Killing to provoke a dispute to insinuate the huge hidden trouble of webpage game

Intermediary transaction http://www.aliyun.com/zixun/aggregation/6858.html ">seo diagnose Taobao guest cloud host technology Hall

Recently studied the Shenzhen Fast Rui Technology Co., Ltd. v. Chongqing DB Network CEO Zhengli breach of contract tort, to my understanding, the order of events is this:

November 2007, the two sides on the "police bandits to kill the City network game" reached a cooperation agreement;

April 2008, the game online, but the two sides on the date of the dispute;

March 2009, fast-Rui technology issued a letter, said that the game will not renew after the expiration of cooperation;

April 2009, the two sides wrangling. One of the focus of the wrangling is that fast-tech believes that the April 17 of cooperation expires, and access to science and technology, May 1 expired;

May 5, 2009, DB Network operation of the "killer online" online.

The point of contention is that fast-tech thinks, "killer online" game graphics design, people, music, equipment are all used in the rapid design of the version of the technology, and access to technology defense said, "the game added more fashion clothing and fun props, and they have" Chongqing Copyright Bureau Copyright Registration Certificate "( But in fact, it is only an acceptance number, which is completely different from the concept of the certificate, such as the total can not say I want to marry Zhang Ziyi, she is my wife? So they think, "These two games are not the same game."

In my opinion, fast-Rui technology really to win the lawsuit and get compensation, there is a certain degree of difficulty.

Why?

First of all, the law is fastidious about logic and justice, at the glance of things in life, in the court must be rigorous reasoning, for example, you say I tort, but my game and yours is not the same, then in the law, you must first to make a definition of infringement, in the end is where the same form of infringement, the proportion of infringement, is 20% or 80%, is unintentional infringement or intentional infringement ... In the end, there are many things to be done.

However, for the judges who do not know the computer industry, let them determine whether the two game interface is also possible, single to let them determine the two game code, the core is similar, whether the alleged infringement, how much money, obviously is an imposition.

It reminds me of another famous case in the IT industry: in 2005, Microsoft Vice President Kai-Fu Lee moved to Google, Microsoft insists that Lee is a search engine expert, so he went to Google to work in violation of the rules of the industry ban, and Lee said he is not what Microsoft called "Search Engine field experts", He specializes in speech recognition and human-machine interface, and during Microsoft's work, he "did not have the actual product architecture and algorithm design work, and did not see a line of MSN code." ”

Lee's claim has been recognized by many American it media commentators. However, by the time of the trial, Lee also referred to the lawyer's advice, to avoid his "whether it is a search engine experts" discussion, but focus on his Google and Microsoft in the nature of work and workplace differences, to convince the judge that his work in China and the previous work in Microsoft has no relevance, and promise not to engage in the development of search engine technology within a year. The reason for this is that lawyers believe that the trial is only 5 hours, and proving that they are not search engine experts is a difficult thing.

So, while we can see many of the shadow of alleged infringement at a glance, for example, there are a lot of similarities between the two games and why visiting technology can come up with a similar product in a matter of days after the agency is finished, which at least means that access technology is planning to replicate other people's games while it is still working together. But real legal certification can be a difficult and costly thing. This phenomenon is particularly evident in some people at the bottom of society, such as migrant workers, for them, passing the law to get back what they think of as "fair" is expensive, which is why we often see such excesses as "jump-show", plus what we often hear: "reasonable but not lawful, lawful but unreasonable", It is sometimes difficult to rely solely on the law to achieve fairness.

Perhaps because the law is fair sometimes relatively difficult, in the commercial activities, sometimes also take a businessman's way to resolve similar disputes. Businessmen will attach importance to "credit", because "credit" is a person and act, business, the most basic essentials and the most abundant life wealth, people or enterprises, whether in the workplace or in rivers and lakes, sometimes rather lose money, but can not save the credit crisis.

Naturally, both parties to the incident are not short of money, and may even have more money to litigate than the disputed amount, because this lawsuit represents the most important "credit" in business. I believe there will also be many people concerned about the development of this matter, and further said that this matter is not even more than two companies dispute, but the web game industry, the protection of intellectual property rights confidence. is if all doing operations like decibel network, then, the technical threshold is not high web game market will be more difficult to continue and bigger.

Or use this lawsuit one of the names homophonic to the end bar: The name is not "positive" is not smooth, the word is not smooth people do not "stand".

The merits are not necessarily in court, and people have their own arbitration.