2010, China'S Internet Fans Are Heavily Involved.

Because the Internet has unparalleled strong economic value and status, inevitably, it is the new problems and legal disputes arising from its rapid development.

How to regulate Internet companies, ensure fair competition in the Internet industry, and balance the interests between the public and enterprises is worth pondering.

Here, "market guide" reporter invited the senior domestic Internet legal expert Luo Yun, China

1. "3Q war"

[case replay] Tencent, the most loyal user of Chinese Internet companies, is regarded as the "terminator" of many Internet companies.

This time, the dispute between QQ and 360 came from the dispute between the QQ computer housekeeper and the 360 security guard.

October 2010 -11 month, 3Q dispute escalated.

QQ has issued a number of user books, requiring users to make a choice between QQ and 360.

This incident affects six hundred million netizens in China, causing a great stir.

Subsequently, netizens continued to complain to Tencent all over the country, and more lawyers filed letters to the Ministry of Commerce demanding an anti monopoly investigation against Tencent.

In November 2010, the Chaoyang District people's Court of Beijing confirmed that it had formally accepted Tencent's technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Tencent computer system Co., Ltd., Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd., Chi Chi software (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and Beijing three party Unlimited Network Technology Ltd suspected of unfair competition.

Tencent claims: "the 360 privacy protector", by monitoring the operation of Tencent QQ chat software, uses false propaganda means to mislead and deceive users, slander the plaintiff and plaintiff's products, "peep" the privacy of users, and cause great damage to the reputation of the plaintiff and plaintiff's products and services.

At the same time, the defendant also called "QQ snooping on users' privacy for a long time", "QQ invaded user privacy", "QQ acknowledges snooping privacy", "QQ is peeping your privacy", "please carefully select QQ", and slander plaintiffs and plaintiffs products and services through official blogs, official forums and production themes.

In addition to calling for a 360 public apology and stopping the development, dissemination and distribution of the "360 privacy protectors" and related software, Tencent also requested 360 joint compensation for Tencent $4 million.

The 360 aspect insists that all actions proceed from the interests of users.

The case is under trial.

Expert comment: in the "3Q war", the important issue is not legal issues, but rather

2. true and false "happy net" case

[case replay] in March 2008, kaixin001.com began its formal operation.

Six months later, thousands of oak bought kaixin.com domain name at high price, and launched the same website called Kaixin.

In May 2009, kaixin001.com sued 1000 oak for unfair competition, demanded that it stop using the name and claim 10 million.

In October 28, 2009, the case was first heard in court, but Thousand Oaks played the trick of "left hand changing for the right hand". The kaixin.com pferred to 1000 oak under the name of thousand oaks and was not sentenced in court.

In June 2010, the case was heard for the two time. Thousands of oak asked for the identification of kaixin.com in October 2008 and its specific name. It was rejected by the court in court.

In September 2010, thousands of Kaixin net merged with everyone, and the account was "interconnected".

In October 2010, the true and false happy net case settled.

Expert comment: the case is known as "the first case of Internet unfair competition". The phenomenon of similar website names and similar website layout has become increasingly common.

Under such circumstances, it is the key to win the lawsuit that he should appeal to protect his prior rights.

The case is of great significance to the choice of litigation claims, collection of evidence, and other cases of unfair competition in other networks.

3. Cai Jiming Baidu post bar case

[case replay] Professor Tsinghua Cai Jiming, who chaired the national holiday system reform program and proposed the proposal to break up the May 1 golden week, and add three traditional festivals such as Tomb Sweeping Day, Mid Autumn Festival and Dragon Boat Festival to the statutory holidays, was set up by the netizens in Baidu post bar to "Cai Jiming paste it" to abuse it.

Cai Jiming took the Beijing Baidu Netcom Science Technology Co., Ltd to court and asked to delete the insulting remarks in the post bar and close Cai Choi Ming. He issued an apology statement to provide users with information to abuse and insult him, and to compensate for mental damages and rights protection totaling over 210 yuan.

On June 10, 2010, the people's Court of Haidian District, Beijing tried to hear the case.

In December 17, 2010, the court of first instance ruled in Haidian that the Baidu post bar system is a network service platform. Baidu does not belong to a situation where users of the Internet are not aware of the corresponding duty of care by using their network services to infringe on Cai Jiming's civil rights and interests.

