Header graphic for print

China Law Blog

China Law for Business

Product Molds And Tooling In China: Three Things You Must Do to Hang on to Yours

Posted in Basics of China Business Law, Legal News
You may own it, but if you have not done the right things to hang on to it, you ain't gonna get it.

You may own it, but if you have not done the right things to hang on to it, you ain’t gonna get it.

What with China’s economic downturn, our China lawyers are getting an increasing number of emails and phone calls from companies seeking our help to “get their molds” back from their Chinese manufacturers. Whenever a foreign company terminates its Chinese manufacturer, it is at great risk of having the Chinese manufacturer keep the foreign company’s molds. The Chinese manufacturer typically holds on to the molds to extract money from the foreign company, but sometimes it does this simply for revenge. And what we are seeing more of these days is the situation where a Chinese manufacturer shuts down and one of the manufacturer’s creditors swoops in to take the foreign company’s mold.

And the thing about molds is that their true value so often exceeds their actual value. We have on more than one occasion been retained by American companies who have expressed a willingness to pay 2-3 times the actual value of their tooling to get it back. They are willing to do this is because they want to prevent their former manufacturer or some other company that has bought their molds from their former manufacturer from being able to use their molds and duplicate their product or because they need their molds fast to be able to fulfill already pending orders.

If you want to position yourself to be able to hang on to your mold, there are some relatively simple and inexpensive steps you should take.

The first thing you should do is identify the heck out of your molds by etching or engraving (in Chinese) the fact that the mold is your property and, if possible, do this both where it is obvious (to deter others) and where it is well hidden (to deter those who might try to remove your markings).

The second thing you should do is require your manufacturer sign (and properly seal) a contract (in Chinese) making clear that you own the molds and what will happen to the Chinese manufacturer (specific damages) if it fails to return your molds to you. It is also critical that your contract be written with a Chinese (civil) law system in mind and not a U.S./British common law system. In other words, your contract needs to work for China because that is where your dispute over your molds will need to be resolved.

The third thing you can do, if possible get a deposit from your manufacturer for your molds, which deposit you will return when your molds are returned to you. If your Chinese manufacturer refuses to give you a deposit for your molds, (which is what happens way more often than not), use its refusal as a leverage point to justify your putting in the liquidated damages provision that applies if your mold is not returned when specified. That provision alone goes a long way towards taking away any incentive for your Chinese manufacturer to hang on to your molds.

When we are retained to draft a stand-alone mold or tooling ownership/return agreement or when we put a mold or a tooling provision in a China OEM Agreement, we start by sending the following questions (among others) to our client:

  • Please provide a 1-2 paragraph description of what you will be doing in China that will be covered by this mold/tooling agreement.
  • What kind of items will be the subject of the agreement: molds, tooling, equipment?
  • Where will the tooling be located? One manufacturer? Numerous?
  • Do you have a direct relationship with the manufacturer, or are you working with an intermediary (sourcing agent or similar)?
  • What agreements do you already have in place concerning the basic business relationship with the various parties? If you have any written agreements, please send them.
  • Does the tooling already exist?
  • What will be the source of the tooling? Will the manufacturer design and manufacture the tooling? Will the manufacturer purchase from others? If yes, under what kind of agreement? Will the tooling be contributed to the manufacturer by the buyer? By the buyer’s agent? Some other entity?
  • What will be the payment method for the tooling, and who will pay?
  • Who will design the tooling? In what form will the design be provided to whoever will manufacture the tooling?

Do the above and your odds of keeping your molds will go way up.

China Experts: Really?

Posted in China Business, Recommended Reading
There are experts; just no "China experts."

There are experts; just no “China experts.”

David Wolf over at Silicon Hutong just did a blog post that everyone should know about — at least anyone who has ever used the term “China expert.” In his post, entitled, No China Experts, Wolf talks about how there is no such thing as a China expert. Does anyone know a United States expert? I rest my case.

Wolf lays out the following disclaimer:

I am not a “China expert.”
There is no such thing as a “China expert.”

Anyone who comes to you claiming to be a “China expert” is either deluded (and thus to be pitied), lying (and thus suspect), or out to separate you from your money (and thus to be avoided.)

In my experience, those who claim to be China experts virtually always fall into one of the last two categories, which probably should be conflated into just the last one.

