China Economic Weekly: What roles should the government, judicial system, and intermediary agencies play in the intellectual property governance system?

Ma Yide: The government, judicial organs, industry associations and other entities need to perform their respective duties and form a joint force, focusing on handling the following three key relationships:

Firstly, the government should strike a balance between "relaxation" and "regulation", and clarify the relationship between market regulation and government regulation. China should continue to leverage the institutional advantages of the "new national system" and make good use of the ability to concentrate resources to accomplish major tasks, but we should also be wary of the negative impacts that administrative leadership may bring. In the future, the market order should be guaranteed through the rule of law, and the government's "guiding power" rather than "intervention power" should be enhanced through the establishment of industry funds, standardization and internationalization platforms, etc., so that intellectual property governance can truly return to the laws of innovation and market logic.

Secondly, the judicial system should maintain institutional tension between "rights protection" and "fair competition". We need to strengthen the internal balance mechanism of the intellectual property system, make good use of institutional tools such as fair use, anti-monopoly review, and public interest exemption, and build a judicial environment that emphasizes both protecting innovation and encouraging competition.

Thirdly, we need to achieve coordinated development among national forces, innovation entities, and third-party institutions, and fill the gaps in the intellectual property service system. The current mechanisms for intellectual property value assessment, transfer and transformation, licensing transactions, dispute mediation, etc. are still not sound, which not only restricts the realization of achievements, but also affects the effective connection between the innovation chain and the industrial chain. We should encourage the development of a group of specialized, international, and market-oriented intellectual property intermediary institutions, providing services throughout the entire cycle of creation, application, protection, and management, reducing market transaction costs, and promoting the free flow of intellectual property elements.

Overall, China has the advantages of institutional integration, industrial scale, and policy coordination in intellectual property governance. The key to the future is to form a modern intellectual property governance system with different focuses and coordinated development among the government, judiciary, and social forces through institutional reform, role clarification, and mechanism innovation.

China Economic Weekly: How to balance the protection and innovation of intellectual property rights in China?

Ma Yide:

Firstly, strengthen confidence in the system. We cannot simply copy the Western path. We must base ourselves on our own development stage and gradually build our own discourse system and strategic framework that belongs to China.

Secondly, we cannot detach ourselves from an international perspective. We need to take a global perspective and absorb and learn from the institutional practices of different countries. On the one hand, more attention should be paid to the intellectual property experience of developing countries; On the other hand, we need to examine the institutional evolution of developed countries at different stages from a historical perspective, extract useful insights for us, and avoid repeating detours.

Thirdly, a large amount of empirical research needs to be conducted. The design of the intellectual property system must be based on in-depth national research, especially focusing on the issue of uneven development between regions and industries. A set of policies applicable to developed regions in the east may not necessarily be suitable for areas with weak innovation foundations in the central and western regions. Therefore, research must be grounded, not only focusing on the construction of macro legal systems, but also targeting enterprises, industries, and regions to carry out detailed policy optimization and extension.