B工程有限公司：
本人系A公司法律处顾问，接受公司委托，就本公司与贵公司因合作协议及所涉有关法律事务现提出如下意见：
一、贵公司与本公司2004年4月13日所订立题为“中华人民共和国范围内指定市场上销售代理和制造伙伴”之协议，实则为国际技术转让合同，其特征是贵公司作为国际技术转让方向作为国际技术受让方的A转让贵公司的技术和经验，即贵的技术知识和经验的使用权，A公司作为受让方所获得的是在中国范围内销售和使用贵司的技术和经验的权利，即专有权。其权限使用费为860000美元。协议所约定的“A公司仅提供MIA系统，不得使用或提供由其他厂商制造的系统”，仅仅体现了机器设备交易与国际技术转让相结合，该类合同仍是当前的国际技术方式之一，属国际技术转让合同范畴。
二、我国法律规定，国际技术转让的供方不得强使受方不合理的限制性要求，未经审批机关特殊批准，合同不得含有限制性条款。
如：
1、限制受方自由选择从不同来源购买原材料、零部件或设备。
2、限制受方从其他来源获得类似技术或与之竞争的同类技术。
据此，贵公司是否有些嫌？
若成立，本公司当有保留申请认定该有关条款无效之权利。更何况我公司到目前为止尚未同任何一家企业缔结有关贵公司系统的合同。而贵公司却以此为理由拟终止我们间的合作协议，其原因何在？若贵公司再一意孤行的话，我公司则无奈，那只能求助于法律解决。
三、应当注意，协议第7条，A公司付给B的权限使用费860000美元所购的是MIA的技术/经验和产品的独家使用权及销售权，请注意“销售权”三字，此处仅指“权利”，而非义务。虽然权利与义务应当相一致，但此处本公司花钱仅是为了享有权利，销售的权利；而非义务，销售的义务，必须销售MEI系统产品的义务。谁又想花钱买义务呢？
四、协议第4条所述“……在中国市场上具有足够的竞争力”，意味着物美价廉，花最少的钱买到使用价值相同或相当的同一产品，“足够竞争力”的标准由谁来评判，不必是我公司，不必是贵公司，而应是事实，而谁又有义务主张此一事实呢？我想应该是贵公司。
五、我公司在与贵公司合作中到目前为止，还迟迟不见贵公司就5号工程的纳税发票和进口设备的有关报关文件。若贵公司再置若罔闻，由此而引发的法律后果只能由贵公司自吞其果。
以上建议条款望酌之！



A法律顾问处
原 泉
2005年6

to : B Engineering Company Ltd.

Dear Sirs,

I am a counsultant at the legal Department of A Company and am being instructed by the Company to comment as below on the legal position regarding the co-operation agreement between yourself and us :

1. The agreement dated 13th April 2004 between yourself and us was entitled "Agreement on Sales Agent and Manufacturing Partner at Specific Markets within the Peoples' Republic of China". It is a de-facto agreement on international technical transfer. Its main characteristic is the transfer of your company's technologies and experiences between yourself being the transferor of international technologies and our company being the transferee. It is therefore the legal right to use your company's technologies and experiences. A Company being the transferee under the agreement is being conferred the legal right to sell and use your company's technologies and experiences. The legal right is on an exclusive basis and the amount payable on such legal right is US$860,000. The clause within the agreement stating "A Company provides only MIA system and shall not use or provide other systems manufactured by other factories" merely establishes an integration between a machinery/equipment transaction and an international technology transfer. Such a contract is an internation technology transfer contract and is currently one of many ways to transfer technology widely used in the world.

2. Under the laws in China, unless otherwise specifically approved by approving authorities, transferor of an international technology transfer shall not impose unreasonable restrictions onto the transferee by way of inclusion of restrictive clauses within the contract.
For examples :
a) restricting transferee's freedom on selecting raw materials, spare parts or equipment from different sources ;
b) restricting transferee obtaining similar technologies or competing technologies from other sources.
On the basis of the above, ["贵公司是否有些嫌？" do not understand this sentence]
Even where a case is established, our company is still entitled to apply for an official nullification of the clause in question. Moreover, our company has to date not entered into agreement with any other enterprise regarding your company's system. We would like to know the rationale behind your company's intention to terminate our Agreement on this basis. In the event that your company insists on the termination of Agreement，we will have no choice but to settle by legal means.

3. Your attention is drawn to Clause 7 of the Agreement where the payment of US$860,000 is for the "exclusive right to use" and "exclusive right to sell" the MIA technologies/experiences and products. The "right to sell" refers to the right and not obligations. Although we do understand that right and obligation should be compatible, with due respect please be advised that we spend our money for a right, the "right to sell" only; and definitely not for an obligation, the "obligation to sell" and the obligation to sell MEI systems and products only. Who would spend money on an obligation?

4. "..... sufficient competitiveness within the Chinese market" in Clause 4 of the Agreement refers to "value for money" and "spending the least money to obtain the product which offers the same or similar usage value. The standard of "sufficient competitiveness" is matter of fact and therefore neither your company or ourselves are in the position to deliver a judgement thereon. It is our opinion that your company is in the position to verify the fact.

5. In the co-operation between your company and ourselves, we have yet to receive tax payment invoices and customs declaration documents in for equipment importation in respect of Project No.5. In the event that our requests in this regard remains unheeded, the resultant legal consequences shall be at your own expense.

It is our sincere hope that the above comments could be considered seriously.


A Legal Consultant Department

YUAN Quan
June, 2005