Wolf then writes about how “China is too large, too old, and too complex to be sufficiently understood by a single individual. At the very most, we can be ‘specialists.’ We can never be ‘experts.'” Amen.

Wolf then issues the following counsel:

When doing business in China, you thus cannot rely on the counsel of a single individual, regardless of how experienced, well-connected or erudite. Instead, seek and genuinely consider the advice of a range of people of different backgrounds, and in so doing form your own view based on a synthesis of their views.

China “experts” will only get you into trouble.

Of course he is right.

For another spin on this issue, check out Your Chinese-American VP Don’t Know Diddley ‘Bout China Law And I Have Friggin Had It

China Fashion Law Symposium: New York City, September 24

Posted in Events
If we can make it in NYC....   (Photo by glynlowe.com)

If we can make it in NYC…. (Photo by glynlowe.com)

The Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law and the Fashion, Arts, Media & Entertainment (FAME) Center will be putting on US & China: Perspectives on Brand Protection and Intellectual Property on September 24 at 5 PM in New York City.

Here is the agenda:

5:00 p.m. Registration opens

5:30 p.m. Opening remarks by Dean Leslie

5:45 – 7 p.m. U.S. Issues for Chinese Businesses


  • Geoffrey Sant, Special Counsel at Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • Barbara Kolsun, Professor and Director of FAME at Cardozo School of La


  • Cindy Yang | Partner, Schiff Hardin LLP
  • Helen Su | Counsel, Alston & Bird LLP
  • Mark Cohen | Senior Counsel, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and author of the China IP Blog

7:10 – 8:35 p.m. China Issues for U.S. Businesses


  • Geoffrey Sant | Special Counsel at Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • Barbara Kolsun | Professor and Director of FAME at Cardozo School of Law


  • Dan Harris | Founding Partner, Harris Moure and author of the China Law Blog
  • Cedric Lam | Hong Kong Partner, Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • Ling Zhao | CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office and Cardozo LLM Student
  • Lara Miller | Associate Counsel, International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition
  • Stephen Lamar | Executive Vice President, American Apparel & Footwear Association

8:35 p.m. Reception in the main lobby

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Unmade In China: The Perfect Book For Right Now

Posted in Uncategorized

Just finished reading Jeremy Haft’s book, Unmade in China: The Hidden Truth about China’s Economic Miracle.

Let me start by saying that I greatly enjoyed it and I learned a lot from it. It made for a fast and easy read. It was just released and its timing could not have been better because one of its main themes is that China’s economy is not nearly as robust as is (was?) so widely believed. It helps explain some of what is going on with China’s economy today.

Get the book

Get the book

The book sets out to debunk the following three “myths.”

  • China’s Economy is about to surpass the U.S.
  • Everything is made in China
  • China’s currency manipulation kills jobs

One of Haft’s big themes is that we tend to give far too much credit for the good that comes from China and fail to realize how much bad comes from China, especially when it comes to product manufacturing. Haft plays up how so much of what is manufactured in China is really just assembled there from components made elsewhere. He also highlights how so many of the products China makes are of abysmal quality.

Take baby formula in China. Please. Haft questions why we should expect china to be able to develop and build high end nuclear power plants or airplanes when it cannot even make safe baby formula. Haft sees China’s inability to make good products as an opportunity for US-made products and services to thrive in China.

I agree and I disagree. All that Haft says about China products is true, but at the same time, more and more China designed and made products are competing worldwide. Are these top of the line products? Very very rarely. But they are oftentimes quite good products produced and sold at lower prices than their competitors. And what about all the made in China products we buy every day that work just fine?

Unmade in China did an excellent job of debunking the notion that China’s economy is a juggernaut surpassing that of any other country. I recall reading once how a majority of Americans believe China is already richer than the United States. Haft very nicely takes apart this notion using cold hard facts.

He notes that the United States has $40 trillion more in household, corporate and government assets than China. In other words, the United States is a way, way, way richer country than China. Anyone who has been to China would readily agree on this. And in terms of China’s economy going forward, Haft sees it growing old before it grows rich.

