Data preservation and Technical Qualification

Data preservation and Technical Qualification

The first group of evidence is used to prove that the office software interface and other design systems are well-known technologies in the industry and do not have originality. It is unreasonable for the plaintiff to claim infringement. 1. Information on the comparison between office automation software products of other companies such as huoyan mountain downloaded from the internet and those of weier Corporation; 2. Xiamen Siming District Public certificate Office (2004) sha Si Zheng Min Zi No. 532nd public certificate; 3. Dongda Alpi vniversal office5.0 user manual; 4. Shenyang Neusoft Global Office Automation System; 5. Introduction to case/oar7 of Shanghai Kasi software Co., Ltd.; 6. Preliminary Comparison between word and WPS.

 

the court deems that the report has been reviewed by the court and complies with article 29th of the "several provisions on evidence of Civil Litigation", and presented to both parties for reading and verifying. The plaintiff requested an expert to appear in court and received a question from the client, but refused to pay the court fee of the expert. The consequences should be borne by the plaintiff. He stressed that "the appraisal conclusion is that the three pieces of the software are basically the same, the claim is not completely the same, so the appraisal report has no evidence value, because the opposite evidence and reasons are not provided. Therefore, according to Article 71st of the Several Provisions on civil litigation evidence, "The People's Court entrusts the appraisal department to conclude that the parties have no evidence or justification to the contrary, the court can determine the evidentiary force of the supplementary appraisal report.
In conclusion, the Court holds that the computer software copyright protects the computer Program and related documents. The appraiser will involve three materials of the weier OA software and the files of the software V3, database and Source Code , and the company's copyright protection center in China. the three checked materials of the registered software are divided into two groups, after the same group of inspection materials are "basically the same, then, the source code, target program, and document of the two different software involved in the competition will be selected from the materials checked by both parties for the same-sex comparison. The appraiser has the right to determine the authentication method and scope for the purpose of being able to ultimately clarify the problem based on legal provisions or scientific rules, the qualification and professionalism of the appraisers and appraisal experts comply with relevant regulations. The appraisal methods adopted by the appraisers are appropriate, the appraisal procedures are legal, and the appraisal reports comply with the legal forms and requirements. The objection raised by the plaintiff does not provide relevant scientific and legal basis, and there is no evidence or reason to refute the contrary, and it is not accepted. In view of the fact that the conclusions of the supplementary appraisal report are the same as those of the "wiloa software" recognized in the No. 56 Technical Appraisal Report of Kochi jianzi (2004, resolved the defects existing in the first appraisal report. The two appraisal reports confirmed each other. According to article 71st of several provisions on civil litigation evidence, the Court also confirms the effectiveness of the technical appraisal report No. 56 of Kochi Word Recognition (2004.
(3) whether the defendant constitutes an infringement shall be supported by the plaintiff's claim.
the Court holds that the copyright of computer software is protected by law. The plaintiff's self-developed heqiang V3 software has applied for the registration of the 4sr04452 software copyright, which is protected by law. Successful software development involves many factors such as the R & D level, capital investment, and R & D time of the Development Company. The length of R & D time is not the only factor that determines the success of software development.

the premise for judging that the software in this case constitutes an infringement must be that the competing weioa software is the same or similar to heqiang V3 software. The source programs are neither the same nor similar . Therefore, the plaintiff heqiang claimed that the defendant wilwell developed and sold the wiloa software in just a few months. The defendants Zhu chaoliang, Chen Haibao, ou Liangfu, and others had contact with heqiang V3 software, the defendant's actions jointly infringe the copyright of the plaintiff heqiang V3 software, and the reasons for lack of factual evidence cannot be justified. The defendants Zhu chaoliang, Chen Haibao, and ou Liangfu left the plaintiff heqiang company for several months. After the establishment of the defendant wilwell, they were hired as company employees, the corresponding benefits or results arising therefrom shall be enjoyed or assumed by wilwell, the plaintiff demanded that the defendants Zhu chaoliang, Chen Haibao, and ou Liangfu should also assume the legal liability for the OA software infringement caused by wilwell. Moreover, the plaintiff did not have any evidence that Zhu chaoliang and ou Liangfu participated in the development of the welaoa software. Zhu chaoliang and ou Liangfu were required to bear the tort liability, without any evidence. The plaintiff also had no evidence to prove that the defendant used or kept the co-strong V3 software for the competition in this case. As for the defendant Chen Haibao's computer, whether the relevant information of heqiang company constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's trade secrets and the competition in this case will OA software copyright infringement dispute is subject to two different legal relations and does not fall into the scope of this case, and should be separately claimed; in this case, the plaintiff also clarified the right to retain the lawsuit against other infringement actions of the defendant. Therefore, the court will not accept the first item of the plaintiff's claim. The self-developed weier OA software by the defendant weier company does not constitute or infringe upon the copyright of the plaintiff heqiang V3 software. The plaintiff accused the defendant of insufficient evidence of infringement and requested to order the defendant to stop the infringement, the Court does not support the lack of evidence in the media to publicly apologize and compensate for economic losses. The plaintiff shall bear the costs for the identification of the case due to the plaintiff's reasons. Accordingly, in accordance with article 64th of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and article 1st of the Supreme People's Court's several provisions on civil litigation evidence, the decision is as follows:
the plaintiff Xiamen heqiang software Co., Ltd. was rejected.
the case acceptance fee is RMB 24707.82, the technical appraisal fee is RMB 45000, and the travel appraisal expense is RMB 16804, which shall be borne by the plaintiff within seven days from the date on which this judgment takes effect ).