Xiangche mansions, beautiful women's clothes, these social currencies that prove their basic strength, will never go out of style.

Even in the supposedly free and uninhibited Silicon Valley.

You are a yard farmer, you can be a maverick, jeans polo shirt to work.

But to be a broker is to have a suit and leather shoes.

In addition, if there are some proud records in the investment world, or a history of successful pit giants in the legal world. Then, the weight of your words will also rise, and the probability of being received by the boss will also be greatly increased.

Especially Feng Jianxiong, who is too young and lacks qualifications, must rely on actual combat results to make up for it.

Fortunately, Feng Jianxiong's results were very rich.

So, the next day, he met with Mr. Henry Plov, the chairman of the EFF Foundation, in Mountain View.

It is said that when Yu Meiqin first took the signboard of the office and handed Feng Jianxiong's identity to make an appointment, the other party was originally very disdainful.

Isn't it a joke that Nima, a lawyer who is a lawyer in China, wants to meet the trustees of an international human rights foundation based in the United States?

As for Feng Jianxiong's other titles, such as "two-time International College Debate Champion and Best Debater", it can't be mentioned, and mentioning it will only have the opposite effect - if the title of a college student competition in the Chinese-speaking circle is useful, it is simply insulting the IQ of people in the English-speaking circle.

Fortunately, Yu Meiqin was very self-aware at that time, so she packaged Feng Jianxiong as "a well-known angel investor in China who successfully led the investment in the Niconico video network that was still in a difficult restructuring period at that time", and then used this identity to communicate with Henry Plov's appointment secretary.

I have to say that this identity is easier to use.

After all, everyone is a relevant person in the Internet industry, and they are also potential collaborators of the great cause of "formalization of global copyright cooperation" that the EFF Foundation has been working on promoting.

Even if a person like Henry Plov can win over the boss of an online video platform that ranks among the top three to five in China, then when he goes to "make friends" with other fundraising partners in the United States in the future, his voice can be a little louder-

You must know that in 2010, China's domestic video websites were very lethal to the Internet copyright protection work in the United States.

Although Youku's revenue in the United States may be 0 yuan, its damage to the American knowledge economy can be hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. ALTHOUGH POTATOES AND NICONICO ARE NOT SO AWESOME, THEY STILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE DESTRUCTION.

Therefore, anyone who knows about circumventing the wall knows that at that time, in fact, Americans came to China over the wall, and there were many more people than Chinese who went out over the wall - they were Americans who did not want to pay for movie tickets, and could not find pirated resources in the United States, so they used VPN to turn to Youku to watch pirated Hollywood blockbusters.

Those who are eligible to receive protection money are often not those who can bring much benefit to people, but those who have the ability to threaten "if you don't give it, I can add enough blocks to you".

The ability to "achieve less and fail more than fail" is exactly what is most needed to collect protection money.

Based on this reason, no matter how big Henry Plov is, he can only pinch his nose and at least mediate with Feng Jianxiong, begging him to raise his noble hand.

Otherwise, if he offends someone, Feng Jianxiong pointed out by name which "among the six major distribution companies have the most money to supply to the EFF Foundation, and I have pirated his movies on Chinese video websites." Then Henry Plov was not eaten by the big donors behind him?

……

"MR. FENG, NICE TO MEET YOU. I've heard of you in the United States for a long time. ”

When Feng Jianxiong and Yu Meiqin were introduced into the reception room by the female secretary, Henry Plov endured the nausea in his heart, stood up with a fake smile, and talked and laughed with Feng Jianxiong.

"Mr. Plov is honored to have time out of his busy schedule. Feng Jianxiong shook the other party's hand with a smile on his face.

"I don't know what to say?" said Henry Plov, who didn't want to talk too much. After a few polite words, he went straight to the point, anyway, in the eyes of the Chinese, all Americans are very direct, there is nothing to laugh at fifty steps and a hundred steps.

"Mr. Plov is so cheerful, then I will be straight to the point - you may not care about the intellectual property legal circles in China, so you must not have heard of this case, let me briefly introduce it first: in October last year, the contemptible law firm represented a counter-sue Apple for infringement of consumers' property rights.

This case has lost in the first instance in the Jinling Intermediate People's Court in Jiangnan Province, China, but I will appeal to the High People's Court of Jiangnan Province within two weeks - well, to digress, our procedural law system in China is still quite different from your United States, and we are a two-instance final adjudication system, so the second instance of the provincial court is equivalent to your side to the state appellate court.

However, the state appellate courts in your country do not accept the interpretations and instructions of the federal court system when they carry out the trial work, but China is a unitary country, and when our provincial high court encounters a legal disagreement and needs to be interpreted, it will directly ask the Supreme Court to issue a reply ......letter.

