>>>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
 
People's Procuratorate of Binhu District of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province v. Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi (crime of copyright infringement)
江苏省无锡市滨湖区人民检察院诉鞠文明、徐路路、华轶侵犯著作权案
【法宝引证码】

People's Procuratorate of Binhu District of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province v. Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi (crime of copyright infringement)
(crime of copyright infringement)
江苏省无锡市滨湖区人民检察院诉鞠文明、徐路路、华轶侵犯著作权案

People's Procuratorate of Binhu District of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province v. Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi
(crime of copyright infringement)

 

江苏省无锡市滨湖区人民检察院诉鞠文明、徐路路、华轶侵犯著作权案

[Summary] [裁判摘要]
Where the perpetrator illegally obtains the object programs in computer software copyrighted by another person and integrates them with certain hardware products to produce similar infringing products, even though they differ in certain programs and codes, as long as the object programs or functional codes enabling the functions of the hardware products are “substantially identical” with the computer software copyrighted by another person, the perpetrator's act constitutes illegal reproduction and distribution of computer software and should be punished for the crime of copyright infringement. 行为人通过非法手段获取他人享有著作权的计算机软件中的目标程序并与特定硬件产品相结合,用于生产同类侵权产品,在某些程序、代码方面虽有不同,但只要实现硬件产品功能的目标程序或功能性代码与他人享有著作权的计算机软件“实质相同”,即属于非法复制发行计算机软件的行为,应以侵犯著作权罪定罪处罚。
If the value of the infringing products primarily lies in the software programs enabling the product functions, that is, the value of software copyright is its main element of value, the sales price of the entire products shall be regarded as the basis for determining the amount of illegal business operation. 如果涉案侵权产品的价值主要在于实现其产品功能的软件程序,即软件著作权价值为其主要价值构成,应以产品整体销售价格作为非法经营数额的认定依据。
BASIC FACTS 
Public Prosecution Organ: People's Procuratorate of Binhu District of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province. 公诉机关:江苏省无锡市滨湖区人民检察院。
Defendant: Ju Wenming, male, 29, Han ethnicity, college education, former employee of Wuxi Xinjie Technology Electronics Co., Ltd., residing at Changxin Apartment, New District, Wuxi city, detained on October 21, 2010 for this case, granted bail on November 26, 2010, and arrested on June 7, 2011. 被告人:鞠文明。2010年10月21日因本案被刑事拘留,同年11月26日被取保候审,2011年6月7日被执行逮捕。
Defendant: Xu Lulu, male, 28, Han ethnicity, college education, former employee of Wuxi Xinjie Technology Electronics Co., Ltd., residing in Shitang village, Xuelang street, Binhu district, Wuxi city, detained on October 21, 2010 for this case, granted bail on November 26, 2010, and arrested on June 7, 2011. 被告人:徐路路。2010年10月21日因本案被刑事拘留,同年11月26日被取保候审,2011年6月7日被执行逮捕。
Defendant: Hua Yi, male, 30, Han ethnicity, college education, former employee of Wuxi Xinjie Technology Electronics Co., Ltd., residing in Xukangli, New District, Wuxi city, and granted bail on October 21, 2010 for this case. 被告人:华轶。2010年10月21日因本案被取保候审。
The People's Procuratorate of Binhu District of Wuxi City instituted a public prosecution against Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi in the People's Court of Binhu District of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province for the crime of copyright infringement. 江苏省无锡市滨湖区人民检察院以被告人鞠文明、徐路路、华轶犯侵犯著作权罪,向江苏省无锡市滨湖区人民法院提起公诉。
The indictment stated that: During his employment at Wuxi Xinjie Technology Electronics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Xinjie Company”), Ju Wenming downloaded the OP series V3.0 human-machine monitoring software and other software without the permission of the company. Afterwards, in August 2008, Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi jointly established Wuxi Yunchuan Industrial Control Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yunchuan Industrial Control Company”) to produce text panels similar to those of Xinjie Company with the illegally obtained OP series human-machine monitoring software for profits. From December 2008 to October 2010, Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi produced a total of 2, 045 TD100, TD 307 and other types of text panels and sold them to many entities and individuals, with total sales of 448,465 yuan. On October 21, 2010, the three defendants were captured. In late November 2010, after being granted bail by the public security authority, Ju