Case analysis:

Peking University Founder Group Co., Ltd. and Beijing Red Mansion Institute of Computer Science and Technology v. Beijing Gaoshu Tianli Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Gaoshu Technology Co., Ltd. for computer infringement

Software Copyright Dispute Litigation Case

Peking University Founder Company is the copyright holder of Founder RIP, Founder Font Library, and Founder Wenhe software. It is also the salesperson of Japan Screen (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.’s laser imagesetters in China business. Gaoshu Company once sold laser imagesetters as an agent for Peking University Founder Company. The laser imagesetters sold used Founder RIP software and Founder Wenhe software. The agency relationship was subsequently terminated. Gaoshu Company and Screen Company signed an agreement for the sale of laser imagesetters, stipulating that the laser imagesetters sold by Gaoshu Company must be equipped with the genuine RIP software of Screen Company or the genuine RIP software of Peking University Founder Company. Peking University Founder Company suspected that Gaoshu Company was involved in manufacturing and selling the above-mentioned software. It appointed employees to use their personal names (pseudonyms) and applied for the participation of notaries from a notary office. It contacted Gaoshu Company employees many times to purchase laser imagesetters. Gaoshu Company sent employees to install a laser imagesetter in a room temporarily rented by employees of Peking University Founder Company, installed pirated Founder RIP software and Founder Wenhe software on two computers owned by Peking University Founder Company, and provided files with the above-mentioned records. Software CD. A notary office notarized the above process on-site. Peking University Founder Company filed a lawsuit in court on the grounds that Gaoshu Company

infringed its computer software copyright. The court of first instance held that Peking University Founder Company adopted a method of “trap evidence collection”, which was not prohibited by law and should be recognized, and Gaoshu Company should immediately stop its infringement. Gaoshu Company was dissatisfied and appealed. The court of second instance held that Peking University Founder’s method of collecting evidence was not the only way to obtain evidence of infringement. This method of collecting evidence violated the principle of fairness. Once widely used, it would cause damage to the normal market order. Therefore, this method of collecting evidence was not approved. recognized. Peking University Founder Company was dissatisfied and applied to the Supreme People's Court for a retrial.

The focus of this case is the determination of the legality of the "trap evidence collection" method. In the absence of express provisions on the legality of this method of evidence collection in laws and judicial interpretations, the Supreme People's Court's retrial judgment analyzed the legitimacy of this method of evidence collection based on the specific circumstances of this case and in accordance with the method of interest measurement and value orientation. This further affirmed the legality of the evidence collection method of Peking University Founder Company in this case. The exemplary significance of this case is that civil law does not implement statutory doctrine in principle. For behaviors that are not expressly stipulated in the law, the principle of "permission is not expressly prohibited by law" cannot simply be applied. Instead, whether it is legal or not needs to be determined based on the balance of interests and value orientation. . This referee method has certain universal applicability.

This case was once called "the largest anti-piracy case in the country" by the media, and once attracted widespread attention in the software industry and legal circles. The judgment is conducive to solving the problem of difficulty in obtaining evidence in such cases, and plays a role in deterring and curbing infringements. It is in line with my country's requirements for strengthening intellectual property protection and striving to create a legal environment conducive to improving independent innovation capabilities.