>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Beijing iQIYI Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen VST Technology Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over other unfair competition)
北京爱奇艺科技有限公司诉深圳聚网视科技有限公司其他不正当竞争纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: IPR-->Others
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 04-26-2016
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette, Issue 12, 2016 (No. 242)

Beijing iQIYI Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen VST Technology Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over other unfair competition)
(Case about disputes over other unfair competition)
北京爱奇艺科技有限公司诉深圳聚网视科技有限公司其他不正当竞争纠纷案
Beijing iQIYI Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen VST Technology Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over other unfair competition) 

北京爱奇艺科技有限公司诉深圳聚网视科技有限公司其他不正当竞争纠纷案

[Judgment Abstract] [裁判摘要]
The actor develops and operates the relevant software, and realizes functions of directly playing videos of other online video platform without playing the former advertising. This act has violated the principle of good faith and impaired the lawful rights and interests of other online video platforms that seek business profits by depending on their justifiable business models. Therefore, it constitutes unfair competition. 行为人开发并运营相关软件,实现无需观看片前广告即可直接观看其他网络视频平台视频的功能,该行为违背了诚实信用原则,损害了其他网络视频平台依托其正当商业模式获取商业利益的合法权益,构成不正当竞争。
Plaintiff: Beijing iQIYI Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled in No. 1 Haidian North Street, Haidian District, Beijing Municipality. 原告:北京爱奇艺科技有限公司,住所地:北京市海淀区海淀北一街。
Legal Representative: Geng Xiaohua, Executive Director of the Company. 法定代表人:耿晓华,该公司执行董事。
Defendant: Shenzhen VST Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled in Bantian Sub-district, Longgang District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province. 被告:深圳聚网视科技有限公司,住所地:广东省深圳市龙岗区坂田街道。
Legal Representative: Hu Wenshen, Executive Director of the Company. 法定代表人:胡文深,该公司执行董事。
Plaintiff Beijing iQIYI Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “iQIYI Company”) filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai Municipality for disputes over other unfair competition against defendant Shenzhen VST Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “VST Company”). 原告北京爱奇艺科技有限公司(以下简称爱奇艺公司)因与被告深圳聚网视科技有限公司(以下简称聚网视公司)发生其他不正当竞争纠纷,向上海市杨浦区人民法院提起诉讼。
Plaintiff iQIYI Company alleged that as the legitimate operator of a famous Chinese large-scale online video platform, iQIYI, iQIYI Company provided network terminal users with VOD services of online videos and advertising production and release services for advertisers in the industry. Users acquired the content of videos for free at the cost of watching video advertising. By charging advertisers advertising fees, iQIYI Company made a profit and such advertising fees were its main business income. Defendant VST Company developed a piece of software “VST Quanjuhe,” which may be downloaded and operated on its official website and in other ways. This piece of software had a “function of filtering video advertising.” After a user installed the software, he may directly watch videos on the iQIYI platform without watching the video advertising, which caused decrease in iQIYI Company's website visits, downloads of the player client, and exposure rates of advertising of advertisers run by iQIYI Company. Furthermore, the interests of iQIYI Company were impaired and its legitimate rights and interests were infringed. Therefore, iQIYI Company requested the People's Court of Yangpu District to order that: (1) VST Company should pay iQIYI Company CNY 992,000 as compensation for its economic losses, the lawyer's fee of CNY 50,000, and the notarial fee of CNY 14,250; and (2) VST Company should publish a statement on its act of unfair competition on the top of the homepage of its official website (http://www.91vst.com) for consecutive 72 hours to eliminate adverse effects. 