Wenming and Xu Lulu also colluded with Sun Xingsheng to produce and sell 114 aforesaid text panels in the name of Wuxi Yunchuan Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yunchuan Electrical Company”), with a sales revenue of 25,200 yuan. The three defendants reproduced and distributed computer software of another person for profits without the permission of the copyright holder, with extraordinarily serious circumstances, in violation of Article 217 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China. They should be punished for the crime of copyright infringement. Ju Wenming, who played a leading role in the joint offense, was the principal offender. Xu Lulu and Hua Yi, who played a secondary role in the joint offense, were accessory offenders and a lighter or mitigated sentence should be imposed on them. 起诉书指控:被告人鞠文明在无锡市信捷科技电子有限公司(以下简称信捷公司)工作期间,未经公司许可擅自下载了该公司的OP系列人机监控软件V3.0等软件。后于2008年8月与被告人徐路路、华轶合谋后,共同出资成立无锡市云川工控技术有限公司(以下简称云川工控公司),用其非法获取的上述OP系列人机监控软件生产与信捷公司同类的文本显示器以牟利。2008年12月至2010年10月间,鞠文明、徐路路、华轶先后生产并向多家单位和个人销售了TD100型、TD307型等型号文本显示器共计2045台,销售金额计人民币 448 465元。2010年10月21日,三被告人被抓获。2010年11月下旬,鞠文明、徐路路在被公安机关取保候审后,伙同孙兴圣又以无锡市云川电气技术有限公司(以下简称云川电气公司)的名义生产、销售上述文本显示器计114台,销售金额计人民币 25 200元。三被告人结伙以营利为目的,未经著作权人许可,复制、发行他人计算机软件,情节特别严重,其行为触犯了《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百一十七条之规定,应当以侵犯著作权罪追究其刑事责任。鞠文明在共同犯罪中起主要作用,系主犯,徐路路、华轶在共同犯罪中起次要作用,系从犯,应当从轻或者减轻处罚。
Hua Yi raised no objection to the charges in the indictment. 被告人华轶对起诉书指控的事实不持异议。
Ju Wenming and Xu Lulu argued that: (1) The expert opinions issued by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Forensic Identification Center (hereinafter referred to as the “Identification Center”) only compared a section, rather than all, of the functional zones in the computer chips of the text panels, and, in fact, only 1% of the client machine driver developed by them was similar to that of Xinjie Company. Therefore, there was no substantial identity. (2) The client machine software of the text panels produced and sold by them was not identical with that of Xinjie Company. Their software was developed independently by reference to the client machine software of the text panels of Xinjie Company, and they neither copied and distributed the software of Xinjie Company nor committed the crime of copyright infringement. 被告人鞠文明、徐路路辩称:1.上海市知识产权司法鉴定中心(以下简称鉴定中心)出具的司法鉴定意见书只是比较了文本显示器计算机芯片上的部分功能区而不是全部功能区,事实上其开发的下位机驱动程序与信捷公司的下位机驱动程序相似度约为1%,不构成实质相同。2.其生产销售的文本显示器下位机软件与信捷公司生产的文本显示器下位机软件并不相同,该软件系借鉴了信捷公司文本显示器下位机软件的基础上自行开发而成,不构成对信捷公司软件的复制发表,不构成侵犯著作权罪。
Ju Wenming's defense counsel argued that: (1) The two expert opinions issued by the Identification Centre violated statutory identification procedures and provided no explanations on the form and method for obtainment of the samples for identification, inconsistent with the procedural standards. The identification only compared part of the software, instead of a comprehensive comparison of the entire software. A conclusion based on this method should not be used as a basis for deciding a case. Therefore, the charges in the indictment were unfounded, and Ju Wenming was innocent. (2) The cost of the text panels should be deducted from the amount of illegal business operation. 被告人鞠文明的辩护人辩称:1.鉴定中心出具的二份司法鉴定意见书违反法定鉴定程序,司法鉴定书对鉴定样本的形式和取得方式未作出相应说明,在程序上不符合规范;且鉴定未就整个软件作全面的比对,仅仅抽取其中的部分内容进行比对,依据此种鉴定方法作出的鉴定结论,不能作为定案的依据。故起诉书指控的事实不能成立,被告人鞠文明无罪。2.本案非法经营数额的认定应当扣除文本显示器的自身成本。
Xu Lulu's defense counsel argued that: Even if the conclusion of “substantial identity” in the expert opinions was true, the act of the defendant did not constitute the crime of copyright infringement, because the “substantial identity” here was not reproduction in the sense of criminal law. Xu Lulu only made improvements on the hardware of the text panels on the basis of similar products, including the product of Xinjie Company, and his act may be modification or plagiarism of works of others but not a crime of infringement upon copyrighted computer software. 被告人徐路路的辩护人辩称:司法鉴定书“实质相同”的结论即使成立,也不构成侵犯著作权犯罪,因为这里的“实质相同”不是刑法意义上的复制。徐路路是在对同类产品包括信捷公司的产品吸收借鉴的基础上对文本显示器的硬件进行的改进制作,其行为充其量属于修改或剽窃,不构成对计算机软件著作权的侵权犯罪。
The People's Court of Binhu District of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, the court of first instance, found that: 江苏省无锡市滨湖区人民法院一审查明:
Ju Wenming, during his employment at Xinjie Company as a hardware engineer in the research and development department in 2007, downloaded and saved the OP series V3.0 human-machine monitoring software copyrighted by Naituo Company and used by Xinjie Company under a license, among other software, without the permission of Xinjie Company. In August 2008, Ju Wenming proposed to Xu Lulu and Hua Yi the joint establishment of Yunchuan Industrial Control Company to produce text panels similar to those of Xinjie Company using the illegally obtained OP series V3.0 human-machine monitoring software for profits. Xu Wenming served as the legal representative of the company, responsible for production and sales, Xu Lulu as head of hardware support, and Hua Yi as chief of software technology support. From the OP series V3.0 human-machine monitoring software illegally obtained by Ju Wenming, Hua Yi extracted and integrated the object programs (i.e. BIN file, client machine) for the OP320-A model text panel developed by Xinjie Company and provided it to Ju Wenming and Xu Lulu for the production of TD100 and TD307 text panels. From December 2008 to October 2010, Ju Wenming and Xu Lulu bought CPUs, circuit boards, cases and other components, assembled them in Room 201, 59 Changxin Apartment, New District, Wuxi city, and burned the object programs extracted and integrated by Hua Yi into the CPU chips of the aforesaid text panels. They produced 2,045 TD100, TD307 and other types of text panels and sold them to numerous entities and individuals, with a sales revenue of 448, 456 yuan. In September 2010, Sun Xingsheng (handled in another case), a former employee of Xinjie Company, joined Yunchuan Industrial Control Company to participate in the sale of such text panels. On October 21, 2010, Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi were captured by the public security authority. 被告人鞠文明于2007年在信捷公司担任研发部硬件工程师期间,未经信捷公司许可,擅自下载、保存了包括由耐拓公司享有著作权并许可信捷公司使用的OP系列人机监控软件V3.0在内的部分软件。 2008年8月,鞠文明提议并与被告人徐路路、华轶合谋,共同出资成立云川工控公司,用其非法获取的上述OP系列人机监控软件V3.0生产与信捷公司同类的文本显示器以牟利,由鞠文明担任公司法定代表人并负责生产和销售,徐路路负责硬件支持,华轶负责软件技术支持。随后,华轶利用被告人鞠文明非法获取的OP系列人机监控软件V3.0,提取并整合了其中使用于信捷公司开发的OP320-A型文本显示器上的目标程序(即下位机.BIN文件),提供给鞠文明、徐路路用于生产TD100型、TD307型文本显示器。2008年12月至2010年10月间,鞠文明、徐路路购买了相应的CPU、电路板、外壳等元器件在本市新区长欣公寓59号201室组装,并将华轶整合提取的上述目标程序烧写至上述文本显示器的CPU芯片内,生产TD100型、 TD307型等型号文本显示器2045台,向多家单位和个人销售,销售金额计人民币448 465元。2010年9月,原信捷公司员工孙兴圣(另案处理)加入云川工控公司,参与销售上述文本显示器。2010年10月21日,鞠文明、徐路路、华轶被公安机关抓获。
During the period of awaiting trial on bail, Ju Wenming and Xu Lulu, from October 2010 to March 2011, colluded with Sun Xingsheng to continue producing 114 aforesaid text panels in Room 201, 59 Changxin Apartment, New District, Wuxi city and sold them to numerous entities, with a sales revenue of 25, 200 yuan. 被告人鞠文明、徐路路在取保候审期间,于2010年10月至2011年3月间,伙同孙兴圣继续在本市新区长欣公寓59号201室用上述方法生产上述文本显示器计114台并向多家单位销售,销售金额计人民币25 200元。
The aforesaid facts were sufficiently evidenced by the report transcripts from witness Li Xin (legal representative of Naituo Company and Xinjie Company); the computer software copyright registration certificate and software licensing agreement; a list of the seized goods issued by the Binhu Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Wuxi City (hereinafter referred to “Binhu Public Security Bureau”) and the photos of TD100 and TD307 text panels, DVD disc printed with the word “WORK”, host computer and notebook computer held by Hua Yi; the supply contracts signed by Yunchuan Industrial Control Company and Yunchuan Electrical Company with relevant customers, payment receipts and details of credit card receivables; the statements of Wang Lili, Wang Wenqing, Xu Xingguang and other witnesses; the confessions of Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi;, the expert opinion (No. 1101 [2010], Shanghai IPFIC) issued by the Identification Center on December 16, 2010; the identification conclusion issued by the Binhu Public Security Bureau; and so on. 上述事实,有证人李新(耐拓公司以及信捷公司的法定代表人)的报案笔录、计算机软件著作权登记证书以及软件授权使用协议、无锡市公安局滨湖分局(以下简称滨湖公安局)出具的扣押物品清单以及TD100型、TD307型文本显示器、WORK字样DVD光盘、电脑主机以及华轶所持有的笔记本电脑的照片、云川工控公司、云川电气公司与相关客户签订的供需合同、付款凭证以及信用卡收款明细、证人王丽丽、王文清、许星光等人的证言、被告人鞠文明、徐路路、华轶的供述、鉴定中心于2010年12月16日出具的上知司鉴字[2010]第1101号司法鉴定意见书、滨湖公安局出具的鉴定结论通知书等证据证实,足以认定。
DISPUTED ISSUES 
The disputes before the court of first instance focused on whether the client machine driver of Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi was a reproduction of that in the OP series v3.0 human-machine monitoring software. 本案一审的争议焦点是:被告人鞠文明、徐路路、华轶的下位机驱动程序是否是对OP系列人机监控软件V3.0软件中下位机程序的复制。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
