The modification process of the Copyright Law is presently speeding up. Though related departments keep open minds and solicit opinions from all sectors of society, the legislation still can not meet all of the demands for rights by different interest groups. As we all know, the pace of legal revision can never keep up with social development, especially with the speed of today’s scientific and technological progress. However, real social demands exist and many cases expose the serious time lag between society’s current domestic needs and legal provisions. The IP protection predicament encountered by graphical user interface (GUI) is an ideal example of this dilemma.

There is no current global consensus on how to provide GUI through reasonable IP. Although many industrialized countries and regions clearly provide that GUI be protected under design patent law, GUI protection is still a dilemma in mainland China. The current Patent Examination Guidelines plainly stipulates: “the pattern shown when the product is electrified” is not ineligible for patent protection for design, which excludes GUI from patent protection.

Since patent protection does not provide a way out of this situation, what sort of resolution should those seeking copyright protection expect? The case between Shenzhen TP-Link and Tenda resulted in two distinctly different judgments from the two trial courts, which once again led the public to an embarrassing state of uncertainty. In the final analysis it appears that different judges have different understandings and reach different judgments because the legal provisions themselves are ambiguous.

A bunch of small icons are playing a big joke on the country’s law. Should law protect original mobile phone interfaces from so many similar products? The answer seems to be affirmative. Mobile phones have a large user group and huge commercial interests, and the acquisition of these interests depends largely on the creative product interface. Mobile phone icons can trigger applications, while inefficient protection for mobile phone interface may cause adverse consequences.

Now that we recognize that GUI must be protected, legislators should not allow themselves to leave the problem unresolved because they are bound by rigid legal provisions. They should “face” the market’s objective needs and use those legal provisions to find solutions. That is, after all, the reason why legislation was originally created.