Jimmy Lin accused China Merchants Network, computer bags and other three defendants infringement of reputation, claim 520,000 yuan

Beijing Chaoyang Court held a hearing on July 10, 2014 on the case of Lin Zhiying v. Huashang Wang, Computer Newspaper and other three defendants' fame. The plaintiff, Lin Zhiying, demanded that the three defendants immediately stop the infringement and also apologize to the plaintiff five consecutive times in a conspicuous position, claiming a total of 520,000 yuan.

According to the court in Beijing Chaoyang, Lin Chi-ying himself did not appear in court the same day. Instead, he was entrusted with a lawyer to appear in court. He was brought to court by a lawyer with Hwang and Huashang Wang was summoned by a court of law without lawful summons. Therefore, the court absent the trial.

In court, the plaintiffs, namely, Lin Chi-ying's attorney, considered that many articles published by the three defendants were false reports, making the article viewers and fans question the Lin Chi-ying and brought tremendous mental pressure to him.

Plaintiffs attorney said: "The three defendants' malicious infringement derogates the positive image that the plaintiff has shaped for a long time, seriously reducing the plaintiff's social appraisal and constituting a grave violation of the plaintiff's right of reputation," said a lawyer.

The plaintiff disclosed that one of the defendants, Huashangwang, said: "Lin Chi-ying again lied to the identity of a technology company as a fraud." Reproduced articles, top Lin Zhiying Baidu (184.94,2.64,1.45% "Lin Chi-ying: technology people or science and technology" blind "and" Lin Chi-ying re-investigation: the mystery of science and technology companies director of the mystery "by fabricating the title of the inducement derogatory plaintiff's reputation.

The defendant, "Computer News" that the company published articles is objective and fair, does not constitute a prejudice to the reputation of the plaintiff. There are two reasons: First, as a media to enjoy the supervision of the public opinion given by law, through a multi-channel collection and verification of strong evidence on the biographical evidence of the existence of a number of doubtful reports were made. Second, as far as the act of harm is concerned, there has never been any act of infringement of the right of Lin Chi-ying, such as humiliation, slander or falsification of facts.

The defendant explained the suspicion of Lin Chi-ying mentioned in his report: The defendant pointed out: 1. Xinwang Information Technology Co., Ltd. did not find out that Lin Chi-ying was related to its existence upon inquiry; 2. The technology companies it founded were monopolized by Taiwan There is no supporting evidence for the monitoring of security operations by the military and banks.

3. Lin Chi-ying claimed that the Bada system it developed was used by the military, and the defendant said there was no public information and evidence to prove that; 4. Lin's identity as an executive director of the Taiwan Internet Society was queried by the defendant for "minutes of previous supervisors meetings" No Lin Zhiying's name; 5. Invitational Technology Co., Ltd. as a director of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan Business Department website and other public channels and found that Lin Chi-Ying is not a director. (Nora)