Submitted by Experience Not Logic Blog

At some point I stumbled upon this 2007 article from King & Wood attorneys Seagull Song Haiyan and Xu Yuezhu, Computer Software Protection in China. Yeah, there’s some interesting legal technical stuff in there about the different avenues to protect software in China, but what really interested me was a reference to “Jiangmin’s ‘logic lock,’” called a logic bomb by those whose logic was locked. The logic lock is a rudimentary anti-circumvention device employed by Jiangmin to thwart pirates. Graciously, the authors wrote a footnote explaining what exactly this ‘logic lock’ was:

In 1997, Jiangmin anti-virus Software Company suffered great loss because of software piracy, but they could not get effective legal protection. Therefore, “logic lock”, a type of protection program security was installed on the software. When the decoded software was run by the pirate, the “logic lock” would be automatically activated, and frequent computer locks would occur. Users suffered great damage from “logic lock” attacks. Jiangmin Company fell into the embarrassing situation of a worldwide condemnation. Eventually, due to the importation of hazardous data that endangered users’ computer system, Jiangmin was subject to an administrative fine [RMB 5,000].

So, if I have this right, an anti-virus company fed up with piracy devised an insidious virus to protect their IP rights? The best defense might be a good offense … in ancient warfare; Jiangmin’s conduct crosses the Alps into the absurd (unfortunately without elephants).

In the quest for deeper knowledge about Jiangmin I arrived at a 2008 paper writeen by Jia Wang of Stellenbosch University of School of Law in South Africa, Anti-Circumvention Rules in the Information Network Environment in the US, UK and China: A Comparative Study. The article is about what the title proclaims, and provides more info on Jiangmin. As for the legal arguments the paper makes, this is from the abstract:

It reviews the evolution of Chinese anti-circumvention rules, starting with a well-known case preceding the promulgation of the anti-circumvention rules, then it examines the anti-circumvention provisions in the Copyright Act 1990, the Software Regulation 2001 and the ISP Interpretation 2004. It also critically analyzes the latest Network Regulation 2006 by comparing it with the DMCA and the CDPA. The paper suggests that the Chinese anticircumvention rules need to be constructed with more legal certainties. Recommendations are also made for additional redrafting to make China’s anti-circumvention rules more adaptive to a digital environment.