The government must not liberalise parallel importation of electronic publications. Computer software is created through enormous investment and commitment by highly qualified experts.

Thus, there is an obvious need for the protection of software inventions - as with other inventions - not only in the interests of inventors, but also in the public interest to promote technological advancement.

The Government has an important role to play in supporting a favorable climate for innovation.

The major government policy in support of inventors is a legal framework which protects the interests of inventors, promotes the dissemination and application of their work and encourages fair trade.

Recently, the issue of the parallel importation of e-books has showed how the government can support new industries.

In the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2001, the Government proposes to include e-books within the scope of the new legislation.

If the Bill is enacted, e-books can be parallel-imported into Hong Kong as long as they are lawfully produced.

The proposition of the Government is to enable consumers to benefit from lower prices of the same product sold in markets outside Hong Kong. I have reservations about this. First, the local publishers will be threatened by cheap imports, making it even harder for them to succeed and their business to survive. Second, the proposed liberalization will result in an increase in pirated e-books flowing into local markets and allow surplus foreign e-books (in particular, those published for Mainland market) to be dumped on our shores.

This will lead to a reduction in investment in innovation, distorting the progress of creative industries.

Complete removal of parallel importation restrictions on software would be a disaster to electronic publishers. Such a move will not benefit local publisher or consumers. It will only decimate our home-grown industries and deprive consumers of access to locally produced cultural goods.

SIN CHUNG KAI

[Letters to Editor - Techology section, South China Morning Post, 11 February, 2003]