原告爱奇艺公司诉称,其系中国知名大型网络视频平台“爱奇艺”的合法经营者,通过该平台向网络终端用户提供在线视频的点播服务,同时向行业广告客户提供广告的制作和发布服务。用户以观看视频广告为代价获得免费的视频内容,其以向广告主收取广告费作为主要营业收入,以此实现盈利。被告聚网视公司开发了“VST全聚合”软件,通过其官方网站等途径提供涉案软件的下载和运营,该软件具有“视频广告过滤功能”,用户在安装该软件后,可以直接通过该软件观看“爱奇艺”平台的视频内容,而不再需要观看视频广告,导致爱奇艺公司网站访问量以及播放器客户端下载量的下降,降低了广告主在爱奇艺公司处投放广告的曝光率,进而导致爱奇艺公司的利益受损,侵害了爱奇艺公司的正当权益,故请求判令:1.聚网视公司赔偿爱奇艺公司经济损失人民币992 000元 (以下币种均为人民币)、律师费50 000元、公证费14 250元;2.聚网视公司就其不正当竞争行为在其官方网站(http://www.91vst.com/)首页上端连续72小时刊登声明,消除影响。
Defendant VST Company contended that: It and iQIYI Company were not in the same industry and there was no competition between them; when playing a video of iQIYI Company on “VST Quanjuhe,” the former advertising failed to be played because the video and advertising had different film sources. “VST Quanjuhe” could only acquire the content of the video, but the former advertising failed to be grabbed. VST Company did not shield the former advertising of iQIYI Company by technical means, the technologies it used were innovative and neutral, and its act did not constitute unfair competition. Therefore, VST Company requested the People's Court of Yangpu District to reject all claims of iQIYI Company. 被告聚网视公司辩称:其与爱奇艺公司不处于同一行业,不存在竞争关系;通过“VST全聚合”软件播放来源于爱奇艺公司的视频时不播放视频前的广告是由于视频内容和广告内容分处两个不同的片源造成的,其只能获取到视频内容,无法抓取视频前广告。其并没有通过技术手段屏蔽爱奇艺公司视频前广告,其使用的技术是创新、中立的,不构成不正当竞争。据此,聚网视公司请求驳回爱奇艺公司的全部诉讼请求。
After a trial of first instance, the People's Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai Municipality found that: 上海市杨浦区人民法院一审查明:
Plaintiff iQIYI Company was established on March 27, 2007. As a famous domestic video content provider, iQIYI Company provided network users with video play services through the website (www.iqiyi.com), computer client, mobile clients (Android and iOS). iQIYI Company maintained its normal business operations mainly by relying on the business model of “advertising + free videos” (that was, it charged advertising fees by playing advertising before playing a video and by watching the former advertising with different durations, a user may watch the video for free) or charge of membership fees (that is, after a user became a member by paying fees, it was unnecessary for him to watch the former advertising before watching the video). In this way, iQIYI Company paid such expenditures incurred by video copyright, band width, and popularization with the advertising fees and membership fees. 原告爱奇艺公司成立于2007年3月27日,系国内知名视频内容提供商,通过“爱奇艺”网站(www.iqiyi.com)、电脑客户端,安卓、苹果等移动平台客户端,向网络用户提供视频播放服务。爱奇艺公司主要依托“广告+免费视频”(即在视频内容播放前播放广告以收取广告费,用户通过观看时长不一的片前广告,获得免费视频观看)或者收取会员费的(用户支付费用成为会员后,无需观看视频前广告即可观看视频)经营模式,通过广告费、会员费收取支付视频版权、带宽、推广等支出,以维持其正常运营。
Defendant VST Company was established on November 22, 2013. The software “VST Quanjuhe” developed and operated by it gathered content of 18 video websites including the website of plaintiff iQIYI Company and it could be installed on Android-based clients as Pads, mobile phones, TV boxes, and smart TV. 被告聚网视公司成立于2013年11月22日,其开发并运营的“VST全聚合”软件是聚合了十八个视频网站包括原告爱奇艺网站内容,可以安装于安卓平台的PAD、手机、电视机顶盒和智能电视的客户端软件。