Haft also does a good job (though he is certainly not the first to do this) of highlighting how so much of the revenues and profits from products that are made in China actually goes to the US. He writes of how nearly all of the revenues/profits from a $70 pair of US-branded sneakers made in China goes to the U.S. companies that designed them, handled their transportation, warehousing, advertising and retail costs. He does, however, neglect to mention that Chinese and other foreign companies are increasingly taking on some of these ancillary services tied to products. For example, warehousing of products is increasingly being done in China as is the transporting of products on Chinese made and owned vessels with Chinese crews.

Though Haft does a good job on a micro level explaining how the United States benefits from using China for so much of its product manufacturing, like so many “China people” (this blogger included), he too often glides over the bigger picture. Haft’s arguments very much remind me of a Forbes article, entitled, One Way To Save U.S. Manufacturing Jobshighlighting a small Midwest windmill company that had unequivocally saved American jobs by moving a large portion of its production to China. The genesis for the Forbes article was one of our posts, China. Friend Or Foe? Opportunity Or Challenge? Or, Why Can’t We All Just Get Along? detailing how our client had managed to save the jobs. All good, but if there were no China, this company would never have had to send any jobs to China in the first place.

But what about on a macro level? Does sending manufacturing to China really help the people who 30 years ago would have worked at a factory making $20 an hour plus benefits, but now work at a fast food stand making $9 without benefits? Does sending manufacturing to China strengthen our country? Does anyone really believe that China will not slowly but surely keep closing the gap with the United States on product quality? What will happen then?

Overall though, I very much liked Unmade in China and I see it as an important and accurate counterweight to so much of what is written and believed about China. It is the perfect book for right now

On Leaving China: Bill Bishop of Sinocism

Posted in China Business, China Travel, Recommended Reading


As regular readers know, I love when someone else writes my blog posts for me. Ryan McLaughlin, an old China hand, now living in remotest Canada (is that redundant?), did that honor for me the other day via his Facebook page.

A couple weeks ago, I listened to a Sinica podcast staring Bill Bishop. For those who don’t know, Bill has been writing Sinocism since forever and anyone who is anyone with respect to China has been reading for that same amount of time. I do not distinguish myself at all by saying that it is one of the first things I read pretty much every day.

Sinica describes the BB episode as follows:

As anyone who reads the Sinocism newsletter knows, Bill Bishop is among the most plugged-in people in Beijing with an uncanny ability to figure out what is actually happening in the halls of power. But as casual readers may not be aware, he is also an excellent podcast guest due to his habit of bringing first cupcakes and now amazingly smooth bottles of Japanese whisky to our recording sessions before trading the latest gossip about the goings-on in Zhongnanhai.

On today’s show we mark Bill’s departure from China and his return to the United States where he plans to live for the next few years with his family. While not exactly your requisite “Why I Am Leaving China” blog post, this show gives Kaiser Kuo and David Moser the chance to talk to Bill about the reasons behind his decision, and explore why he sees an increasingly strained relationship between China and the United States over the next few years.

Like I said, I listened to this podcast a few weeks ago. And at the end of it, I thought about writing on it so as to encourage others to listen to it as well, but not being so good at rapid and concise summarizing, I ended up punting. Until now, upon seeing the following on Ryan’s FB page:

Finally got around to listening to The Sinica Podcast’s recent episode with Bill Bishop. It should be required listening for anyone with even a remote interest in China. Gives a fantastic Reader’s Digest version of the past two decades of China, and does a decent job explaining where things are at today and why…

And something about Bill leaving China.

That’s about it. Oh, and I too recommend that you to listen to it.

China Dream or China Nightmare

Posted in Basics of China Business Law, China Business, Legal News
The Nightmare, by John Henry Fuseli. Don't let this become your China reality.

The Nightmare, by John Henry Fuseli. Don’t let this become your China reality.

The frustrating thing about China is that even 15 years after China’s entry into the WTO, many of the attractive business opportunities in China are still closed to foreign investors. There are many examples: telecoms, insurance, transportation. And though foreign investors are frustrated, cash poor Chinese entrepreneurs are similarly frustrated because these “closures” make it very difficult — sometimes impossible — for them to raise foreign capital to exploit these markets. With frustration on both sides, Chinese businesspeople are constantly working on schemes to evade China’s regulations. These schemes are then sold to foreign investors eager to share in the China dream.

