Reading press reports before and after the trial, it would be difficult to understand exactly what the case was all about -- and why the fact I lost it would have serious and lasting implications for intellectual property protection in this, China's newest and most sophisticated city.

For the case, "Merle Linda Wolin trading as EastWest Productions -vs- The Secretary for Justice," highlights several ongoing problems for Hong Kong regarding copyright protection of print media. These include the question of whether the current law allowing criminal penalties for copyright infringement across all formats, including print, should be upheld or whether print media alone should be exempt.

The government's position the past two years has been that copyright infringements of print media -- and print media alone -- should be exempt. Textbook publishers and writers across the board take the opposite view. In July, 2003, the Hong Kong and International Publishers' Alliance estimated that copyright infringement of print material costs textbook publishers alone some US$70 million a year in lost revenue. The amount lost to writers, graphic designers and other holders of intellectual property in print is unknown.

Another question raised by the trial is whether the judiciary in Hong Kong, particularly at the lower levels, can be counted on to remain independent. The conduct of the Small Claims Tribunal deputy adjudicator during the trial does not bode well for a positive response. During this presentation, I will discuss the conduct in question and the Chief Magistrate's response to my formal letter of complaint.

Another concern raised is that of diminishing ethical standards in government, in the civil service and judiciary. Actually, the trial was not as much about copyright assignment, per se, as about whether I should have been bound by my signature on the contract given the government's admitted misrepresentation of a material fact, i.e. one that injured me financially, before I signed it.

As an article in Asia Times Online reported last August, "(Invest Hong Kong) and the courts agree that the government didn't owe (Wolin) the truth about her work and thanks to the deputy adjudicator's ruling, it didn't owe her (the money) either." During the presentation, I will focus on the ethical issues raised during and after the trial and discuss the Office of the Ombudsman's response to yet another post-trial complaint.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the case raises serious questions about continuing freedom of expression in Hong Kong. As the Hong Kong Journalists Association wrote to its members after the trial, expressing concern about the judgement, "...if writers and journalists can't count on copyright protection in Hong Kong, they will no longer be able to make a living here -- and that affects freedom of expression. Each voice silenced diminishes us all."