From May 4, 2014 to March 26, 2015, upon notarization for multiple times, plaintiff iQIYI Company testified that without playing the former advertising of videos, the content of videos on the website of iQIYI Company may be directly played through such media as smart TV, Tmall Box connected to TV, and smart phones after the software “VST Quanjuhe” of VST Company was installed. 2014年5月4日至2015年3月26日,原告爱奇艺公司通过多次公证的方式,证明在安装聚网视公司的VST全聚合软件后,通过智能电视、天猫魔盒连接电视机、智能手机等媒介,可以直接播放爱奇艺公司网站视频内容而不播放视频前广告。
On April 8, 2015, in the notary way, plaintiff iQIYI Company used the software “Wireshark” to demonstrate the video play principle: After a user made a request for watching the content of a video to the server, the server checked the source of the requested platform according to the code of the client making the request (SRC value). In this way, a secret key of the corresponding video data interface (Key value) was acquired. According to the access time value (Time ID) in the access request and the video code (Video ID) and in the sequence of Time ID + Key + Video ID, an SC value was generated by using the MD5 encryption algorithm. If the SC value was consistent with that generated in the access request, it passed the verification and the content under access request would be pushed to the user. In the video source data grabbed by the software “Wireshark,” only the access time value (Time ID), video code (Video ID), client code (SRC value), and SC value could be displayed. iQIYI Company adopted the encryption measure of setting a secret key (Key value) to the content of its videos and the secret key (Key value) was undisclosed. 2015年4月8日,原告爱奇艺公司通过公证的方式,使用“Wireshark”软件演示视频播放原理,用户在向其服务器发出观看视频内容的请求后,服务器根据发出请求的客户端代码(即SRC值)判断请求的平台来源,从而取出一个对应的视频数据接口的密钥(即Key值),结合访问请求中的访问时间值(即TimeID)以及视频编号(即VideolD),按照TimeID+Key+VideoID的顺序,采用MD5加密算法生成SC值,如该SC值与访问请求中生成的SC值一致,则通过验证,向用户推送其请求访问的内容。“Wireshark”软件抓取到的视频来源数据中只能显示访问时间值(即TimeID)、视频编号(即VideoID)、客户端代码(即SRC值)和SC值,爱奇艺公司对于其视频内容采取了设置密钥(Key值)的加密措施,且密钥(Key值)并未公开。
On April 13, 2015, in a notary way, plaintiff iQIYI Company used a decompiler and the software “Wireshark” to grab the access time value (Time ID), the video code (Video ID), and the client code (SRC value) when a video on the website of iQIYI Company was played on the software “VST Quanjuhe.” After the secret key (Key value) of iQIYI Company was added, the SC value generated by using the MD 5 encryption algorithm in the sequence of Time lD + Key + Video lD was consistent with that generated when the same video on the website of iQIYI Company was played on the software “VST Quanjuhe.” Therefore, when a video on the website of iQIYI Company was played on the software “VST Quanjuhe,” the secret key (Key value) of iQIYI Company was embedded to the software. In this way, the request of a user passed the verification of the server of iQIYI Company and the content of a feature film was pushed to the user. Defendant VST Company contended that it legally acquired the secret key (Key value) from open channels. 2015年4月13日,原告爱奇艺公司通过公证的方式,使用反编译工具,并使用“Wireshark”软件抓取“VST全聚合”软件播放爱奇艺网站视频时的访问时间值(即TimeID)、视频编号(即VideoID)、客户端代码(即SRC值),并加入爱奇艺公司的密钥(Key值)后,按照TimelD+Key+VideolD的顺序,采用MD5加密算法生成SC值与抓取的“VST全聚合”软件播放来自爱奇艺公司网站同一视频时产生的SC值一致。因此,“VST全聚合”软件在播放来自于爱奇艺公司网站视频时,内嵌了爱奇艺公司的密钥(Key值),从而通过爱奇艺公司服务器验证,向其推送正片内容。被告聚网视公司认为该密钥(Key值)是从公开渠道合法取得。
The charge modes for advertising on the website of plaintiff iQIYI Company and clients included CPM and CPD. In the former charge mode, the advertising sales were based on the volume of presentation per 1,000 persons and in the latter mode, the advertising sales were based on the number of release days for each advertising. There was an interface for the statistics of the number of occurrences of advertising in the player of iQIYI Company and advertisers settled with iQIYI Company according to the statistical data. 原告爱奇艺公司网站及客户端投放广告计费方式分为CPM计费和CPD计费,前者按照每千人展现量作为单位进行广告销售,后者按照每发布天数作为单位进行广告销售。爱奇艺公司的播放器中带有广告出现次数的统计接口,广告主根据统计的数据与其进行结算。