The problem with these schemes is that they nearly always involve evading Chinese law. Foreign companies frequently come to the China lawyers at our firm asking us to review one of these schemes. This is not good business for our firm, because where the scheme involves illegally investing money in China, we always warn against participation and then cease our legal representation going forward. On top of this, far too often, the foreign company becomes frustrated with us, all but accusing us of having blocked them from their China fortune. My reply is to indirectly ask a simple question: now that you know the scheme is illegal why do you think it will work to your benefit? They usually respond with one of the following:

1. They point out that other foreign investors have been permitted to invest in China under the same type of scheme. My response on that is to agree that Chinese regulators often will look the other way in allowing foreign money to enter China. Nothing at all new here.

After conceding that China let these investors send money into China, I ask them if they can name even ONE of these foreign investors who was allowed to repatriate their investment back out of China together with a reasonable profit. I have been asking this question for more than twenty years and nobody has ever come up with a single verifiable example of a foreign investor in an openly illegal investment scheme who was allowed to take the money out of China at a profit.

What actually happens to these investors is that when the investor seeks to cash out, the Chinese regulators discover (again?) the irregularities and block any remittance of equity or profit. The rule on all of this is very simple and is one we have been preaching since we started this blog: it is easy to get money into China illegally, but it is nearly impossible to get the money back out. Of course, this rule applies mostly just to foreign suckers as Chinese nationals are often able to pull off the complete scheme. Their success is what often fools foreign investors into thinking the same program is open to them. It is not. Repeat after me: “It is not.”

2. An equally popular response is that the scheme is being promoted by a large and prosperous Chinese company, usually a national or regional state owned enterprise. The investor will then tell me that if this big government owned bank or insurance company or shipping company or whatever is promoting this scheme, how could it possibly be considered illegal in China? This kind of reasoning is just a trap.

Recently I was contacted by a U.S. securities trader who was being presented with a scheme for trading shares on the Shanghai stock market. As is generally known, foreign entities or persons are not permitted to trade A shares in Shanghai. This particular trader is expert at identifying risks, and he asked me to take a look at the scheme. I told him that the scheme is illegal and though it will no doubt be easy to get your money into China, you will never be able to get it out.

He then asked how this could possibly be considered illegal when it is being promoted by one the largest securities brokers in China and a state owned enterprise on top of that. There is no way that this program (“scheme”) could have a better pedigree. I stuck to my guns.

Less than a week later I read in the Hong Kong press that Mr. Xu Gang , the Chairman of the Board of Citic Securities had been arrested together with seven of the top executives of the company. One of the charges against the Citic executives was for promoting illegal trading schemes. That is, the exact type of scheme that had been promoted to the savvy trader who contacted me. Had this savvy investor put his company’s money into this scheme, it is likely little if any of it would ever have come back.

Bottom Line. If a program is illegal in China, don’t do it. If you cannot make money in China by complying with Chinese law, invest elsewhere. Never believe a Chinese promoter who seeks to assure you that the Chinese government “looks the other way.” Do not allow your China Dream to turn into a China Nightmare.

Killing Our Blogroll ≠ Our Own Death, Which Has Been Greatly Exaggerated

Posted in Good People
The future wil be confusing and we will be a part of it

The future will be confusing and we will be a part of it

In just the last week, I have received around ten emails and a comment or two on the blog bemoaning the death of our China Law Blog. The below are two of the favorable ones:

I have heard about the end of China Law Blog. But I am not alone in saying that this was one of the premier blogs on China for many years. I am sorry to hear of its passing. Have you thought about taking some of the pertinent issues and repackaging them into a book? Or has that been done to death? In your case, you would have a lot of material that might work in a book format.

It has been a great pleasure to follow your China law blog. I understand that all good things have to come to an end but I will miss it. I read your blog every chance I got and I want to thank you for all that you did.

This one is far less favorable, and I think I know from whence it comes:

Your shutting down your stupid blog so close to your tenth year just confirms what so many of us knew all along. You are a fraud and nobody has read your blog for many years. We are laughing at you now, you f—-king loser.

But guess what. We have no plans to end our blogging.

A few weeks ago, I wrote of how we would be pulling the switch on our blogroll (our list of the recommended blogs) and then about a week ago we did. But pulling the plug on our own plug? No way, no how. And why should we? Our readership remains as high ever (probably higher) and our social media engagement with our readers (via Facebook and Twitter and LinkedIn) has really just begun. But I think those posts caused the rumors to spread. They are just so false.