"Cai Jiming bar" is only a channel for public opinion to speak on public figures and public events. The name of "Cai Jiming" refers only to the focus of public opinion, which does not infringe on its right to name.

Most of Cai Jiming's claims were dismissed, but the Baidu Inc must provide Cai Jiming with online user information to abuse, insult and threaten language in Cai Jiming's post bar.

It is reported that the decision of the case referred to the thirty-sixth provision of the Tort Liability Act, which came into effect in July 1, 2010, to the legal liability of the network service provider.

The judge thinks that Internet speech is an important channel for public opinion supervision. From the perspective of protecting the interests of society, we should not take too strict measures against Internet speech.

Expert comment: for the tort liability of the network service provider, the newly implemented tort liability law provides for the first time the legal order, which happened before the enforcement of the Tort Liability Act, but the judgment referred to the provisions of the new law.

This case brings us another new legal point of view, that is, how to balance the interests between public freedom of speech and personal rights and interests.

4. public comment network two v. love network {page_break}

[case replay] in August 2010, the public comment network, following the two prosecution of AI Bang network infringement, once again took the help network to court on the grounds of unfair competition, and asked AI Bang to make a public apology on the obvious position of its home page, and to compensate for the economic loss of the public comment network by RMB 9 million yuan.

The public comment network has accused AI gang of copying its website content, obtaining inappropriate browsing and competitive advantages, which is an obvious "hitchhiking" behavior. It believes that its "love network" has become China's largest local life search service provider, and is also the largest and most complete online platform for life information.

In April 2008, the public comment network was brought to the defendant by AI Bang network.

In October 28th of the same year, the court of first instance ruled in Haidian that the fact that AI gang had infringed the copyright of the public comment network was established.

Subsequently, AI Gang appealed.

In September 9, 2009, the court of final appeal of the Beijing intermediate people's court ruled to repeal the first instance judgment and dismissed all the litigation requests of the public comment network.

In December 2009, the public comment network again filed a lawsuit against the AI Bang network, asking the other party to stop copying and introducing the contents of its own website merchants, and in April 3, 2010, the case was publicly heard, and no sentence was pronounced in court.

Expert comment: the public comment network and love Gang have been grieving for a long time. Although Li Kui worked hard for many years, he never knocked Li Gui away.

The reason lies in the choice of the petition, clarifying the scope of copyright protection, identifying the jurisdiction of the anti unfair competition law, and carefully weighing the lawsuit before it increases the legal code for the establishment of Zhang.

5. Tencent and Sogou: "the first case of input method"

[case replay] in June 23, 2009, Sogou filed a lawsuit against Beijing's second intermediate people's court against Tencent's unfair competition.

While downloading and using the "QQ Pinyin method" software, the defendant Tencent Inc took the method of inducing and deception, and used its destructive technical means to delete the shortcut way of "Sogou Pinyin input" software directly from the network user terminals. It objectively prevented the network users from using the "Sogou Pinyin input method" software of the plaintiff at the same time. In the case of users choosing to use the software of "Sogou Pinyin input method" and "QQ Pinyin input method", the defendant Tencent Inc made use of its destructive technical means to make human intervention in the natural sorting of all kinds of input method shortcuts of the network user terminals, so that the ordering position of the shortcut of "Sogou Pinyin input method" software is always after the "QQ pinyin" method. Sogou believes that Tencent provides users with "QQ Pinyin input method" software service business, undermining Sogou Pinyin input method software services, including: users.

In November 19, 2010, Tencent filed a lawsuit against Sogou in Beijing's first intermediate people's court.

Tencent believes that Sogou maliciously interferes with users. When users install Sogou Pinyin input method and Tencent's QQ Pinyin input method at the same time, Sogou input method manager input method repair process will automatically start, prompting users to carry out "repair".

It even prompts users to "repair" at 4 p.m. every day and misleads users to delete the QQ Pinyin input method.

In addition, Tencent also accused Sogou on its website that "Sogou Pinyin input method is the highest rate of online users, the most powerful Pinyin input method, and promises no plug-ins".

But in fact, there are at least two plug-ins, which are linked to Sogou search homepage and Sohu NEWS HOMEPAGE respectively.

In June 21, 2010, the court of first instance in Beijing decided that Sogou constituted unfair competition, ordered to stop infringement and compensate for the loss of 240 thousand yuan.

A day later, in June 22, 2010, the court of second intermediate people's Court of Beijing decided that the Tencent constituted unfair competition, ordered to stop infringement, compensate for the loss of 231 thousand yuan and eliminate the impact.