After a trial of first instance, the People's Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai Municipality held that: 上海市杨浦区人民法院一审认为:
The business scope of plaintiff iQIYI Company was video provision and that of defendant VST Company was development and sales of computer software and hardware. However, “VST Quanjuhe” developed and operated by VST Company was a piece of software providing videos. It was unnecessary for users to watch former advertising when they used “VST Quanjuhe” to watch videos of iQIYI Company, which would make users of iQIYI Company choose to watch videos of iQIYI Company through “VST Quanjuhe.” It would simultaneously affect the economic benefits of iQIYI Company and bring users to VST Company. Therefore, due to the reciprocal relationship between iQIYI Company and VST Company in business profits, there was competition between them. 虽然原告爱奇艺公司的经营领域是视频提供,而被告聚网视公司的经营范围是计算机软硬件的开发销售,但聚网视公司开发并经营的“VST全聚合”软件属于提供视频的软件,使用“VST全聚合”软件观看来源于爱奇艺公司的视频内容时无需观看片前广告,将导致爱奇艺公司用户选择通过“VST全聚合”软件观看爱奇艺公司视频内容,在影响爱奇艺公司经济利益的同时,给聚网视公司带来用户,因此,爱奇艺公司、聚网视公司在商业利益上存在此消彼长的关系,双方为竞争关系。
In consideration of watching the former advertising by users, plaintiff iQIYI Company provided users with free videos and made a profit by running advertising or collecting membership fees, in which way it was unnecessary for members to watch advertising. The aforesaid business models of iQIYI Company did not violate the existing laws and business morality, which should be protected by law. The measure of encryption of the secret key (Key value) taken by iQIYI Company on the content of its videos expressly indicated that it refused any other person's sharing of the content of its videos. By decoding the verification algorithm of iQIYI Company, defendant VST Company acquired the secret key (Key value) and achieved the objective of directly playing feature films by bypassing the former advertising of iQIYI Company. Although VST Company did not directly remove the former advertising, the objective of directly watching feature films without watching the former advertising was objectively achieved. In this way, some network users who were unwilling to watch the former advertising or pay plaintiff's membership fees may instead use “VST Quanjuhe,” which caused decrease in users and advertising revenues of iQIYI Company and impaired the lawful rights and interests of iQIYI Company. Therefore, VST Company's development and operation of “VST Quanjuhe,” which realized the objective of directly playing videos by bypassing advertising of iQIYI Company, violated the principle of good faith and the recognized business morality, impaired the lawful interests of iQIYI Company, and constituted unfair competition. 原告爱奇艺公司通过让用户观看视频前广告为对价向用户提供免费视频,通过广告播放获取利益或者通过让会员免看广告,收取会员费的商业模式获取利益。爱奇艺公司的上述商业模式既未违反现有法律又未违反商业道德,应受法律保护。爱奇艺公司对于其视频内容采取了设置密钥(Key值)的加密措施,明确表明其拒绝他人任意分享其视频内容。被告聚网视公司通过破解爱奇艺公司验证算法,取得密钥(Key值),达到绕开爱奇艺公司片前广告,直接获取正片播放的目的。其虽然没有直接去除片前广告的行为,但客观上实现了无需观看片前广告即可直接观看正片的目的,能使部分不愿意观看片前广告又不愿意支付原告会员费的网络用户转而使用“VST全聚合”软件,进而造成爱奇艺公司用户的减少和广告收入下降,损害了爱奇艺公司的合法权益。因此,聚网视公司开发经营的“VST全聚合”软件实现的绕开爱奇艺公司广告直接播放视频的行为,违反了诚实信用原则和公认的商业道德,损害了爱奇艺公司的合法利益,构成不正当竞争。