Feng Jianxiong first explained the differences in the system, and then explained the lengthy facts of the case.

At first, Henry Plov maintained a basic level of politeness and patience, but he was a little impatient after only two minutes of listening.

Fortunately, Feng Jianxiong has a good grasp of the rhythm, and his ability to observe words and emotions is also good, and he appropriately interjected a legal game against Apple to draw the other party's attention back.

"In China, there are also people who have excavated Apple's IOS monopoly problem, and they have also found the height of jurisprudence of 'infringing on the user's control over hardware property rights'?"

Henry Plov jumped in at once.

In fact, the EFF Foundation has long been in tandem with Apple's hegemonic sniping, and has also carried out some counterattacks.

However, none of them rose to the level of strong enough counter-evidence, and they were piecemeal.

As for why the EFF Foundation is not attached to Apple, outsiders do not know. Have the people at Google invested in this, or have the interests of the intellectual property Green World represented by the foundation itself been hurt by Apple...... It's impossible to guess.

However, there is no doubt that the EFF Foundation does not want to implement anti-piracy through a "closed-loop system" model.

Because the practice of closed-loop systems is said to be "less complex of system risk" at best, or on the positive side, it also causes "unfree user choice".

From the perspective of foundations and lawyers, what they want to advocate is of course "unfreedom".

That's fine.

However, it is also in line with the interests of the legal profession.

If the problem of piracy is solved by "closing the country to the outside world", then the intellectual property lawsuits will be reduced by at least half.

Everyone is not causing trouble, what kind of lawsuit is there to fight?

Keep in mind that the output of the U.S. legal profession (in this case, in a broad sense, also includes brokers and consulting firms) accounts for nearly 10% of the country's total GDP.

In the United States, there is one lawyer for every 300 people. In China, more than 20,000 people have one lawyer – a 70-fold difference in the share of lawyers per capita between the two countries. The proportion of GDP of the lawyer industry has also differed by more than 100 times.

In good conscience, there are indeed fewer lawyers in China, and many interests are not regulated and defended. However, there is no doubt that there are too many lawyers in the United States, so that the profession has begun to be wrapped up in politics and economics, and is going farther and farther down the road of "raising thieves and respecting themselves".

According to the sociological research of many third-party neutral countries (mainly Germany/France/Japan), if a country can achieve about one lawyer for every 3500 people, it is the model that takes into account the three legal interests of justice, freedom, and efficiency.

If there are fewer lawyers, the judicial efficiency will be high, but the shoddy system will create more.

No matter how many lawyers there are, it is easy to play a game of freedom and fairness, but the judicial efficiency is too low, and there is a risk of excessive litigation and "self-respect for thieves".

This is also why domestic jurisprudence exams always say that efficiency/stability is the primary legal interest demand, and justice and freedom must be secondary, but the United States is the opposite.

At the end of the day, when you're defending a system where there are only 20,000 lawyers in mind, you have to say that "order/efficiency" is the most important thing in order for your structure to be justified.

And when you want to defend a system where "there is one lawyer for every 300 people", of course, you have to advocate "freedom" in every possible way - if "freedom" is not so important, not so important that it cannot be exchanged for sacrificing efficiency, how can you convince the American people that "we have to have a lawyer for every 300 people" willingly?

As a result, the Chinese and American lawyers, which are supposed to be-for-tat in the field of intellectual property protection, have a subtle convergence of interests in dealing with Apple's subdivided case.

For many years, China has been pursuing that "other legal interests cannot be sacrificed for intellectual property rights", while the United States has emphasized that "even if some other legal interests are sacrificed, intellectual property rights must be protected".

Now, China's position has remained unchanged, and the US has changed its course to "for the sake of property freedom, intellectual property rights will never be allowed to override it".

It's very comfortable.

……

Feng Jianxiong's English level is really good.

It's not that he has a high vocabulary or enough speaking skills to talk and laugh.

Rather, his English-based conversational application of terms such as French has reached the point of perfection.

Even, he is very proficient in hidden language and black language.

Who made him prescient and did his homework?

Some dirty profit transactions are also said to be sanctimonious and high-minded on the surface, but Henry Plov can fully understand the logic behind them.

Of course, there is not a single word "li" in the whole text, and the reason why Henry Plov heard it was because of his own dirty thoughts.

"The ideas you provide are worth our reference. We will sort out the series of lawsuits against Apple that we are currently planning and adjust our response strategy - but doing so will ...... you Mr. Feng, everyone has talked about this step, and I want to know what interests you are pursuing. Rest assured, there are no recordings here. ”

"Look at what you said, what do I have in my interest. I'm not here for human freedom. ”