The People's Court of Binhu District of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, the court of first instance, held that: 江苏省无锡市滨湖区人民法院一审认为:
Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi, for profits, copied and distributed computer software without the permission of the copyright owner, with extraordinarily serious circumstances, and were guilty of the crime of copyright infringement. The copyright infringement charges filed by the People's Procuratorate of Binhu District of Wuxi City against Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi were based on clear facts and hard and sufficient evidence. Because Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi committed the crimes of copyright infringement before April 30, 2011, the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China then in effect before April 30, 2011 should apply, in accordance with Article 12.1 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China currently in effect. 被告人鞠文明、徐路路、华轶以营利为目的,未经著作权人许可,复制发行其计算机软件,情节特别严重,其行为已构成侵犯著作权罪。无锡市滨湖区人民检察院指控鞠文明、徐路路、华轶犯侵犯著作权罪的事实清楚,证据确实、充分,指控的罪名成立。鞠文明、徐路路、华轶侵犯著作权的犯罪行为发生在2011年4月30日以前,依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第十二条第一款之规定,应当适用2011年4月30日以前的《中华人民共和国刑法》。
In response to the objection raised by Ju Wenming and Xu Lulu and their defense counsels to the expert opinions issued by the Identification Center, the court held: Computer software meant computer programs and related files. According to the provisions of Article 3 of the Regulation on the Protection of Computer Software, a computer program meant the coded instruction sequences or the symbolic instruction sequences or numeric language sequences that could be automatically converted into coded instruction sequences, executable by devices capable of information processing such as computers for the purpose of obtaining a certain result. Computer programs included source program and object program. A source program meant a program written in a high-level language or an assembly language, and an object program meant a program directly executable by computers after the source programs were compiled or interpreted and processed. Though in different forms, the source program and object program may achieve the same functions and could be converted into each other in a certain form. The convertible source program and object program enabling the same functions should be regarded as the same work. The evidence provided by the prosecution was sufficient to prove that Ju Wenming's so-called independently developed client machine driver was actually one completed by slight modification of the client machine program of the OP series V3.0 human-machine monitoring software copyrighted by Wuxi Naituo Software Co., Ltd. and used by Xinjie Company under a license. Despite the differences in local functions and forms, the two programs had substantially identical object program and source program, which confirmed that the client machine driver was a reproduction of that in the OP series V3.0 human-machine monitoring software. Therefore, the objection raised by the two defendants and their defense counsels to the substantive requirement for the identification conclusion was incorrect. In addition, the Identification Center conducted comparison and identification on the basis of the identification materials and the samples provided by the Binhu Public Security Bureau. The identification materials provided by the Binhu Public Security Bureau were the alleged text panels captured at Ju Wenming's place, and the comparison sample provided by it was the similar product of the victim, Xinjie Company, containing the client machine driver in the OP series V3.0 human-machine monitoring software. Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi had all signed for the Notice of Identification Conclusion, and neither of them raised any objection to the identification conclusion. Therefore, the defense counsels' objection to the form requirement for the identification conclusion should not be supported by the court either. 对于被告人鞠文明、徐路路及其辩护人针对鉴定中心出具的司法鉴定意见书所提出的异议,法院评判如下:计算机软件是指计算机程序及有关文档。我国《计算机软件保护条例》第3条规定,计算机程序是指为了得到某种结果而可以由计算机等具有信息处理能力的装置执行的代码化指令序列,或者可被自动转换成代码化指令序列的符合化指令序列或者符号化语句序列。计算机程序包括源程序和目标程序。源程序是指用高级语言或汇编语言编写的程序,目标程序是指源程序经编译或解释加工以后,可以由计算机直接执行的程序。源程序与目标程序虽然表现形式不同,但实现的功能可以相同,两者可以通过一定的形式转换。而实现同一功能可转换的源程序和目标程序应当视为同一作品。现控方证据能够证实,鞠文明所谓自主开发的下位机驱动程序,实际上是在无锡耐拓软件有限公司享有著作权并许可信捷公司使用的OP系列人机监控软件V3.0下位机程序基础上进行少量改动而完成的,尽管二者在局部的功能和表现形式上有所不同,但二者的目标程序、源程序实质相同,可以确认该下位机驱动程序是对OP系列人机监控软件V3.0软件中下位机程序的复制。故二被告人及其辩护人对鉴定结论的实质要件所提出的异议,不能成立。另外,鉴定中心系根据委托人滨湖公安局提供的鉴材和样本进行的比对鉴定,而滨湖公安局提供的鉴材又系在鞠文明处查获的涉案文本显示器,其比对样本又为受害人信捷公司含有OP系列人机监控软件V3.0下位机程序的同类产品,且鞠文明、徐路路、华轶又都在鉴定结论通知书上签字,未对鉴定结论提出异议,故辩护人对司法鉴定书的形式要件所提出的异议,法院亦不予支持。
