The Power of Attorney paper recorded as Appendix 8 shows the seal certificates provided by the seven companies which serve as Petitioners in this case. The page 7 of the Power of Attorney shows, “Our company … was incorporated under the Delaware state law (or California state law) …. The intentionally authorized representation includes: …Mr. Yang, Tai-shun and Mr. Shih Yu-lin, both from the Foundation for the Protection of Film and Video Works (FVWP), located at 5F, No. 156, Han-jhong Street, Taipei City, are agents of our company. The agents can represent our company to … (c) use the seal to produce petitions, complaints, declarations and other legal documents necessary for submitting to police stations, prosecutor offices, and courts to protect copyright or other IP rights.” That is, Mr. Yang and Mr. Shih as the agents of Petitioners have a right to represent Petitioners to use the company seals and file a petition, which is part of litigation rights. The copyright protection of foreigners’ works is vested in Article 4 of the Copyright Act, which is based on the Doctrine of National Treatment. But, if any international treaty or agreement, approved by the Legislative Yuan, provides other protections, Article 4 and the clause 2 thereof allows such protections to be better than what our nationals can enjoy. The Agreement for the Copyright Protection between the American Institute in Taiwan and the Coordination Council for North American Affairs, issued July 16, 1993, was passed by the Legislative Yuan on April 22, 1993. The Agreement is what Article 4 refers to. Thus, the protection of American copyright owners is governed by the Agreement. (See Supreme Court Criminal Decision 2006 Tai Shang Zi No. 6891.) Because Article 18 of the Agreement states, “Juridical entities of the territory represented by each Party to this Agreement shall be entitled to full rights of filing suit or prosecution in the territory represented by the other Party, whether or not that entity is recognized by the authorities of the other Party,” it should triumph Article 372, Para 2 of the Company Act, which states, “A foreign company shall designate representative within the territory of the Republic of China to represent the company in all litigious and non-litigious matters and to serve as its responsible persons in the Republic of China.” As a result, to protect the copyright of Petitioners, the agents in this case produced the petition document by using Petitioners’ seals and submitted the petition to the police station, prosecutor office and court. Those acts did not disobey the law.