关于印发《海南省普通本科高校、高等职业学校国家励志奖学金管理实施细则》的通知
海南省财政厅
关于印发《海南省普通本科高校 高等职业学校国家励志奖学金管理实施细则》的通知
琼财教[2007]1287号
各高等学校，海口、三亚市财政局、教育局：
为落实《国务院关于建立健全普通本科高校、高等职业学校和中等职业学校家庭经济困难学生资助政策体系的意见》（国发[2007]13号），教育部、财政部《关于认真做好高等学校家庭经济困难学生认定工作的指导意见》（教财[2007]8号）和财政部、教育部《普通本科高校、高等职业学校国家励志奖学金管理暂行办法》（财教[2007]91号），现将《海南省普通本科高校、高等职业学校国家励志奖学金管理实施细则》印发给你们，请遵照执行。
二○○七年九月六日
海南省普通本科高校 高等职业学校国家励志奖学金管理实施细则
第一条 为激励普通本科高校、高等职业学校家庭经济困难学生勤奋学习、努力进取，在德、智、体、美等方面得到全面发展，根据《国务院关于建立健全普通本科高校、高等职业学校和中等职业学校家庭经济困难学生资助政策体系的意见》（国发[2007]13号），教育部、财政部《关于认真做好高等学校家庭经济困难学生认定工作的指导意见》（教财[2007]8号）和财政部、教育部《普通本科高校、高等职业学校国家励志奖学金管理暂行办法》（财教[2007]91号），结合本省实际，制定本实施细则。
第二条 本实施细则所称普通本科高校、高等职业学校是指根据国家有关规定批准设立、实施高等学历教育的全日制普通本科高等学校、高等职业学校和高等专科学校（以下简称高校）。
第三条 国家励志奖学金用于奖励资助高校全日制本专科(含高职、第二学士学位)学生（以下简称学生）中品学兼优的家庭经济困难学生。
本省所属各高校国家励志奖学金的奖励资助名额由省财政厅、省教育厅根据财政部、教育部确定的总人数，以及本省高校数量、类别、办学层次、办学质量、在校本专科生人数和生源结构等因素确定。在分配国家励志奖学金名额时，对办学水平较高的高校，以农林水地矿油核等国家需要的特殊学科专业为主的高校予以适当倾斜。
第四条 本实施细则所称家庭经济困难学生是指学生本人及其家庭所能筹集到的资金，难以支付其在校学习期间学习和生活基本费用的学生。家庭经济困难学生分为困难和特殊困难两种情形。其中，孤残学生、烈士子女，以及家庭成员长期患重病、家庭遭遇自然灾害或突发事件等特殊情况的，可界定为特殊困难情形。
第五条 本省所属高校国家励志奖学金所需资金由中央与地方财政按比例分担。地方财政分担部分，省属高校所需资金由省财政负担，海口、三亚市所属高校所需资金分别由海口、三亚市财政负担。
第六条 国家励志奖学金的奖励标准为每人每年5000元。
第七条 国家励志奖学金的基本申请条件：
（一）热爱社会主义祖国，拥护中国共产党的领导；
（二）遵守宪法和法律，遵守学校规章制度；
（三）诚实守信，道德品质优良；
（四）在校期间学习成绩优秀；
（五）家庭经济困难，生活俭朴。
第八条 高校在每学年结束之前，应向在校学生发送《高等学校学生及家庭情况调查表》（详见附件1）。需要申请认定家庭经济困难的在校学生要如实填写《高等学校学生及家庭情况调查表》，并持该表到家庭所在地乡、镇或街道民政部门加盖公章，以证明其家庭经济状况。已被所在学校认定为家庭经济困难的学生再次申请认定时，如家庭经济状况无显著变化，可只提交《高等学校家庭经济困难学生认定申请表》（详见附件2）。
第九条 每年8月22日前，省财政厅、教育厅根据财政部、教育部确定的本省当年国家励志奖学金的总人数，按照本实施细则第三条的规定确定本省所属各高校国家励志奖学金名额，负责将国家励志奖学金名额和预算下达省属各高校和海口、三亚市财政局、教育局。每年9月1日前，海口、三亚市财政局、教育局负责将国家励志奖学金名额和预算下达所属各高校。
第十条 每年9月30日前，学生根据本实施细则规定的国家励志奖学金的基本申请条件及其他有关规定，向学校提出申请，并递交《普通本科高校、高等职业学校国家励志奖学金申请表》（详见附件3）。
