Both EU RoHS and China RoHS regulate the same six restricted substances. However, the two regulations are very different. Some, but not all, of the differences include: product scope, regulatory approach, and China's more burdensome conformity assessment and labeling requirements.

China RoHS is implemented through two steps. The first step is marking and labeling requirements for all Electronic Information Products (EIP) containing HS. The second step is CCC requirement after the product is listed in the Catalogue issued and updated by CNCA. PRC Ministry of Information Industry (MII) mentioned that they were planning on mapping the Harmonized System Codes used for CCC to the EIP, but have not indicated a timeframe.

As such, CCC is not required by China RoHS unless and until the product is listed in the Catalogue. Companies need comply with the marking and labeling requirement while keep monitoring any update of the Catalogue to check if any products are listed.

The Chinese word “YiShang” is subject to two different interpretation: “at least” and “over.” More often than not, “YiShang” in Chinese law means “at least.” Clarification usually is given in the law itself or in later-published implementation rules or Supreme Court Opinion. Some major Chinese laws, such as China Criminal Law (刑法) and China Civil Codes (民法通则), have respectively provided that “YiShang, YiXia include the number itself (以上、以下包括本数).” To my knowledge, so far there is no official interpretation to the word as appeared in the 2006 China Company Law.

Yes, the CIETAC currently has some arbitrators of U.S. nationality, such as George B. Adams, Andrew Aglionby, Genald Aksen, William Alford, Harry L. Arkin, Louis Begley.

美国大多数州承认Non-Compete的合同条款是有效的（Valid），而问题是该条款是否会被法院执行（Enforceable）。有两个关键因素来确定其可执行性。第一，你的工作内容必须具有独特性（Unique），也就是说，你的工作不是一般人可以做的。第二，对你离职后选择工作的地域限制和时间限制都必须是合理的。如果你的案子诉到法庭，那么该工作的独特性和该限制是否合理将是争论焦点。

This issue is mostly controlled by China Employment Law, China Anti Unfair Competition Law, and relevant regulations by China Labor Department. In practice, most of cases by far are in connection with two circumstances: improper use/disclose of business secret; or working for competitor prior to termination of existing employment contract.

In fact, non-compete clause limiting employee's scope of future employment for two years was already held enforceable over ten years ago, before Employment Law was made. Court held that such clause enforceable provided that it "merely limits the scope of employment during a certain period of time, and does not deprive the right of employment outright."

Non-compete clause is more likely to be enforced if it expressly states that its purpose is to keep "business secret." In another case, court held that in order to preserve business secret, one can limit its employee's conduct even after termination of employment. Courts seldom use the term "key employee" in their opinions. "Business secret" must satisfy four factors,
roughly: not public known, economically beneficial, practically useful, and being protected.

By the way, one latest remarkable case you might be interested in is a lawsuit against Motorola heard by Beijing court last month, where plaintiff alleged that Mot tortiously took away 17 engineers by unfair competition.