Judging from these two judgments, Sogou and Tencent have their own faults in the competition of Pinyin input method software. Therefore, each prosecution has its own outcome.

Expert comment: the case ended in fifty rounds of the two sides, but it sounded the alarm for the unfair competition of Internet companies.

The fierce war between the Internet giants is not important to China's more than 600 million of Internet users who wins or loses.

However, competition among Internet giants still needs to follow the principles of voluntariness, fairness and honesty.

6. Wang Hui's first case of Internet literature.

[case replay] in July 12, 2010, Wang Hui, a writer of Internet literature, held a press conference in Beijing, calling his original fantasy novel "Luo Fu" a "Shanzhai" starting from the Chinese website.

Wang Hui said he would start using the unfair competition means to infringe his legitimate rights and interests on the grounds of starting the Chinese net, and prosecute the Chinese net operator, Shanghai's Mdt InfoTech Ltd.

{page_break}

In December 1, 2009, the innocence novel Luo Fu has been widely praised by the readers. It has received more than 20 million hits and has received a favorable reading rate of 98%.

It quickly became the top two hits in Chinese.

The starting point of Chinese net launched a rover in April 15th this year. The author was named "Yellow Crane Nine Songs" and was recommended to read when it was just launched.

At the same time, starting from Chinese net, in order to promote its own "Rover", Baidu has bought the key word "Luo Fu" in the promotion link of Baidu. If netizens use "Rover" search on Baidu, the first place is rover, starting from Chinese net.

The innocent attorney pointed out that the defendant only marked "Luo Fu" in the promotion link, deliberately confused the innocent "Luo Fu" and "Shanzhai" "Luo Fu", which misled the readers and misled the readers into thinking that the "copycat version" Rover "published by Chinese online" is innocent, "Rover", which is a kind of unfair competition behavior, which seriously violated the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests and disrupted the normal competition order.

Expert comment: online publishing has broken the traditional pattern of book publishing.

As the first case of "infringement of Cyber Literature", the act of starting the Chinese net in this case is suspected of unfair competition, which is contrary to the principle of honesty and credit.

However, from another point of view, it is worth discussing whether the title of the work can constitute the "special name" of the "well-known commodity", which is protected by the second articles of the Fifth Law of the anti unfair competition law.

7. Lishui netizens "QQ group commit suicide"

[case replay] in June 2010, Xiao Zhang of Lishui sent a message on the QQ group of Tencent, called "the house of souls", invited people with suicidal wishes to commit suicide together and left their own cell phone numbers.

After seeing this news, Xiao Fan, a student from Shanghai Maritime Univeristy, got in touch with Xiao Zhang. The two sides agreed to commit suicide in Lishui.

At 7 in the morning of June 24th, two people committed suicide by burning charcoal at a good hotel in advance.

In the process of implementation, Xiao Zhang felt headache, and decided to give up suicide. However, Xiao Fan insisted on continuing suicide and died.

Later, Xiao Fan's parents believed that Xiao Zhang had committed suicide by inviting Xiao fan through the Internet before he finally led to the death of Xiao Fan.

Xiao Zhang released the information about suicide in QQ group. As the operator of QQ, Shenzhen Tencent computer system Co., Ltd. should be jointly liable for the death of Xiao Fan. Xiao Zhang should bear the main responsibility.

The total amount of losses caused by the death of small fan is 279 thousand yuan.

In October 22nd this year, the Liandu District Court of Lishui tried to hear the case.

Tencent Inc believes that Tencent is not qualified to examine people's communication content, so they can not be held responsible for suicides.

Similar network suicide cases are the first in China.

In December 3, 2010, the court of first instance decided that Xiao Zhang had repeatedly invited public invitation to commit suicide to a specific group of objects on different QQ groups. The Tencent Inc has not taken measures against harmful information that may infringe upon the health and rights of others, causing Xiao Fan to meet with the defendant Xiao Zhang and commit suicide.

The indirect combination of Xiao Zhang and Tencent Inc's actions will result in damage consequences. The corresponding liability should be borne according to the proportion of negligence and the ratio of cause and effect. Finally, Xiao Zhang and Tencent Inc will bear 20% and 10% liability respectively.

Expert comment: Internet suicide is the first case in China.