Ju Wenming and Xu Lulu and their defense counsels argued that the client machine driver was software developed independently by them and therefore the use of the software on text panels produced by them did not constitute a reproduction of a copyright of another person and should not be determined as a criminal act. This argument was inconsistent with the identification conclusion issued by the forensic identification institution and the facts investigated and confirmed by the court in court trial and should not be supported by the court. 被告人鞠文明、徐路路及其辩护人关于其下位机驱动程序系其自主开发的软件,故在其生产的文本显示器上使用该程序不构成复制他人著作权、不应认定为犯罪的意见,与司法鉴定部门所作出的鉴定结论和经法庭调查确认的事实不符,法院不予支持。
Ju Wenming's defense counsel argued that the cost of the text panels should be deducted from the amount of illegal business operation in this case. Because the carrier of the infringed computer software in this case was just the text panel and the three defendants made use of the carrier to reproduce copyrighted computer software for illegal profits, the amount of illegal business operation in this case should be determined as the actual sales amount of the text panels produced and sold by the three defendants. The court should not accept such a defense. 关于被告人鞠文明的辩护人提出的本案非法经营额的认定应当扣除文本显示器自身成本的意见,因本案被侵权的计算机软件的载体就是文本显示器,三被告人正是通过在这一载体上复制享有著作权的计算机软件以牟取不当利益,故本案非法经营数额应为三被告人生产、销售的文本显示器的实际销售金额,对上述辩护意见法院不予采纳。
Ju Wenming, who played a leading role in the joint offense, was the principal offender. Xu Lulu and Hua Yi, who played a secondary role in the joint offense, were the accessory offenders, and a mitigated punishment may be imposed on them. Ju Wenming and Xu Lulu were granted bail on November 26, 2010. However, during the period of awaiting trial on bail, they refused to repent and continued to produce and sell the infringing text panels, with a greater subjective malignance and serious harm to the society. Hua Yi did not voluntarily turn himself in but confessed to his crime truthfully during investigation by the public security organ, and a lighter punishment may be imposed on him in accordance with Article 67. 3 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China. Additionally, as Hua Yi voluntarily pleaded guilty and showed good repentance in court trial, a lighter punishment may be imposed on him at the discretion of the court. Based on the circumstances of the crime committed by Hua Yi and his repentance, the application of probation to him would not cause any harm to the society, and therefore probation may be declared. 被告人鞠文明在共同犯罪中起主要作用系主犯;被告人徐路路、华轶在共同犯罪中起次要作用,系从犯,可减轻处罚。鞠文明、徐路路于2010年11月26日因本案被取保候审,在取保候审期间不思悔改,仍继续从事侵权文本显示器的生产、销售,主观恶性较深,社会危害性较大。华轶虽未主动归案,但在公安机关侦查阶段如实供述了自己的罪行,依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第六十七条第三款的规定,可以从轻处罚。其在庭审中又自愿认罪,悔罪态度较好,可酌情予以从轻处罚。根据华轶的犯罪情节和悔罪表现,对其适用缓刑不致再危害社会,可对其宣告缓刑。
On June 7, 2011, in accordance with Article 217 (1), Article 25.1, Article 26. 1, Article 26.4, Article 27, Article 52, Article 53, Article 64, Article 72, Article 73.2 and Article 73.3 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China in effect before April 30, 2011, Article 12.1 and Article 67.3 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 5.2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Some Issues concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Intellectual Property Right Criminal Cases, and Article 4 of the Interpretation II of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Some Issues concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Intellectual Property Right Criminal Cases, the People's Court of Binhu District of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province rendered the following judgment: 据此,江苏省无锡市滨湖区人民法院依照2011年4月30日以前的《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百一十七条第(一)项、第二十五条第一款、第二十六条第一、四款、第二十七条、第五十二条、第五十三条、第六十四条、第七十二条、第七十三条第二款、第三款和《中华人民共和国刑法》第十二条第一款,第六十七条第三款以及最高人民法院、最高人民检察院《关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第五条第二款、《关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释二》第四条之规定,于2011年6月7日判决如下:
1. Ju Wenming should be sentenced to imprisonment of three years and a fine of 120,000 yuan for the crime of copyright infringement. 一、被告人鞠文明犯侵犯著作权罪,判处有期徒刑三年,并处罚金人民币十二万元。