第十一条 高校要成立学校学生资助工作领导小组和学校学生资助管理机构。学校学生资助工作领导小组全面领导本校家庭经济困难学生的认定工作，学校学生资助管理机构具体负责组织和管理全校的认定工作；院（系）成立以分管家庭经济困难学生资助工作的院（系）领导为组长、院（系）学生辅导员、学生工作办公室主任等担任成员的认定工作组，负责认定的具体组织和审核工作；以年级（或专业）为单位，成立以学生辅导员任组长，班主任、学生代表担任成员的认定评议小组，负责认定的民主评议工作。认定评议小组成员中，学生代表人数视年级（或专业）人数合理配置，应具有广泛的代表性，一般不少于年级（或专业）总人数的10%。认定评议小组成立后，其成员名单应在本年级（或专业）范围内公示。
第十二条 家庭经济困难学生认定工作每学年进行一次。
每学年开学时，高校的认定评议小组应组织学生填写《高等学校家庭经济困难学生认定申请表》，并负责收集《高等学校学生及家庭情况调查表》。认定评议小组根据学生提交的上述两个表格，以学生家庭人均收入对照本实施细则第四条确定的认定标准，并结合学生日常消费行为以及影响其家庭经济状况的有关情况，认真进行评议。认定评议小组进行民主评议时应着重考虑特殊困难情形的学生，确定本年级（或专业）的家庭经济困难学生资格，报院（系）认定工作组进行审核。
院（系）认定工作组要认真审核认定评议小组申报的初步评议结果，如有异议，应在征得认定评议小组意见后予以更正。院（系）认定工作组审核通过后，要将家庭经济困难学生名单及档次，以适当方式、在适当范围内公示5个工作日。如师生有异议，可通过有效方式向本院（系）认定工作组提出质疑。认定工作组应在接到异议材料的3个工作日内予以答复。如对院（系）认定工作组的答复仍有异议，可通过有效方式向学校学生资助管理机构提请复议。学校学生资助管理机构应在接到复议提请的3个工作日内予以答复。如情况属实，应做出调整。
学校学生资助管理机构负责汇总各院（系）审核通过的《高等学校家庭经济困难学生认定申请表》和《高等学校学生及家庭情况调查表》，报学校学生资助工作领导小组审批，并建立家庭经济困难学生信息档案。学校应加强学生的诚信教育，教育学生如实提供家庭情况，及时告知家庭经济状况显著变化情况。如学生家庭经济状况发生显著变化，学校应及时做出调整。
第十三条 国家励志奖学金实行等额评审，坚持公开、公平、公正、择优的原则。
第十四条 国家励志奖学金申请与评审工作由高校组织实施。高校要根据本实施细则的规定，制定具体评审办法，并报省教育厅备案。高校在开展国家励志奖学金评审工作中，要对农林水地矿油核等国家需要的特殊学科专业学生予以适当倾斜。
第十五条 国家励志奖学金按学年申请和评审。申请国家励志奖学金的学生为高校在校生中二年级以上（含二年级）的学生。
同一学年内，申请国家励志奖学金的学生可以同时申请并获得国家助学金，但不能同时获得国家奖学金。
第十六条 高校学生资助管理机构负责组织评审，提出本校当年国家励志奖学金获奖学生建议名单，报学校领导集体研究通过后，在校内进行不少于5个工作日的公示。公示无异议后，每年10月31日前，高校将评审结果连同《海南省 年度获国家奖学金励志学生名单备案表》（详见附件4）逐级报至省教育厅。省教育厅于每年11月15日前批复。
第十五条 高校于每年11月30日前将国家励志奖学金一次性发放给获奖学生，并记入学生的学籍档案。
第十六条 各高校要切实加强管理，认真做好国家励志奖学金的评审和发放工作，确保国家励志奖学金真正用于资助品学兼优的家庭经济困难学生。
第十七条 各有关部门和高校必须严格执行国家相关财经法规和本实施细则的规定，对国家励志奖学金实行分账核算，专款专用，不得截留、挤占、挪用，同时应接受财政、审计、纪检监察、主管机关等部门的检查和监督。
第十八条 高校要按照国家有关规定，从事业收入中足额提取5%的经费用于资助家庭经济困难学生。
第十九条 民办高校（含独立学院）按照国家有关规定规范办学、举办者按照本实施细则第十八条规定的比例从事业收入中足额提取经费用于资助家庭经济困难学生的，其招收的符合本实施细则规定申请条件的普通本专科（含高职、第二学士学位）学生，也可以申请国家励志奖学金。
第二十条 本实施细则由省财政厅、省教育厅负责解释。
第二十一条 本实施细则自公布之日起施行。
附件：1. 高等学校学生及家庭情况调查表
2．高等学校家庭经济困难学生认定申请表
3．普通本科高校、高等职业学校国家励志奖学金申请表
4．海南省 年度获国家奖学金励志学生名单备案表
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.