The focus of the legal profession is that the Tencent is responsible for the first instance of the case, and whether it will lead operators to examine the user's "communication content" and thereby infringe on the privacy of users.

The effective judgment of this case is bound to have a significant impact on network operation and management in the future. That is the meaning of this case.

{page_break}

8. Beijing News v. Zhejiang online infringement case

[case replay] in 2007, the Beijing News found that Zhejiang online had not been authorized to reprint the "Beijing News" article for a long time.

In the second half of 2007, the Xinjing newspaper sued the Zhejiang online website at the Beijing intermediate people's court. The claim amount amounted to about 1900000.

In August 2008, the case was pferred to the Hangzhou intermediate people's court.

The case has been tried for nearly 3 years.

In early 2010, the court demanded that the Beijing news be prosecuted separately, and the new Beijing newspaper disagreed.

Subsequently, the Hangzhou intermediate people's court and the Zhejiang Provincial High Court ruled that the plaintiff did not agree to separate the 7706 articles, so he dismissed the prosecution.

Subsequently, the Beijing news report filed a lawsuit against the Hangzhou intermediate people's court.

In September 21, 2010, the intermediate people's Court of Hangzhou carried out a combined hearing of 10 separate cases of infringement.

In November 2010, the Beijing news again complained about 38 online infringement cases in Zhejiang.

Expert comment: this case highlights the conflict between the development of traditional paper media and network media under the Internet environment, and the case of litigation is criticized by the public.

The legal profession believes that the spirit of the case is violated in the civil procedure law.

The press thinks that this is a contest between the Internet media and the traditional paper media, while the high litigation cost of the media protection is not directly proportional to the low compensation amount, which has become a big embarrassment for the paper media.

9. You Peng Pu video copyright litigation

[case replay] in 2010, UF was heavily prosecuted for video sites and video client-side.

Prosecuted Youku and PPTV respectively.

In September 1st, the digital publisher, excellent friend Pu Le, concentrated on the Shanghai tort Media Technology Co., Ltd. (PPTV), and the Pudong New Area people's Court of Shanghai first held a trial.

For the first time, the court will hear PPTV's alleged infringement of the Internet copyright drama, including "Fengyun 2", "supreme", "reloaded police" and more than 30 popular films involving infringement claims amounting to 1 million 560 thousand yuan.

Not long ago, he also sent a report to IPO, a member of the securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and a lawyer's office, on the piracy lawsuits in China.

Expert comment: 2010 is a year when video websites are fighting big wars. Disputes are frequent and lawsuits continue.

Behind the copyright protection is the interests of the same business enterprises.

Perhaps these wars can never be appease, but no doubt the high cost of litigation will lead Internet companies to a more rational and law-abiding development path.

10. grand Baidu infringement case

[case replay] in November 17, 2010, according to the twenty-first Century economic report, Hou Xiaoqiang, CEO, published a number of micro-blog in recent days, accusing Baidu Library of a large number of pirated content. "Baidu library will not die, and Chinese original literature will die."

In order to oppose the infringement of Internet piracy, the grand literature will jointly interact with encyclopedia, Dangdang, and dozens of publishing agencies to initiate joint action against Baidu. The largest scale lawsuit against Baidu will be formed in history.

This time, Shanda will refer directly to the Baidu library.

According to media reports, in March 16, 2010, Shanda literature filed a formal complaint against Baidu on five novels, and the court in Luwan District, Shanghai, was formally placed on file.

In the lawsuit, the grand literature lists seven reasons for prosecuting Baidu: "1. Baidu infringes the royalty income of the author of the grand literature contract".

2. Baidu has led to serious theft of chain works and embezzlement.

3. Baidu controls the rankings, blocking the grand literature novel without any reason to enter the hot search rankings.

4. Baidu post bar has become a serious piracy zone in Internet literature.

5. Baidu is slow to ask for the deletion of pirated content.

6. Baidu's connivance to pirated websites undermines the development order of the creative industry.

7. Baidu has led to serious losses in Shanda literature.

Shanda believes that Baidu's search results contain pirated information that infringes the rights of Shanda literature and will claim millions of yuan to Baidu.

The lawsuit is still fruitless.

{page_break}

Expert comment: the development of network technology has made digital works the most common form of writing works, and digital environment challenges traditional copyright.

As a network service provider, how much attention should be paid to the obligation, how to understand the new "tort liability act" thirty-sixth articles and so on will be the case left to the public to ponder.