2. Xu Lulu should be sentenced to imprisonment of one year and six months and a fine of 80,000 yuan for the crime of copyright infringement. 二、被告人徐路路犯侵犯著作权罪,判处有期徒刑一年六个月,并处罚金人民币八万元。
3. Hua Yi should be sentenced to imprisonment of one year and six months with a two-year probation and a fine of 50,000 yuan for the crime of copyright infringement. 三、被告人华轶犯侵犯著作权罪,判处有期徒刑一年六个月,缓刑二年,并处罚金人民币五万元。
4. The illegal income of Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi should be recovered and confiscated, and the finished text panels, raw materials, host computers, notebook computer, and other crime-related articles as seized and recorded should be confiscated. 四、被告人鞠文明、徐路路、华轶的违法所得予以追缴没收;查获并扣押在案的侵权文本显示器成品、原材料以及电脑主机、笔记本电脑等与犯罪有关物品,予以没收。
Ju Wenming and Xu Lulu appealed the judgment of the court of first instance to the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province. Ju Wenming claimed that: There lacked a factual basis for the court of first instance to determine that Ju Wenming and other defendants had committed infringement upon Xinjie Company's copyright in a client machine driver. The expert opinion (No. 1101 [2010], Shanghai IPFIC), based on which the determination was made, was flawed in procedure, content, comparison method and other aspects. The sales amount of the TD100 text panel and the cost of hardware should be deducted from the amount of illegal business operation in this case. He requested the court of second instance to acquit him or remand the case to the original trial court for retrial. Xu Lulu claimed that: The “substantial identity” in the identification conclusion was not “reproduction” in the sense of criminal law, and his act only resulted in civil liability. He requested the court of second instance to acquit him or remand the case to the original trial court for retrial. 鞠文明、徐路路不服一审判决,向江苏省无锡市中级人民法院提出上诉,鞠文明称一审认定鞠文明等人侵犯了信捷公司的下位机程序著作权没有事实依据,所依据的上知司鉴字[2010]第1101号鉴定书在程序、内容、比对方法等方面存在错误,本案非法经营数额中应当扣除TD100型文本显示器的销售额以及硬件成本,请求二审改判其无罪或发回原审法院重审。徐路路称鉴定结论“实质相同”并非刑法意义上的“复制”,其行为仅应承担民事责任,请求二审改判其无罪或发回原审法院重审。
The Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, as the court of second instance, confirmed the facts found by the court of first instance. 江苏省无锡市中级人民法院经二审,确认了一审查明的事实。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
The Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, as the court of second instance, held that: 江苏省无锡市中级人民法院二审认为:
Regarding the appeal grounds of Ju Wenming that there lacked a factual basis for the court of first instance to determine that Ju Wenming and other defendants had committed infringement upon Xinjie Company's copyright in a client machine driver and the expert opinion (No. 1101 [2010], Shanghai IPFIC), based on which the determination was made, was flawed in procedure, content, comparison method and other aspects and the appeal grounds and defense opinions of Xu Lulu and his defense counsel that there were major errors in the identification methods and the object program of the text panel involved was different from the software specified in the copyright registration certificate, it was determined after investigation that: (1) According to the confessions of Ju Wenming and Hua Yi, the text panels sold by them did not contain any host computer program and only contained a client machine driver when they left the factory. Usually, the host computer program was downloaded from the Internet by clients, and in view of the contents of the identification report, the functions and characteristics of the text panel and the roles of the host and client machine drivers, the text panel submitted as an identification material was not equipped with any host computer program, and therefore the argument of Ju Wenming and his defense counsel that the comparison of the host computer programs by the identification institution caused an erroneous conclusion was unfounded. The issue of CPU storage space raised by them was also not directly related to the comparison of source codes. The composition and results of comparison of the memory devices of the identification materials and samples were only supported by the statements and analysis from Ju Wenming and his defense counsel, without corroboration by other evidence, and thus could not overturn the conclusion in the identification report. (2) Naituo Company as the copyright owner of the OP series V3.0 human-machine monitoring software and Xinjie Company as the exclusive licensee to exploit the software, in accordance with Article 8.1 (3) of the Regulation on the Protection