People briefed on the details of the business defamation case in Kowloon City

Play games online June 5 (the author Moonlight) May 26, netizens found that the Shanghai Court website Bulletin of the trial row is impressively Nineth City sued Blizzard property damage and commercial defamation.　　June 2, we also found that the Shanghai Court website Bulletin of the trial schedule increased the Nineth city to sue Blizzard infringement of computer software copyright. June 3, the Shanghai Court website will be the trial scheduled for July 8 trial of two cases of commercial defamation and software copyright removal.　　But at the first Intermediate Court in Shanghai, which was scheduled for trial, we found that the two cases had not been withdrawn, but that there had been court time and that the defendants had undergone some changes. Today, the Nineth city to sue Blizzard's specific content is still not disclosed by the media. But according to people familiar with the matter, the commercial defamation case is mainly related to the May 12 Blizzard's failure to notify the Nineth city to add a modified agreement to the patch.　　Based on what he has provided, we can infer some specific details of the commercial defamation case.　　The cause of the case according to people familiar with the situation, nine city think Blizzard New modified User agreement wording is very tough, some of these agreements are issued on the Nineth city position, such as the seventh change to "Nineth City has the absolute right to suspend, terminate and/or delete user accounts."　　Because this protocol is sensitive to release, plus the May 12 Night server emergency maintenance, suffering one weeks CD players can not play the game (nine city on this and no say), began to organize, on the agreement, emergency maintenance and other matters to the nine cities launched a denunciation. On the morning of May 13, Blizzard issued a public statement acknowledging that the changes were made by blizzard and believed in the changes made, stating that most of the changes in these agreements were actually modified in 2008, but were not included in the client to meet the user because of a fatal negligence.　　After the announcement, the player mood is relieved, because nine city again this emergency maintenance server up to 10 hours, angry players did not have the understanding of the nine city.　　Late on the same day, nine cities issued a statement that the user agreement without the consent of the nine cities, is invalid.　　Litigation reasons for this lawsuit, the Nineth city that Blizzard did not inform the nine cities under the circumstances of the modification of the user agreement, this behavior is not appropriate, has been the credibility of the nine city has caused adverse effects, but also to the nine-city trust has been greatly reduced.　　According to the 14th article of China's anti-unfair competition law, commercial defamation means "the behavior of the operator to damage the commercial reputation and commodity reputation of the competitor by fabricating and distributing false facts and other improper means". The Nineth City believes that Blizzard's user agreement changes to World of Warcraft have brought a huge user trust crisis in nine cities.　　Therefore, although the agreement itself has no false facts, nor to fabricate or spread untrue remarks, but this agreement objectively caused the player to the nine city misunderstanding, the nine city's commercial credibility caused damage. Nineth city that, although from the process, add new patches to be audited by the nine cities, but such as the modification of user agreements should be Blizzard initiativeTo the nine city, rather than in the audit of the nine city to find out before informing.　　There are plenty of reasons for Blizzard to support his win.　　First, Blizzard and the Nineth City are still partners, not rivals, until the contract expires. Second, Blizzard made a detailed public statement on the matter the following day and apologized.　　From Blizzard's point of view, this is a mistake rather than a deliberate act.　　Third, the agreement itself does not have the original version of the wow_tou_chineseprc_20081022 (http://wowchina.com/tos.html) of the user agreement does not have a substantial difference, and this agreement is already approved by the nine city.　　Four, from the agreement itself, there are no fabricated, false and misleading facts, these provisions should have been written in this way, the other parts of Europe and the United States, the same user terms. The behavior of blizzard is mainly to make up for the mistake of not sending the newest user protocol to the client before.　　In addition, this user agreement is clearly to be communicated to the user, as for the time, in the agent at any time of the transition is very sensitive. On the other hand, we know that the truth in the trial is on the one hand, and other factors outside the court can not be ignored. And because Blizzard is a U.S. company, if they think that the local Court in Shanghai can not get fair approval, may raise jurisdiction objections, if the court found that the objection was established, nine city can only find a court with jurisdiction to separate prosecution.