore collaborates with other ASAEN countries to harmonize IP rights with international and regional organizations such as the Office of Harmonization of the Internal Market (OHIM), the European Union, the French National Office of Industrial Property, and IP Australia.
(ⅲ)Introduction of Judgments in Precedent Cases
A) P.R.C
In a landmark verdict on April 16, 1996 against Beijing JuRen Computer, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court delivered judgment in favor of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) upholding the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights and ordering the defendant to (a) publicly apologize to the plaintiff; (b) pay over RMB600,000 (US$70,000) in damages, including court costs and accounting costs; (c) pay additional fines directly to the court. The court also ordered the defendant to undertake not to infringe intellectual property rights in the future, and the law enforcement officials to confiscate all computers and software seized during the raid on the defendant's premises. In another case, the same court rendered a judgment against Beijing Giant Computer Co. for software copyright infringement. These were the first cases decided in favor of a US plaintiff in a Chinese court.