of Computer Software, had the right of modification to add, delete or change instructions, sequence of sentences and so on, certainly, including software update. Naituo Company and Xinjie Company enjoyed copyright in the modified software, and they had provided correct object programs as the comparison samples. The copyright registration certificate of Naituo Company could prove that the company owned the copyright in the OP series V3.0 human-machine monitoring software, which, however, did not necessarily mean that it only had copyright in the registered content, and there was no evidence to prove or suspect that Xinjie Company provided, for identification, any program modified on the basis of the text panel produced and sold by Ju Wenming. In fact, the available evidence in this case was sufficient to prove that Ju Wenming had illegally reproduced the software programs in the text panels of Xinjie Company. Therefore, his argument and defense opinion that the sample material collection procedure was illegal should not be adopted by the court. (3) The expert opinion (No. 1101 [2010], Shanghai IPFIC) provided a detailed explanation of the identification process in terms of identification items, identification materials, analysis and explanation, and the annex to it also included the photos of the text panel as the identification material and the object program as the sample. The identification items were “whether the object program of the text panel provided by the Binhu Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Wuxi City was identical or substantially identical with that of the 0P320-A text panel of Xinjie Technology Electronics Co., Ltd.” The client machine driver in the text panel was the object program, and the so-called “host computer program” was an application program, which was not the comparison object of this identification. The confusion of host and client machine programs in comparison as alleged by Ju Wenming and his defense counsel did not exist. The identification institution decompiled the two object programs as the authentication materials and samples into assembly codes and extracted for comparison and analysis the codes therein enabling the functions of monitoring information processing for mechanical equipment. Such an identification method was correct. In summary, the arguments and defense opinions of Ju Wenming and its defense counsel and Xu Lulu that the expert opinion (No. 1101 [2010], Shanghai IPFIC) was erroneous in identification conclusion and illegal in identification procedure and should not be used as evidence should not be adopted and their petition for re-identification should also not be supported by the court. 关于上诉人鞠文明提出的“一审认定鞠文明等人侵犯了信捷公司的下位机程序著作权没有事实依据,所依据的上知司鉴字[2010]第1101号鉴定书在程序、内容、比对方法等方面存在错误”以及上诉人徐路路及其辩护人提出“鉴定方法存在重大错误,涉案文本显示器目标程序与著作权登记证书载明的软件不相同”的上诉理由和辩护意见,经查:1.根据鞠文明、原审被告人华轶所作的供述,其销售的文本显示器在出厂时没有上位机程序,仅有下位机程序。上位机程序一般由客户从网上下载,结合鉴定报告内容、文本显示器的功能特点以及上、下位程序的作用,可以认定作为检材提交鉴定的文本显示器无上位机程序,不存在鞠文明及其辩护人提出鉴定机构比对了上位机程序导致结论错误的情形,其提出CPU存储空间的问题亦与源代码比对问题之间无直接关联。同时,鞠文明及其辩护人所称的鉴定样材、检材的存储器构成及比对结果仅有其陈述及所谓的分析,无其他相关证据证实,不能推翻鉴定报告所作结论。2.耐拓公司作为0P系列人机监控软件V3.0的著作权人、信捷公司作为该软件的独占许可实施人,依照《计算机软件保护条例》第八条第一款第(三)项的规定,有权行使修改权对该软件进行增补、删节,或者改变指令、语句顺序等等,其中当然包括对软件的更新。耐拓公司、信捷公司对修改后的软件同样享有著作权,其提供的目标程序作为比对样本正确。耐拓公司的著作权登记证书可证明其对OP系列人机监控软件V3.0系列享有著作权,不等同于其仅就登记内容享有著作权,而且无证据证明甚至怀疑信捷公司提供的程序系按照鞠文明生产、销售文本显示器中的程序修改后提交鉴定。事实上,本案现有证据足以认定鞠文明利用不正当手段复制信捷公司文本显示器的软件程序。故对于其样材收集程序不合法的辩解和辩护意见法院不予采纳。3.上知司鉴字[2010]第1101号鉴定书在委托鉴定事项、鉴定材料、分析说明等方面对此次鉴定过程均有详细的说明,其后附件亦有检材文本显示器照片和样材目标程序。委托鉴定事项明确为“无锡市公安局滨湖分局提供的文本显示器与无锡市信捷科技电子有限公司0P320-A文本显示器的目标程序是否相同或实质相同”,而文本显示器中的下位机驱动程序就是目标程序,所谓“上位机程序”为应用程序,并非此次鉴定比对的对象,不存在上诉人鞠文明及其辩护人所主张的将下位机程序与上位机程序混合比对的情况。鉴定方法系通过鉴定机关将作为检材样材的两个目标程序分别反编译为汇编代码,提取其中以实现对机械设备进行监控信息处理功能的代码进行比较、分析,鉴定方法正确。综上,对于鞠文明及其辩护人、上诉人徐路路关于上知司鉴字[2010]第1101号鉴定书鉴定结论错误、鉴定程序违法,该鉴定书不能作为证据使用的辩解和辩护意见不予采纳,对其重新鉴定申请亦不予支持。
