As China's innovation-driven development strategy is implemented in greater depth and the development of a unified national market accelerates, the intersection of intellectual property ("IP") and antitrust has become a focal point of legislative, enforcement, and judicial practice. This article presents the overall landscape of IP–antitrust crossover issues in China across three dimensions—fundamental principles, the current state of legislation, and representative cases—and summarizes the monopoly risks that enterprises may incur in exercising their intellectual property rights.
In recent years, the state has introduced a series of unprecedented tax preferential policies for small and micro enterprises, covering multiple taxes including value-added tax (VAT), corporate income tax, individual income tax, and the "six taxes and two fees."Specifically:
With the rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) technology, large AI models such as ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney have demonstrated astonishing capabilities in text generation, image creation, and code writing. From AI-generated paintings winning awards in art competitions to articles written by AI provoking controversy in academic circles, whether AI-generated outputs can obtain copyright protection—and how they should be protected—has become a focal issue of shared concern among scholars and practitioners alike.
Abstract With AI technology advancing at breakneck speed, positions such as customer service, data collection and basic accounting are gradually being replaced by intelligent systems; AI has all but become the "new employee" that cuts costs and improves efficiency for companies. Embracing AI and achieving technological upgrading is an inevitable choice for companies keeping pace with the digital economy. Many companies want to use AI to optimize their job structure, yet fear stepping on the landmines of labor law. Drawing on the latest arbitration precedents and the policy requirements of the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security (人力资源和社会保障部, "MOHRSS"), and starting from companies' actual business needs, this article sets out the core legal issues in the process of AI replacing human labor, together with practical compliance guidance — helping companies avoid the minefield and achieve a win-win between technological upgrading and employment compliance.
What key R&D staff take away when they leave is often not "complete drawings / complete code / complete formula," but key parameters, structural coupling relationships, process windows, test data, BOM component-selection logic, digital model drawings, algorithm details and other "parts of the technical solution." Individually, these fragments look unremarkable — but once the new employer pieces them together, they can significantly shorten the R&D cycle, bypass trial-and-error costs, and even go straight into mass production. This is exactly the high-frequency scenario in technical-secret disputes. In the second-instance (appeal) proceedings of the Geely v. WM Motor technical-secret infringement case , the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court expressly held that the defendants had not only obtained technical secrets by improper means, but had also "illegally disclosed part of the technical secrets by filing patent applications" and used the technical secrets to manufacture and sell products — conduct constituting infringement. The court ultimately awarded damages of approximately RMB 640,000,000, and applied double punitive damages for part of the period. The signal sent by such second-instance rulings is unmistakable: technical secrets can be protected, can attract high damages awards, and can drive the cost of infringement to the point where it is "not worth the gain." What follows is an actionable rights-enforcement roadmap, framed from the angle of what companies can actually "follow and do."