Therefore, on October 14, 2015, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 2 and Article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, and items (1), (6), and (8) of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China, the People's Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai Municipality rendered a judgment that: 据此,上海市杨浦区人民法院依照《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第二条第一款、第二款、第二十条,《中华人民共和国侵权责任法聊五分钱的天吗》第十五条第一款第(一)项、第 (六)项、第(八)项、第二款之规定,于2015年10月14日判决如下:
1. Defendant VST Company should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, pay iQIYI Company the compensation of CNY 300,000 for its economic losses and the reasonable expenses of CNY 60,000. 2. Defendant VST Company should publish a statement on its unfair competition on the top of the homepage of its official website (http://91vst.com) for consecutive 72 hours to eliminate adverse effects. 一、被告深圳聚网视科技有限公司于判决生效之日起十日内赔偿北京爱奇艺科技有限公司经济损失300 000元及合理费用60 000元;二、被告深圳聚网视科技有限公司就其不正当竞争行为在其官方网站 (http://www.91vst.com/)首页上端连续72小时刊登声明,消除影响。
After the judgment of first instance was pronounced, VST Company refused to accept it and appealed to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court. 一审宣判后,聚网视公司不服,向上海知识产权法院提出上诉。
Appellant VST Company alleged that: The secret key (Key value) used by the software “VST Quanjuhe” was public information acquired from the Internet and it was not the secret key (Key value) acquired by decoding the verification algorithm of appellee iQIYI Company as determined by the court of original trial. The act of directly playing videos of iQIYI Company by bypassing the former advertising was caused by technical reasons and VST Company had no subjective intent. Therefore, VST Company requested the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court to revoke the original judgment and reject all claims of iQIYI Company in the original trial according to the law. 上诉人聚网视公司上诉称:“VST全聚合”软件采用的密钥(Key值)系来源于互联网的公开信息,并非原审法院认定其系破解被上诉人爱奇艺公司验证算法,取得了密钥(Key值)。绕开爱奇艺公司片前广告直接播放视频的行为是技术原因造成,聚网视公司没有主观故意。据此,请求撤销原审判决,依法改判驳回爱奇艺公司全部原审诉讼请求。
Appellee iQIYI Company contended that: The secret key (Key value) of iQIYI Company was always kept secrecy and it could not be acquired from open channels; the reason why appellee VST Company bypassed the former advertising was the result VST Company positively pursued by implementing the technical means; the technology implemented by VST Company enabled it to acquire any video of iQIYI Company at will and the consequence and harmfulness of this infringement were much greater than those of infringement on the right of information network communication of the specific works. Therefore, iQIYI Company requested the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court to reject the claims of VST Company and sustain the original judgment. 被上诉人爱奇艺公司辩称:爱奇艺公司的密钥(Key值)是始终处于保密状态的,无法从公开渠道获得;上诉人聚网视公司绕开片前广告的原因是其实施了技术手段积极追求该结果所致;聚网视公司所实施的技术,可以任意获取爱奇艺公司的视频,侵害的后果和危害性远远大于侵害某一具体作品的信息网络传播权。请求驳回聚网视公司的上诉请求,维持原审判决。
After a trial of second instance, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court confirmed the facts found in the trial of first instance. 上海知识产权法院经二审,确认了一审查明的事实。
After a trial of second instance, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that: 上海知识产权法院二审认为:
The focal disputes of this case were whether appellant VST Company committed an act of directly playing videos of appellee iQIYI Company by bypassing the former advertising by means of decoding the verification algorithm of iQIYI Company and acquiring the secret key (Key value) for the software “VST Quanjuhe”; and whether the act of directly playing videos by bypassing the former advertising was justifiable. 本案争议焦点为:上诉人聚网视公司是否通过破解被上诉人爱奇艺公司验证算法取得“VST全聚合软件”的密钥(Key值)实施了绕开广告直接播放爱奇艺公司视频的行为;绕开广告直接播放视频的行为是否具有正当性。