Regarding the appeal ground and defense opinion of Ju Wenming and his counsel defense that the sales amount of the TD100 text panel and the cost of hardware should be deducted from the amount of illegal business operation in this case, it was determined after investigation that: For the sales amount of the TD100 text panel: (1) The client machine programs of both TD100 and TD307 text panels were obtained by Hua Yi by integrating and modifying the object program of the 0P320-A text panel, which was admitted by Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi. These acts had infringed upon the copyright in the computer software involved in the case. (2) According to the confessions of Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and plaintiff Hua Yi, the TD307 text panel came into being on the basis of modification of the TD100 text panel, and the client machine program of the TD100 text panel was more similar to that of the text panel of Xinjie Company, compared with that of the TD307 text panel. Therefore, the sales amount of the TD100 text panel should also be included in the amount of illegal business operation. For the hardware cost: (1) Article 12 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Some Issues concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Intellectual Property Right Criminal Cases explicitly provided that the “amount of illegal business operation” meant the value of the infringing products produced, stored, transported or sold during the actor's infringement upon intellectual property rights. The value of sold infringing products should be calculated as per the actual sales price. (2) The value of the text panels involved mainly lay in the software programs enabling the product functions rather than the hardware, and the value of the software copyright involved was the main element of value of such products. It was reasonable to determine the sales price of the entire product as the amount of illegal business operation. Therefore, this appeal ground and defense opinion of Ju Wenmign and his defense counsel was groundless in facts and law and should not be adopted by the court. 关于上诉人鞠文明及其辩护人提出“本案非法经营数额中应当扣除TD100型文本显示器的销售额以及硬件成本”的上诉理由和辩护意见,经查:关于TD100型文本显示器的销售额的问题:1.TD100型、 TD307型文本显示器的下位机程序均系由华轶通过整合、修改0P320-A文本显示器目标程序的手段获取,上诉人鞠文明、徐路路与原审被告人华轶对此亦予以认可,该行为均已侵犯了涉案计算机软件著作权。 2.根据鞠文明、徐路路及原审被告人华轶的供述,TD307型系在TD100型基础上修改而成,TD100型文本显示器下位机程序与信捷公司文本显示器下位机程序的相似度高于TD307型文本显示器下位机程序,故TD100型文本显示器的销售额亦应计入非法经营数额。关于硬件成本问题:1.最高人民法院、最高人民检察院《关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第十二条明确了“非法经营数额”是指行为人在实施侵犯知识产权行为过程中,制造、储存、运输、销售侵权产品的价值。已销售的侵权产品的价值,按照实际销售的价格计算;2.涉案文本显示器的价值主要在于实现其产品功能的软件程序,而非硬件部分,涉案软件著作权价值为其主要价值构成,以产品整体销售价格作为非法经营数额的认定依据,具有合理性。所以,鞠文明及其辩护人所提出的该上诉理由和辩护意见缺乏事实和法律依据,法院不予采纳。
Regarding the appeal ground and defense opinion of Xu Lulu and his defense counsel that the “substantial identity” in the identification conclusion was not “reproduction” in the sense of criminal law and his act only resulted in civil liability, it was determined after investigation that: (1) The identification conclusion in this case confirmed that the object program of the text panel involved was substantially identical with that of the 0P320-A text panel of Xinjie Company and was a reproduction of the source codes most crucial to enabling the product functions and uses. Despite some differences between the two object programs, it remained a reproduction in the sense of copyright law causing harm to the society. (2) Even if the substantial identity was understood as partial reproduction, Article 24 of the Regulation on the Protection of Computer Software also explicitly provided that any reproduction or partial reproduction of copyrighted software, if violating the criminal law, should be investigated and prosecuted on charges of copyright infringement under the Criminal Law. Therefore, this appeal ground and defense opinion of Xu Lulu and his defense counsel should not be adopted by the court. 关于上诉人徐路路及其辩护人提出“鉴定结论‘实质相同'并非刑法意义上的‘复制',其行为仅应承担民事责任”的上诉理由和辩护意见,经查:1.本案鉴定结论确认涉案文本显示器的目标程序与信捷公司 0P320-A文本显示器目标程序实质相同,系复制了实现产品功能、用途的最重要的源代码,两者虽然有一定的不同之处,但该行为仍为著作权法意义上的复制行为,且具有社会危害性;2.即便将实质相同理解为部分复制,《计算机软件保护条例》第二十四条亦明确规定复制或者部分复制著作权人软件,触犯刑律,依照刑法关于侵犯著作权罪的规定,依法追究刑事责任。故法院对于徐路路及其辩护人所提出的该上诉理由及辩护意见不予采纳。
JUDGMENT 
In conclusion, the original judgment found Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi guilty of the crime of copyright infringement under legal procedures based on clear facts and hard and sufficient evidence, was correct in the application of law and proper in sentencing, and should be maintained. 综上,原审判决认定上诉人鞠文明、徐路路、原审被告人华轶犯侵犯著作权罪的事实清楚,证据确凿充分,适用法律正确,量刑适当,诉讼程序合法,应当予以维持。
On July 5, 2011, in accordance with Article 189 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province rendered the following ruling: 据此,无锡市中级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第一百八十九条第(一)项之规定,于2011年7月5日裁定:
The appeals should be dismissed and the original judgment should be maintained. 驳回上诉,维持原判。
This ruling should be final.

 本裁定为终审裁定。
 

     
     
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