More legislative traffic on the 'Doi Moi' superhighway : technology transfer, IP and competition law in Vietnam

Since 1986 Vietnam has been engaged in the transition from a centrally-controlled economy to a socialist-oriented market economy (the 'doi moi' renovation). The process for global economic integration has been slow given the magnitude of necessary reforms. Consequently technology entrepreneurs often discount Vietnam as a possible commercialization base which means that it is not realising its economic potential as a hub of technology transfer in the Asia-Pacific region. Three significant factors in the current uncertainty are Vietnam's laws on competition, intellectual property and technology transfer. Another problem is the lack of literature on these laws. This article first discusses the conceptual relationship between competition, intellectual property and technology transfer. Hopefully the article will provide some guidance for the technology entrepreneur considering foreign direct investment (FDI) in Vietnam. The bottom line is that these laws still need further reform to bolster entrepreneurial confidence.

Corrigendum to "Mapping hippocampal and ventricular change in Alzheimer disease" [NeuroImage 22 (2004) 1754-1766] (DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.03.040)

We recently noticed an error in the demographic data in this article. The validity of the findings and the conclusions of the paper is not affected. However, there is an error in the reported sample size and in the means and standard deviations of the subjects’ ages and MMSE scores. We would like to correct this error, which came to light when we were re-analyzing the data for a meta-analysis. The error occurred because an older version of a spreadsheet was incorrectly used when reporting the sample composition. Instead of examining 12 Alzheimer's disease patients and 14 healthy elderly controls, we in fact examined 17 Alzheimer’s disease patients and 14 healthy elderly controls. All maps and morphometric data reported in the paper are correct, except that the sample size was in fact slightly higher than that originally reported, and the maps computed in the paper were based on the larger sample (which included five more subjects in the Alzheimer’s disease group). All of the maps and figures in the paper are correct, and the conclusions of the paper are unchanged. We apologize for this error, which falls under the sole responsibility of the first author. The corrected demographic information appears below.