So to those who worry about our shutting down, worry not. And to those (one person actually) who thought you were dancing on our grave, you were not. So there.

We fully expect to be here for another ten years, like us or not.

China Private Equity: It’s Complicated

Posted in Legal News
China Private Equity

From http://bit.ly/1JOkZdC

Until a few months ago, just about everybody and their mother was interested (and some still are) in setting up companies in China to collect investment funds. The below is a fairly standard email we would write in response to foreign companies that wanted to do this via a China WFOE:

1. WFOEs are generally not permitted to collect funds in China as the funds holder for a crowd funding entity. Dealing with funds is a highly regulated business in China and no WFOE or JV (that is, no PRC company with any foreign ownership) would be permitted to operate in China. Note that a WFOE can only have foreign persons (companies and individuals) as shareholders.

2. You could however form a consulting WFOE in China that would allow you to provide advice to Chinese citizens on making investments outside of China. Note, however, that as is the case in the United States this type of investment advice is ultimately subject to various levels of government regulation. That is, if you are acting as a broker, then you will be regulated as a broker.

3. There is currently a lot of interest in China in investing outside of China in high tech projects and the PRC government officially encourages such strategic investing. As is always the case in China, however, it is important to look below the surface of these government pronouncements. In fact, very little Chinese outbound foreign investment (OFDI) has been made by private companies in the technology sector. Since 2005, the vast majority of investments have been made by SOEs in the resources sector. Private companies have for the most part been cut out of PRC OFDI, but that is slowly changing.

However, there is still a strong interest by PRC private investors. Some want access to leading edge technology. Others simply want to get their money out of China. There are in fact a number of PRC private equity funds that have been formed just to tap into this market. The situation for them has been as follows:

Though PRC individuals and private companies want to get their money out of China, the PRC government wants to keep the money in China. The PRC fears large capital outflows and still requires private investors secure to convert RMB to foreign currency for investments overseas. That approval has proved difficult to obtain.

To counter this, most private investors from China do not invest directly from China. They instead invest from their subsidiary entities located in tax havens such as Hong Kong, the Cayman Islands and BVI. By investing from these locations, they avoid both the PRC government approval process and they avoid tax on gains from their investment activities. This process then raises two issues in working to promote this type of investment: i) what is the actual source of the funds and ii) is the PRC is actively working to shut down this route of investment for private businesses.

4. So it is still difficult to work on a large scale with investment from Chinese individuals and private companies in foreign projects. This then leads back to the issue of forming a WFOE. Any investment you obtain from a private source in China is likely to be infected by the source/legality issues. This then makes for a very uncomfortable life for any person resident in China working on this kind of project. Most people who work in this area therefore set up in Hong Kong and leave the on the ground investment promotion to Chinese nationals affiliated with the various private equity and venture funds that are springing up all over China. The other option would be to set up a consulting WFOE that encourages Chinese to invest overseas via their offshore sources.

If you are still interested in pursuing something in China, I would encourage you to retain us to more thoroughly research your options. The above is based on past work we have done and there have no doubt been some changes on the margins that might give you greater opportunities.


China As Middle Income Country: Is The Downturn The New Normal?

Posted in China Business
Why do so many just assume China's economy will forever rise?

Why do so many just assume China’s economy will iveorever rise?  Photo by Daniel Oines (http://bit.ly/1UCVgtu)

Way back in 2011, when China’s economy was still going gonzo, Economist Magazine came out with a special report on whether China would be able to escape the Middle Income Trap. The lead article in that report was titled: Beware the middle-income trap: China’s roaring growth cannot last indefinitely, and I remember it well. I remember it well because I back then sought to engage many people in discussing whether China would ever escape the middle income trap and very few would Then, as now, just about everyone who does business in China or with China is reluctant to admit it possible that the real issue with China’s economy is not its short term gyrations, but rather, whether China will soon plateau at an economic level more akin to Thailand or Malaysia or Brazil or Russia, rather than reach the heights of a Japan or a United States.

Back in 2012, I was on a “Doing Business in China” panel at a Wharton Business School China Forum and while there I had the opportunity to listen to a great lecture by world-renowned economist, Augusto Lopez-Claros. I asked Professor Lopez-Claros whether he thought China would be one of the rare countries that breaks through the middle income trap and his answer was a resounding “it’s possible.” He then went on to note how only six countries have really done that and become developed: South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Chile. I’m not even sure Singapore and Hong Kong are even large enough to count.

I am not prepared to say that China will not be able to burst through the middle income trap, but I will say that I think those who just assume that it will are ignoring all sorts of things. I will also say that since that 2012 event I have asked a number of other economists and a number of people with deep knowledge of China and of its business climate/economy this same question. And the most common answer I get is that it’s possible, but that it hasn’t really shown much evidence that it will yet. These people talk of how, yes, the complexity of the widgets China is building is growing, but that there are so many other factors indicating it is not heading for first world status, including governance, corruption, massive numbers of rural poor, exodus of talent, and stifling of innovation.

Will China ever become a developed country? If you think it will, what do you think China has that that will enable it to do so? Conversely, if you think it will not, please explain why you think that. I see China doing just fine, a la Malaysia, but becoming an economy like Japan’s, no I don’t see that. Do you? And if you do, what are you seeing that I am not?

The China Blogroll That Died, Part 1

Posted in Recommended Reading
Might we be overdoing the death thing?

Might we be overdoing the death thing?

Teddy sniffing glue he was 12 years old

Fell from the roof on east two-nine
Cathy was 11 when she pulled the plug
On 26 reds and a bottle of wine
Bobby got leukemia, 14 years old
He looked like 65 when he died
He was a friend of mine

Those are people who died, died
Those are people who died, died
Those are people who died, died
Those are people who died, died
They were all my friends, and they died

Jim Carroll, People Who Died

Though I realize that shutting down a blogroll is not the equivalent of friends dying, my shutting down our blogroll today does feel a bit like losing good friends. As I wrote a few weeks ago, in What To Read On China: The End Of Our Blogroll, we chose to shut down our blogroll simply because it had become more trouble than it was worth. As I also wrote in that post, we will be writing a post every once in a while memoralizing three of the deleted blogs at a time. Today’s is the first in that series.

I also want to remind everyone that throughout this “deletion period” we will be gathering up any and all good reads on China, consisting of the following:

1. Good China blogs. “Good” shall mean helpful to those doing business in China or just interested in China.

3. Good podcasts related to China.

4. Good websites related to China.

5. Good twitter accounts related to China.

6. Good Facebook pages related to China.

7. Good books related to China.

8. Good Linkedin Groups related to China.

This is going to be a massive and long-term undertaking and it is going need your help. And so towards that end I ask that you send your suggestions and your lists to us at “firm at harrismoure dot com” and that you put “China List” in your email’s subject. We will over the next few months be reviewing what you send us and doing our own research and then eventually come out with a bunch of blog posts with the results.

We will be doing this alphabetically in threes, and so I start with Asia Health Care Blog, Atlas China and Beijing Boyce.

  • Asia Health Care Blog. This blog is actually now called Health Intel Asia, and it is still vibrant and excellent. Its tagline is “We want to help you better understand Asia’s healthcare markets” and it succeeds in doing exactly that. It is written by the Rubicon Strategy Group, an Asia health care consultancy led by Benjamin Shobert and Damjon De Noble, two leading experts in the Asian health care industry. This blog has been churning out great posts since 2009 and if you have any interest in China’s or Asia’s health care industry, this very much remains a must-read.
  • Atlas China. This blog/journal is on “Hiring trends. Workplace strategy. Executive interviews. The ATLAS-Journal is designed to give you applicable insight that will get you hired or promoted.” It is written by Abe Sorock, a Beijing-based employment/recruiting company. Abe has lived and worked and done business in China for a long time and he is truly insightful on what those entail. I do however need to mention that Abe has not posted since March.
  • Beijing Boyce. Jim Boyce of Beijing Boyce has been eloquently writing about Beijing’s food and beverage scene for just about as long as I can remember. And though I cannot prove it, I believe that Beijing Boyce went up on our blogroll in our first year, 2006. I can prove that we referred to his somewhat eponymous blog in a post for the first (and not the last) time way back in 2007. Jim’s blog is still very much alive and though nominally about Beijing food and wine, the blog is actually great reading for anyone with any interest in China. The blog’s tagline is “a somewhat steady hand on the China F&B scene” and take away the “somewhat” and if you take away the “somewhat” I would heartily concur.