In the view of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, since appellant VST Company claimed that the secret key (Key value) used by the software “VST Quanjuhe” was acquired from open channels, it should provide evidence to corroborate. However, VST Company failed to provide evidence to prove its claim. On the contrary, evidence provided by appellee iQIYI Company could prove that iQIYI Company took the encryption measure on videos it provided and VST Company achieved the objective of directly playing videos without playing the former advertising by decoding iQIYI Company's verification algorithm, acquiring the secret key (Key value), and generating the SC value for requesting the play of videos. 法院认为:上诉人聚网视公司主张“VST全聚合”软件采用的密钥(Key值)源于公开渠道,其需提供证据予以佐证。但聚网视公司未能提供证据证明其该主张。相反,被上诉人爱奇艺公司提供的证据能够证明爱奇艺公司对其提供的视频采取了加密措施,聚网视公司是采用破解爱奇艺公司的验证算法,取得密钥(Key值)生成请求播放视频的SC值,实现无需观看片前广告直接获得视频播放的目的。
The business operations of appellee iQIYI Company, in which it sought business profits through advertising fees and membership fees by depending on the business model of “advertising + free videos” or charge of membership fees, should be protected by law. The act of directly playing videos of iQIYI Company by bypassing the former advertising was the result of appellant's taking of technical means. By virtue of technologies, VST Company enabled its users to watch videos of iQIYI Company without spending time and paying fees, which would cause the transformation of some users of iQIYI Company into users of VST Company and the decrease in both advertising clicks and revenues of membership fees of iQIYI Company. VST Company made its users watch videos of iQIYI Company by technical means, but it did not pay the royalty and other operating costs, which were still borne by iQIYI Company. When paying the aforesaid costs, iQIYI Company was confronted with losses to its business profits caused by the decrease in the amount of users and advertising clicks. Knowing that the technology would result in the consequences of benefiting itself but damaging other person's interests, as the party implementing the technology, VST Company still implemented the technology. With the subjective intent, its act violated the principle of good faith and the recognized business morality and impaired the legal business operations of iQIYI Company. Therefore, such act was unjustifiable. 被上诉人爱奇艺公司依托“广告+免费视频”或者收取会员用户费用的经营模式,通过广告费和会员费谋求商业利益的经营行为应受法律保护。绕开广告直接播放爱奇艺公司视频的行为是上诉人聚网视公司采取技术手段的结果,聚网视公司凭借技术使其用户在无需付出时间成本和费用成本的情况下,观看爱奇艺公司的视频,这将导致部分爱奇艺公司用户转而成为聚网视公司的用户以及爱奇艺公司广告点击量和会员费收入的下降。聚网视公司通过技术让其用户观看爱奇艺公司视频,但其并未支付版权费等营运成本,该成本仍由爱奇艺公司承担。而爱奇艺公司在支付上述成本的同时,却面临用户数量减少和广告点击量下降导致的商业利益的损失。作为技术实施方的聚网视公司明知该技术会出现自己得利他人受损的后果,仍实施该技术,具有主观故意,违背了诚实信用原则和公认的商业道德,侵害了爱奇艺公司合法的经营活动,其行为不具有正当性。
In conclusion, the judgment of first instance was clear in fact-finding and correct in the application of law, and should be sustained. The appellate claims of appellant VST Company and the grounds lacked factual and legal basis and should be rejected. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of item (1) of paragraph 1 of Article 170 and Article 175 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, on April 26, 2016, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court rendered a judgment to: 综上所述,一审认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,应予维持。上诉人聚网视公司的上诉请求及其理由缺乏事实和法律依据,应予驳回。据此,上海知识产权法院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百七十条第一款第(一)项、第一百七十五条之规定,于2016年4月26日判决如下:
Reject the appeal and sustain the original judgment. 驳回上诉,维持原判。
This judgment shall be final. 本判决为终审判决。
土豪我们做朋友好不好 
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese