SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Open source copyright case in China - 2018 - English translation

This is a translation of the Civil Decision of Beijing IP Court No. 631 in 2018. This was translated by Maggie Wang.

1 of 7
Download to read offline
Civil Decision of Beijing IP Court No. 631
Date: April 12, 2018
Plaintiff: Digital Heaven(Beijing) Internet Technology Co. Ltd.
Legal representative: Wang An, President
Authorized agent: Zhou Dandan, Beijing Unitalen Law Firm
Authorized agent: Wang Heshu, Beijing Unitalen Law Firm
Defendant: Grapefruit(Beijing) Technology Co. Ltd.
Legal representative: Liu Xin, CEO
Authorized agent: Yu Guofu, Beijing Shengfeng Law Firm
Authorized agent: Liu Yuping, Beijing Haotian Xinhe Law Firm
Defendant: Grapefruit(Beijing) Mobile Technology Co. Ltd.
Legal representative: Liu Xin, CEO
Authorized agent: Yu Guofu, Beijing Shengfeng Law Firm
Authorized agent: Zou Da, Technical director of Grapefruit(Beijing) Mobile Technology Co.
Ltd.
The plaintiff Digital Heaven(Beijing) Internet Technology Co. Ltd. (“DigitalHeaven”) filed a
complaint for computer software copyright infringement against Grapefruit(Beijing)
Technology Co. Ltd. and Grapefruit(Beijing) Mobile Technology Co. Ltd.(“APICloud”). This
court accepted the case on April 13, 2015 and lawfully formed a collegiate bench. The
defendant’ opposition against jurisdiction of this case was rejected by this court on June
24, 2015(Civil ruling of Beijing IP Court No. 631). The defendant appealed the ruling with
Beijing Higher Court. Beijing Higher Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the ruling
of this court on August 31, 2015(Civil ruling of Higher Court No. 3610). At the request of
the plaintiff and the two defendants, this court entrusted an appraisal institution with expert
testimony on April 18, 2016. The appraisal institution provided its expert testimony
respectively on July 4, 2016 and May 4, 2017. The court held a public hearing on October
19, 2017. The authorized agents all participated the hearing. This case is finalized now.
The plaintiff DigitalHeaven alleges: DigitalHeaven is the copyright holder of HBuilder
development tool software. DigitalHeaven found in September 2014 that a software named
APICloud was launched on the two defendants’ official website. After comparison,
DigitalHeaven noticed that APICloud copied 3 plug-ins(code input method function plug-in,
real machine running function plug-in, changing while viewing function plug-in) from
HBuilder developer tool software. The defendants’ act infringes the plaintiff’s rights of
reproduction, modification and internet transmission. Wherefore, the plaintiff requests the
following relief:
1. An order requiring the two defendants to publish a declaration of apology to the plaintiff
and keep it for a whole month in the most prominent positions on the website
www.apicloud.com and the defendants’ official accounts on Sina Weibo, Wechat official
accounts, Sina website, 36kr.com, CSDN, etc. in order to eliminate the ill effects of the
infringement.
2. An order requiring the defendants to pay the plaintiff compensation and costs of
3,500,000 RMB, including attorney fee of 200,000RMB, notarial fee of 24,330RMB,
document retrieval fee from national library of 270RMB, i.e. costs of 224,600RMB.
The defendants together allege: 1. The plaintiff’s HBuilder software is an open source
software governed by GPL license. According to GPL license, HBuilder software includes
GPL licensed third-party source codes, so HBuilder is also open sourced. Any third party
has the right to use its codes to build derived software products under GPL license.
Therefore, the utilization of the plaintiff’s relevant source codes in APICloud software does
not require permission from the plaintiff. The defendants’ act does not infringe the plaintiff’s
copyright. 2. Even if the act in suit consists infringement against the plaintiff’s copyright,
the plaintiff’s damage request lacks support of either facts or legal ground considering that:
the three plug-ins alleged to be infringing the plaintiff’s copyright are not the defendants’
core software; the defendants’ software in suit was launched online for a very brief period
of time; both sides’ software in suit are free software; the plaintiff’s codes used in the
allegedly infringing software is of a very small amount; the defendants did not have any
bad faith. 3. The plaintiff’s request for apology and elimination of ill effects lacks ground.
To summarize, the defendants request the court to reject the plaintiff’s requests.
After examination of the case, this court finds the below:
1. Facts about ownership of copyright
On October 21, 2013, the plaintiff finished the development of HBuilder software. On March
30, 2015, the said software was updated to version 5.5.0, which is the appraised version
in this case. Both sides identify the plaintiff is the copyright owner of HBuilder.
The above facts are supported by evidence like Certificate of Computer Software Copyright
Registration, Notarization No. 7195(2015), hearing record, etc.
2. Facts about the allegedly infringing act
On April 1, 2015, the plaintiff downloaded the allegedly infringing software APICloud1.1.12
from the official website run by both defendants. The two defendants admit the software
was provided to the users by them both. The plaintiff points out that the allegedly infringing
software was not limited to this one version. Instead the infringement covers all versions
of the software from September 15, 2014 when the website was launched till the end of
2015.
To prove the similarity between the code input method function plug-in, real machine
running function plug-in, and changing and viewing function plug-in in HBuilder and
APICloud software, the plaintiff filed an application with this court for appraisal. After
collecting opinions of both sides, this court entrusted the IP judicial expertise institution
with Software and Integrated Circuit Enhancement Center of Ministry of Industry and
Information Technology to conduct expert testimony against APICloud1.1.12 and
HBuilder.window.5.5.0. Both sides agreed to the versions to be appraised.
The appraisal institution’s expert testimony is as follows: 1. Code input method function
plug-in: 29 out of 30 source code files are identical with the corresponding source codes
in the plaintiff’s software; 2. Real machine running function plug-in: 18 out of 23 source
code files are identical with the corresponding source codes in the plaintiff’s software; 3.
Changing while viewing function plug-in: 44 out of 56 source code files are identical with
the corresponding source codes in the plaintiff’s software.
As the two defendants consider the plaintiff’s source codes of said software are identical
to prior third-party open source software codes, they filed application for a second appraisal.
This court entrusted the same appraisal institution with the appraisal based on the previous
expert testimony. The object of the appraisal is the source codes considered identical in
the previous expert testimony and multiple open source and third-party software provided
by the defendants. 130 files involve real machine running function, 775 files involve
changing while viewing function, but none of them involve code input method function.
The appraisal institution’s second expert testimony is as follows: 1. Comparison of the 29
source code files in code input method function plug-in with prior source codes provided
by the defendants shows no corresponding relationship, i.e. they are not identical; 2.
Comparison of the 18 source code files in real machine running function plug-in with prior
source codes provided by the defendants shows 13 of the files are identical; 3. Comparison
of the 44 source code files in changing while viewing plug-in with prior source codes
provided by the defendants shows 2 of the files are identical. Neither sides raised objection
against the testimony.
The above facts are supported by evidence including Notarization No. 7186(2015), MIIT
ICC IP Appraisal No. 251(2016) and court hearing record, etc.
3. Facts about open source software referred to by the defendants
The plaintiff’s HBuilder software(Version 5.5.0) includes GNU GNU GENERAL PUBLIC
LICENSE (“GPL”). GPL v3 published on June 29, 2007 includes terms as below:
0 Definition: “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. To “modify” a
work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other
than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified version” of the earlier work or
a work “based on” the earlier work.
5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. You may convey a work based on the Program, or the
modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4,
provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) … b)… c)… This License will therefore apply, along
with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of
how they are packaged. …d)… A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it
such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
“aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of
the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an
aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
7. …“Additional permissions” are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions
from one or more of its conditions. Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall
be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent that they are valid under
applicable law. If additional permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used
separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by this License without
regard to the additional permissions.
According to the court hearing, the two defendants confirmed the plaintiff’s HBuilder
V.5.5.0 was downloaded by zip file and no installation program was needed. When
unzipped, the three pluy-ins alleged by the plaintiff exist as three separate file folders.
Further, the two defendants admitted that GPL license is not included in the root directory
of the plaintiff’s HBuilder software, nor in the said three file folders. The license is in other
files.
In order to prove that the three function plug-ins are independently running software
instead of derivative work covered by GPL license, the plaintiff submitted three computer
software copyright registration certificates corresponding to the three plug-ins. The work
involved are named respectively: Code Input Method Plugin(“CIM plugin”), HTML
Application Real Machine Coupler Plugin(“ACR plugin”), and HTML Code Real-time
Rendering Plugin. The first two software were published on August 10, 2013 and the
latter one was published on Dec. 13, 2013. The defendants confirmed the certificates to
be authentic.
The above facts are supported by evidence including GNU GENERAL PUBLIC
LICENSE, copyright registration certificates, Notarization No. 7181(2015), cross-
examination opinions submitted by the two sides, transcript of conversation, etc.
4. Other facts
1) Facts relevant to bad-faith infringement alleged by plaintiff
In “Properties” of ResetPwdll.dll file of the allegedly infringing APICloud software, the digital
signature shows “Digital Heaven(Beijing) Internet Technology Co. Ltd.” (i.e. the plaintiff in
this case). The plaintiff asserts that this single fact shows the software sued is plagiarism
of the plaintiff’s software in bad faith.
The defendants published an announcement on their official website on June 5, 2015,
which says “…we will not respond to some company’s public slander or rumor in case this
company utilizes the fame of APICloud to hype itself”. The plaintiff asserted this fact was
malicious as well.
2) Facts relevant to the plaintiff’s claim for compensation and reasonable costs
The defendants’ WeChat official account published an article which says “Currently our
platform has gathered more than 100,000 mobile application developers. In April(2015),
the number of new developers was the total of the past 6 months.” The plaintiff proposed
the statement could prove the user number of the allegedly infringing software. The
defendants, however, said the number of developers should not be considered as the
number of users.
The costs of the plaintiff: attorney fee of 200,000RMB, notarization fee of 24,330RMB, and
national library search fee of 270RMB.
The above facts are supported by evidence like Notarization No. 6284(2015), attorney fee
invoice, notarization fee invoice, search fee invoice, declaration of notarization authority,
etc.
This court finds:
HBuilder software in suit is a computer software governed by Article 3 of Copyright Law of
People’s Republic of China. The defendants admit that the plaintiff is the copyright owner
of the said software. The three plug-ins, i.e. code input method function plug-in, real
machine running function plug-in, and changing while viewing function plug-in are part of
HBuilder software, but they run independently. The plaintiff filed separate copyright
registrations for the three plug-ins. So they are independent computer software work
owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the right to prohibit use of other people according
to Article 10 of Copyright Law, which includes the right of reproduction, modification and
internet transmission asserted by the plaintiff in this case.
According to the expert testimonies it can be concluded as below:
For code input method function plug-in, 29 out of 30 source code files are identical with the
corresponding source codes in the plaintiff’s software; For real machine running function
plug-in, 18 out of 23 source code files are identical with the corresponding source codes
in the plaintiff’s software; For changing while viewing function plug-in, 44 out of 56 source
code files are identical with the corresponding source codes in the plaintiff’s software. In
the said identical source codes, only a small portion is identical with third-party or open-
source software. Therefore, the allegedly infringing software copied most part of the
plaintiff’s software and modified a small part of it, which falls into the protection scope of
the plaintiff’s right of reproduction and modification. The allegedly infringing software was
available on the defendants’ official website for users to download, which falls into the
protection scope of internet transmission. Based on the above, if not authorized by the
plaintiff and no legal defense exists, the defendants’ use constitutes infringement of the
plaintiff’s said rights.
The defendants claimed the plaintiff used third-party source codes covered by GPL license,
so the software should also be open-sourced and any third party has the right to use the
codes to build derivative work based on GPL license. This court concludes that the three
plug-ins in HBuilder software are independent software work, so the point is whether the
three plug-ins are governed by GPL license. At the court hearing, the defendants admitted
that the three plug-ins exist in separate files which do not include GPL license documents.
Further, the root directory of HBuilder software does not include GPL license either.
According to GPL license, the covered work includes copyright protected programs
licensed under GPL and derivative and modified work based on GPL licensed work. The
three plug-ins do not contain GPL license and the root directory of HBuilder software does
not include GPL license either. Although GPL license exists in other files of HBuilder
software, the license does not cover the three plug-ins in suit. Therefore, the three plug-
ins are not open-sourced derivative or modified work under GPL License. The defendants’
reasoning about open source is ungrounded. The defendants’ use constitutes infringement
of the plaintiff’s said rights.
According to Article 48 and Article 49 of Copyright Law, whoever commits acts of
infringement shall bear the civil liability for such remedies as eliminating the effects of
the act, making a public apology or paying compensation for damages. As the
defendants’ act in suit constitutes infringement of the plaintiff’s right of modification, the
defendants shall bear the civil liability of making a public apology and eliminating the ill
effects. The two defendants shall publish a declaration to apologize to the plaintiff in the
most prominent positions on the website www.apicloud.com and the defendants’
official WeChat accounts. This court does not support the plaintiff’s request for
publishing the apology declaration on other platforms like Sina Weibo because those
platforms are not operated by the defendants and thus not under the defendants’
control.
The plaintiff’s actual losses and the defendants’ gains cannot be determined as the
plaintiff did not submit evidence to prove its losses and the defendants’ gains. According
to Article 49 of the Copyright Law, the compensation shall be determined by the court
and shall be equal or below 500,000RMB. It’s important to note that in case No.1055 of
Beijing IP Court(2015), the judicial limit of compensation of 500,000RMB was for one
infringement act instead of for the whole case. When multiple acts are involved, the
whole case shall not be limited up to 500,000RMB. The current case involves 3
separately independent work and the defendants’ act shall be considered as
infringement of 3 works, so the compensation limit shall be 1500,000RMB.
Considering facts as follows, this court sets the compensation limit for this case to be
1250,000RMB: Firstly, the defendants conducted bad-faith plagiary. The infringing
software includes files from the plaintiff’s three plug-ins. Particularly, the defendants
used most parts of code input method function plug-in and changing while viewing
function plug-in. Without reasonable causes, coincidence may be excluded, so the
copying was considered intentional. The digital signature of the plaintiff in the infringing
software reaffirmed the plagiary. The false announcement on the defendants’ official
website shows intentional bad faith. Secondly, the number of software users and its
growth rate was clearly announced on the defendants’ official WeChat account as
“Currently our platform has gathered more than 100,000 mobile application developers.
In April(2015), the number of new developers was the total of the past 6 months.”
Although the defendants claimed that the number of developers should not be
considered as the number of users, they did not provide any evidence or reasonable
grounds. So the above are the major considerations for compensation.
The attorney fee of 200,000RMB is fully awarded by this court considering the
complexity of computer software litigation and circumstances of this case. Notarization
fee of 24,330RMB is awarded partially because only a part of the notarization was
related to this case and the plaintiff did not point out clearly the corresponding
relationship. The national library search fee of 270RMB is awarded because it was
spent on this case.
In summary, this court supports the plaintiff’s cause of action based on facts and law. In
accordance with Article 3, Paragraph 1, (3), (5) and (12) of Article 10, Article 48 and
Article 49 of Copyright Law of People’s Republic of China, this court’s verdict is as
follows:

Recommended

Peak Organization Defendants
Peak Organization Defendants Peak Organization Defendants
Peak Organization Defendants Peak Organization
 
Software License An Introduction By Vishnu Kesarwani
Software License  An Introduction By Vishnu KesarwaniSoftware License  An Introduction By Vishnu Kesarwani
Software License An Introduction By Vishnu KesarwaniVishnu Kesarwani
 
Copyright or Copy left by manoranjan, glc, tvpm
Copyright or Copy left by manoranjan, glc, tvpmCopyright or Copy left by manoranjan, glc, tvpm
Copyright or Copy left by manoranjan, glc, tvpmAdvocate
 
Source Code Escrow Agreements 2010.02.12
Source Code Escrow Agreements   2010.02.12Source Code Escrow Agreements   2010.02.12
Source Code Escrow Agreements 2010.02.12Richard Austin
 
Open source initiative osi mozilla public license
Open source initiative osi   mozilla public licenseOpen source initiative osi   mozilla public license
Open source initiative osi mozilla public licensecbartowski
 

More Related Content

Similar to Open source copyright case in China - 2018 - English translation

I\'m Not an IT Lawyer: Why Does Open Source Matter to Me?
I\'m Not an IT Lawyer: Why Does Open Source Matter to Me?I\'m Not an IT Lawyer: Why Does Open Source Matter to Me?
I\'m Not an IT Lawyer: Why Does Open Source Matter to Me?Jennifer O'Neill
 
Strategies to Reap the Benefits of Software Patents in an Open Source Softwar...
Strategies to Reap the Benefits of Software Patents in an Open Source Softwar...Strategies to Reap the Benefits of Software Patents in an Open Source Softwar...
Strategies to Reap the Benefits of Software Patents in an Open Source Softwar...Black Duck by Synopsys
 
Top Ten Open Source Licenses
Top Ten Open Source LicensesTop Ten Open Source Licenses
Top Ten Open Source LicensesMark Radcliffe
 
Open Source in the Enterprise: Compliance and Risk Management
Open Source in the Enterprise: Compliance and Risk ManagementOpen Source in the Enterprise: Compliance and Risk Management
Open Source in the Enterprise: Compliance and Risk ManagementSebastiano Cobianco
 
The Business Case for Open Source GIS
The Business Case for Open Source GISThe Business Case for Open Source GIS
The Business Case for Open Source GISJoanne Cook
 
Software developer agreements baby veena john
Software developer agreements baby veena johnSoftware developer agreements baby veena john
Software developer agreements baby veena johnAltacit Global
 
Patent Violations Among High Tech Companies
Patent Violations Among High Tech CompaniesPatent Violations Among High Tech Companies
Patent Violations Among High Tech CompaniesJessica Reyes
 
What's new 2015 hf1
What's new   2015 hf1What's new   2015 hf1
What's new 2015 hf1brujula27
 
EULA skdf klsdfasd lksdfklads lskdfklas ksdkf
EULA skdf klsdfasd lksdfklads lskdfklas ksdkfEULA skdf klsdfasd lksdfklads lskdfklas ksdkf
EULA skdf klsdfasd lksdfklads lskdfklas ksdkfanass mountassir
 
Executed Plaintiff Declaration
Executed Plaintiff DeclarationExecuted Plaintiff Declaration
Executed Plaintiff DeclarationPeak Organization
 
Software piracy and copyright infringement
Software piracy and copyright infringementSoftware piracy and copyright infringement
Software piracy and copyright infringementAbby-Gaye Gordon
 
Decrypting Software Patents: Key Insights for IP Success
Decrypting Software Patents: Key Insights for IP SuccessDecrypting Software Patents: Key Insights for IP Success
Decrypting Software Patents: Key Insights for IP SuccessAurora Consulting
 
Exploring Open Source Licensing
Exploring Open Source LicensingExploring Open Source Licensing
Exploring Open Source LicensingStefano Fago
 
Android FakeID Vulnerability
Android FakeID VulnerabilityAndroid FakeID Vulnerability
Android FakeID VulnerabilityMark Laubender
 
Compliance and software transparency for legal machines
Compliance and software transparency for legal machinesCompliance and software transparency for legal machines
Compliance and software transparency for legal machinesVytautas Čyras
 
Compliance and Software Transparency for Legal Machines. Conference Baltic DB...
Compliance and Software Transparency for Legal Machines. Conference Baltic DB...Compliance and Software Transparency for Legal Machines. Conference Baltic DB...
Compliance and Software Transparency for Legal Machines. Conference Baltic DB...Vytautas Čyras
 

Similar to Open source copyright case in China - 2018 - English translation (20)

I\'m Not an IT Lawyer: Why Does Open Source Matter to Me?
I\'m Not an IT Lawyer: Why Does Open Source Matter to Me?I\'m Not an IT Lawyer: Why Does Open Source Matter to Me?
I\'m Not an IT Lawyer: Why Does Open Source Matter to Me?
 
Strategies to Reap the Benefits of Software Patents in an Open Source Softwar...
Strategies to Reap the Benefits of Software Patents in an Open Source Softwar...Strategies to Reap the Benefits of Software Patents in an Open Source Softwar...
Strategies to Reap the Benefits of Software Patents in an Open Source Softwar...
 
Webinar–The 2019 Open Source Year in Review
Webinar–The 2019 Open Source Year in ReviewWebinar–The 2019 Open Source Year in Review
Webinar–The 2019 Open Source Year in Review
 
Top Ten Open Source Licenses
Top Ten Open Source LicensesTop Ten Open Source Licenses
Top Ten Open Source Licenses
 
Open Source in the Enterprise: Compliance and Risk Management
Open Source in the Enterprise: Compliance and Risk ManagementOpen Source in the Enterprise: Compliance and Risk Management
Open Source in the Enterprise: Compliance and Risk Management
 
The Business Case for Open Source GIS
The Business Case for Open Source GISThe Business Case for Open Source GIS
The Business Case for Open Source GIS
 
Eula
EulaEula
Eula
 
EULA.pdf
EULA.pdfEULA.pdf
EULA.pdf
 
Software developer agreements baby veena john
Software developer agreements baby veena johnSoftware developer agreements baby veena john
Software developer agreements baby veena john
 
28 30
28 3028 30
28 30
 
Patent Violations Among High Tech Companies
Patent Violations Among High Tech CompaniesPatent Violations Among High Tech Companies
Patent Violations Among High Tech Companies
 
What's new 2015 hf1
What's new   2015 hf1What's new   2015 hf1
What's new 2015 hf1
 
EULA skdf klsdfasd lksdfklads lskdfklas ksdkf
EULA skdf klsdfasd lksdfklads lskdfklas ksdkfEULA skdf klsdfasd lksdfklads lskdfklas ksdkf
EULA skdf klsdfasd lksdfklads lskdfklas ksdkf
 
Executed Plaintiff Declaration
Executed Plaintiff DeclarationExecuted Plaintiff Declaration
Executed Plaintiff Declaration
 
Software piracy and copyright infringement
Software piracy and copyright infringementSoftware piracy and copyright infringement
Software piracy and copyright infringement
 
Decrypting Software Patents: Key Insights for IP Success
Decrypting Software Patents: Key Insights for IP SuccessDecrypting Software Patents: Key Insights for IP Success
Decrypting Software Patents: Key Insights for IP Success
 
Exploring Open Source Licensing
Exploring Open Source LicensingExploring Open Source Licensing
Exploring Open Source Licensing
 
Android FakeID Vulnerability
Android FakeID VulnerabilityAndroid FakeID Vulnerability
Android FakeID Vulnerability
 
Compliance and software transparency for legal machines
Compliance and software transparency for legal machinesCompliance and software transparency for legal machines
Compliance and software transparency for legal machines
 
Compliance and Software Transparency for Legal Machines. Conference Baltic DB...
Compliance and Software Transparency for Legal Machines. Conference Baltic DB...Compliance and Software Transparency for Legal Machines. Conference Baltic DB...
Compliance and Software Transparency for Legal Machines. Conference Baltic DB...
 

More from Shane Coughlan

OpenChain AI Study Group - North America and Europe - 2024-02-20
OpenChain AI Study Group - North America and Europe - 2024-02-20OpenChain AI Study Group - North America and Europe - 2024-02-20
OpenChain AI Study Group - North America and Europe - 2024-02-20Shane Coughlan
 
AI Study Group North America - Europe 2024-02-06
AI Study Group North America - Europe 2024-02-06AI Study Group North America - Europe 2024-02-06
AI Study Group North America - Europe 2024-02-06Shane Coughlan
 
OpenChain Monthly North America / Europe Call - 2024-02-06
OpenChain Monthly North America / Europe Call - 2024-02-06OpenChain Monthly North America / Europe Call - 2024-02-06
OpenChain Monthly North America / Europe Call - 2024-02-06Shane Coughlan
 
OpenChain Export Control Work Group 2024-01-09
OpenChain Export Control Work Group 2024-01-09OpenChain Export Control Work Group 2024-01-09
OpenChain Export Control Work Group 2024-01-09Shane Coughlan
 
OpenChain Legal Work Group - 2024-01-17
OpenChain Legal Work Group -  2024-01-17OpenChain Legal Work Group -  2024-01-17
OpenChain Legal Work Group - 2024-01-17Shane Coughlan
 
Openchain AI Study Group 2024-01-23.pptx
Openchain AI Study Group 2024-01-23.pptxOpenchain AI Study Group 2024-01-23.pptx
Openchain AI Study Group 2024-01-23.pptxShane Coughlan
 
OpenChain Webinar #58 - FOSS License Management through aliens4friends in Ecl...
OpenChain Webinar #58 - FOSS License Management through aliens4friends in Ecl...OpenChain Webinar #58 - FOSS License Management through aliens4friends in Ecl...
OpenChain Webinar #58 - FOSS License Management through aliens4friends in Ecl...Shane Coughlan
 
Maturity Models - Open Compliance Summit 2023
Maturity Models - Open Compliance Summit 2023Maturity Models - Open Compliance Summit 2023
Maturity Models - Open Compliance Summit 2023Shane Coughlan
 
OpenChain Annual Report 2023 - Key Metrics Slides
OpenChain Annual Report 2023 - Key Metrics SlidesOpenChain Annual Report 2023 - Key Metrics Slides
OpenChain Annual Report 2023 - Key Metrics SlidesShane Coughlan
 
OpenChain Webinar 57 - The Open Source Initiative - 2023-11-27
OpenChain Webinar 57 - The Open Source Initiative - 2023-11-27OpenChain Webinar 57 - The Open Source Initiative - 2023-11-27
OpenChain Webinar 57 - The Open Source Initiative - 2023-11-27Shane Coughlan
 
FOSSLight Community Day 2023-11-30
FOSSLight Community Day 2023-11-30FOSSLight Community Day 2023-11-30
FOSSLight Community Day 2023-11-30Shane Coughlan
 
From One Standard to a Family - Taiwan Work Group - 2023-08-15.pptx
From One Standard to a Family - Taiwan Work Group - 2023-08-15.pptxFrom One Standard to a Family - Taiwan Work Group - 2023-08-15.pptx
From One Standard to a Family - Taiwan Work Group - 2023-08-15.pptxShane Coughlan
 
OpenChain Japan Work Group Meeting #28 - 2023-07-11
OpenChain Japan Work Group Meeting #28 - 2023-07-11OpenChain Japan Work Group Meeting #28 - 2023-07-11
OpenChain Japan Work Group Meeting #28 - 2023-07-11Shane Coughlan
 
OpenChain Legal Work Group - 2023-06-29
OpenChain Legal Work Group - 2023-06-29OpenChain Legal Work Group - 2023-06-29
OpenChain Legal Work Group - 2023-06-29Shane Coughlan
 
OpenChain Webinar #53 – OpenSCA
OpenChain Webinar #53 – OpenSCAOpenChain Webinar #53 – OpenSCA
OpenChain Webinar #53 – OpenSCAShane Coughlan
 
OpenChain Korea Work Group Meeting #18
OpenChain Korea Work Group Meeting #18OpenChain Korea Work Group Meeting #18
OpenChain Korea Work Group Meeting #18Shane Coughlan
 
legal-work-group-2023-05-25
legal-work-group-2023-05-25legal-work-group-2023-05-25
legal-work-group-2023-05-25Shane Coughlan
 

More from Shane Coughlan (20)

OpenChain AI Study Group - North America and Europe - 2024-02-20
OpenChain AI Study Group - North America and Europe - 2024-02-20OpenChain AI Study Group - North America and Europe - 2024-02-20
OpenChain AI Study Group - North America and Europe - 2024-02-20
 
AI Study Group North America - Europe 2024-02-06
AI Study Group North America - Europe 2024-02-06AI Study Group North America - Europe 2024-02-06
AI Study Group North America - Europe 2024-02-06
 
OpenChain Monthly North America / Europe Call - 2024-02-06
OpenChain Monthly North America / Europe Call - 2024-02-06OpenChain Monthly North America / Europe Call - 2024-02-06
OpenChain Monthly North America / Europe Call - 2024-02-06
 
OpenChain Export Control Work Group 2024-01-09
OpenChain Export Control Work Group 2024-01-09OpenChain Export Control Work Group 2024-01-09
OpenChain Export Control Work Group 2024-01-09
 
OpenChain Legal Work Group - 2024-01-17
OpenChain Legal Work Group -  2024-01-17OpenChain Legal Work Group -  2024-01-17
OpenChain Legal Work Group - 2024-01-17
 
Openchain AI Study Group 2024-01-23.pptx
Openchain AI Study Group 2024-01-23.pptxOpenchain AI Study Group 2024-01-23.pptx
Openchain AI Study Group 2024-01-23.pptx
 
OpenChain Webinar #58 - FOSS License Management through aliens4friends in Ecl...
OpenChain Webinar #58 - FOSS License Management through aliens4friends in Ecl...OpenChain Webinar #58 - FOSS License Management through aliens4friends in Ecl...
OpenChain Webinar #58 - FOSS License Management through aliens4friends in Ecl...
 
Maturity Models - Open Compliance Summit 2023
Maturity Models - Open Compliance Summit 2023Maturity Models - Open Compliance Summit 2023
Maturity Models - Open Compliance Summit 2023
 
OpenChain Annual Report 2023 - Key Metrics Slides
OpenChain Annual Report 2023 - Key Metrics SlidesOpenChain Annual Report 2023 - Key Metrics Slides
OpenChain Annual Report 2023 - Key Metrics Slides
 
OpenChain Webinar 57 - The Open Source Initiative - 2023-11-27
OpenChain Webinar 57 - The Open Source Initiative - 2023-11-27OpenChain Webinar 57 - The Open Source Initiative - 2023-11-27
OpenChain Webinar 57 - The Open Source Initiative - 2023-11-27
 
FOSSLight Community Day 2023-11-30
FOSSLight Community Day 2023-11-30FOSSLight Community Day 2023-11-30
FOSSLight Community Day 2023-11-30
 
From One Standard to a Family - Taiwan Work Group - 2023-08-15.pptx
From One Standard to a Family - Taiwan Work Group - 2023-08-15.pptxFrom One Standard to a Family - Taiwan Work Group - 2023-08-15.pptx
From One Standard to a Family - Taiwan Work Group - 2023-08-15.pptx
 
OpenChain Japan Work Group Meeting #28 - 2023-07-11
OpenChain Japan Work Group Meeting #28 - 2023-07-11OpenChain Japan Work Group Meeting #28 - 2023-07-11
OpenChain Japan Work Group Meeting #28 - 2023-07-11
 
OpenChain Legal Work Group - 2023-06-29
OpenChain Legal Work Group - 2023-06-29OpenChain Legal Work Group - 2023-06-29
OpenChain Legal Work Group - 2023-06-29
 
OpenChain Webinar #53 – OpenSCA
OpenChain Webinar #53 – OpenSCAOpenChain Webinar #53 – OpenSCA
OpenChain Webinar #53 – OpenSCA
 
OpenChain Korea Work Group Meeting #18
OpenChain Korea Work Group Meeting #18OpenChain Korea Work Group Meeting #18
OpenChain Korea Work Group Meeting #18
 
2023-06-classic
2023-06-classic2023-06-classic
2023-06-classic
 
2023-06-cute
2023-06-cute2023-06-cute
2023-06-cute
 
2023-06-corporate
2023-06-corporate2023-06-corporate
2023-06-corporate
 
legal-work-group-2023-05-25
legal-work-group-2023-05-25legal-work-group-2023-05-25
legal-work-group-2023-05-25
 

Recently uploaded

Syndigo Information Security Awarness Training Deck FINAL June 2023.pptx
Syndigo Information Security Awarness Training Deck FINAL June 2023.pptxSyndigo Information Security Awarness Training Deck FINAL June 2023.pptx
Syndigo Information Security Awarness Training Deck FINAL June 2023.pptxShreeharsha Gopalakrishna
 
2024-02-16 Building Soul Force- Changing to Stay Stable in Challenging Times.pdf
2024-02-16 Building Soul Force- Changing to Stay Stable in Challenging Times.pdf2024-02-16 Building Soul Force- Changing to Stay Stable in Challenging Times.pdf
2024-02-16 Building Soul Force- Changing to Stay Stable in Challenging Times.pdfJack Pringle
 
Australia Skilled Occupation list 2024 Updated
Australia Skilled Occupation list 2024 UpdatedAustralia Skilled Occupation list 2024 Updated
Australia Skilled Occupation list 2024 Updatedkashishsharma321339
 
SYNOPSIS ON THE COMPANIES REGULATIONS, 2024 .pdf
SYNOPSIS ON THE COMPANIES REGULATIONS, 2024 .pdfSYNOPSIS ON THE COMPANIES REGULATIONS, 2024 .pdf
SYNOPSIS ON THE COMPANIES REGULATIONS, 2024 .pdfSyed Muhammad Humza Hussain
 
New York Family Court Motion to Dismiss a Family Offense Petition
New York Family Court Motion to Dismiss a Family Offense PetitionNew York Family Court Motion to Dismiss a Family Offense Petition
New York Family Court Motion to Dismiss a Family Offense PetitionTodd Spodek
 
John Marshall Law event_Founder Dar'shun Kendrick as panelist
John Marshall Law event_Founder Dar'shun Kendrick as panelistJohn Marshall Law event_Founder Dar'shun Kendrick as panelist
John Marshall Law event_Founder Dar'shun Kendrick as panelistKairos Capital Legal Advisors,LLC
 

Recently uploaded (7)

Syndigo Information Security Awarness Training Deck FINAL June 2023.pptx
Syndigo Information Security Awarness Training Deck FINAL June 2023.pptxSyndigo Information Security Awarness Training Deck FINAL June 2023.pptx
Syndigo Information Security Awarness Training Deck FINAL June 2023.pptx
 
2024-02-16 Building Soul Force- Changing to Stay Stable in Challenging Times.pdf
2024-02-16 Building Soul Force- Changing to Stay Stable in Challenging Times.pdf2024-02-16 Building Soul Force- Changing to Stay Stable in Challenging Times.pdf
2024-02-16 Building Soul Force- Changing to Stay Stable in Challenging Times.pdf
 
Australia Skilled Occupation list 2024 Updated
Australia Skilled Occupation list 2024 UpdatedAustralia Skilled Occupation list 2024 Updated
Australia Skilled Occupation list 2024 Updated
 
SYNOPSIS ON THE COMPANIES REGULATIONS, 2024 .pdf
SYNOPSIS ON THE COMPANIES REGULATIONS, 2024 .pdfSYNOPSIS ON THE COMPANIES REGULATIONS, 2024 .pdf
SYNOPSIS ON THE COMPANIES REGULATIONS, 2024 .pdf
 
Turn premiums into profit - MIJS 5726_04.pdf
Turn premiums into profit - MIJS 5726_04.pdfTurn premiums into profit - MIJS 5726_04.pdf
Turn premiums into profit - MIJS 5726_04.pdf
 
New York Family Court Motion to Dismiss a Family Offense Petition
New York Family Court Motion to Dismiss a Family Offense PetitionNew York Family Court Motion to Dismiss a Family Offense Petition
New York Family Court Motion to Dismiss a Family Offense Petition
 
John Marshall Law event_Founder Dar'shun Kendrick as panelist
John Marshall Law event_Founder Dar'shun Kendrick as panelistJohn Marshall Law event_Founder Dar'shun Kendrick as panelist
John Marshall Law event_Founder Dar'shun Kendrick as panelist
 

Open source copyright case in China - 2018 - English translation

  • 1. Civil Decision of Beijing IP Court No. 631 Date: April 12, 2018 Plaintiff: Digital Heaven(Beijing) Internet Technology Co. Ltd. Legal representative: Wang An, President Authorized agent: Zhou Dandan, Beijing Unitalen Law Firm Authorized agent: Wang Heshu, Beijing Unitalen Law Firm Defendant: Grapefruit(Beijing) Technology Co. Ltd. Legal representative: Liu Xin, CEO Authorized agent: Yu Guofu, Beijing Shengfeng Law Firm Authorized agent: Liu Yuping, Beijing Haotian Xinhe Law Firm Defendant: Grapefruit(Beijing) Mobile Technology Co. Ltd. Legal representative: Liu Xin, CEO Authorized agent: Yu Guofu, Beijing Shengfeng Law Firm Authorized agent: Zou Da, Technical director of Grapefruit(Beijing) Mobile Technology Co. Ltd. The plaintiff Digital Heaven(Beijing) Internet Technology Co. Ltd. (“DigitalHeaven”) filed a complaint for computer software copyright infringement against Grapefruit(Beijing) Technology Co. Ltd. and Grapefruit(Beijing) Mobile Technology Co. Ltd.(“APICloud”). This court accepted the case on April 13, 2015 and lawfully formed a collegiate bench. The defendant’ opposition against jurisdiction of this case was rejected by this court on June 24, 2015(Civil ruling of Beijing IP Court No. 631). The defendant appealed the ruling with Beijing Higher Court. Beijing Higher Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the ruling of this court on August 31, 2015(Civil ruling of Higher Court No. 3610). At the request of the plaintiff and the two defendants, this court entrusted an appraisal institution with expert testimony on April 18, 2016. The appraisal institution provided its expert testimony respectively on July 4, 2016 and May 4, 2017. The court held a public hearing on October 19, 2017. The authorized agents all participated the hearing. This case is finalized now. The plaintiff DigitalHeaven alleges: DigitalHeaven is the copyright holder of HBuilder development tool software. DigitalHeaven found in September 2014 that a software named APICloud was launched on the two defendants’ official website. After comparison, DigitalHeaven noticed that APICloud copied 3 plug-ins(code input method function plug-in, real machine running function plug-in, changing while viewing function plug-in) from HBuilder developer tool software. The defendants’ act infringes the plaintiff’s rights of reproduction, modification and internet transmission. Wherefore, the plaintiff requests the following relief: 1. An order requiring the two defendants to publish a declaration of apology to the plaintiff and keep it for a whole month in the most prominent positions on the website www.apicloud.com and the defendants’ official accounts on Sina Weibo, Wechat official accounts, Sina website, 36kr.com, CSDN, etc. in order to eliminate the ill effects of the infringement.
  • 2. 2. An order requiring the defendants to pay the plaintiff compensation and costs of 3,500,000 RMB, including attorney fee of 200,000RMB, notarial fee of 24,330RMB, document retrieval fee from national library of 270RMB, i.e. costs of 224,600RMB. The defendants together allege: 1. The plaintiff’s HBuilder software is an open source software governed by GPL license. According to GPL license, HBuilder software includes GPL licensed third-party source codes, so HBuilder is also open sourced. Any third party has the right to use its codes to build derived software products under GPL license. Therefore, the utilization of the plaintiff’s relevant source codes in APICloud software does not require permission from the plaintiff. The defendants’ act does not infringe the plaintiff’s copyright. 2. Even if the act in suit consists infringement against the plaintiff’s copyright, the plaintiff’s damage request lacks support of either facts or legal ground considering that: the three plug-ins alleged to be infringing the plaintiff’s copyright are not the defendants’ core software; the defendants’ software in suit was launched online for a very brief period of time; both sides’ software in suit are free software; the plaintiff’s codes used in the allegedly infringing software is of a very small amount; the defendants did not have any bad faith. 3. The plaintiff’s request for apology and elimination of ill effects lacks ground. To summarize, the defendants request the court to reject the plaintiff’s requests. After examination of the case, this court finds the below: 1. Facts about ownership of copyright On October 21, 2013, the plaintiff finished the development of HBuilder software. On March 30, 2015, the said software was updated to version 5.5.0, which is the appraised version in this case. Both sides identify the plaintiff is the copyright owner of HBuilder. The above facts are supported by evidence like Certificate of Computer Software Copyright Registration, Notarization No. 7195(2015), hearing record, etc. 2. Facts about the allegedly infringing act On April 1, 2015, the plaintiff downloaded the allegedly infringing software APICloud1.1.12 from the official website run by both defendants. The two defendants admit the software was provided to the users by them both. The plaintiff points out that the allegedly infringing software was not limited to this one version. Instead the infringement covers all versions of the software from September 15, 2014 when the website was launched till the end of 2015. To prove the similarity between the code input method function plug-in, real machine running function plug-in, and changing and viewing function plug-in in HBuilder and APICloud software, the plaintiff filed an application with this court for appraisal. After collecting opinions of both sides, this court entrusted the IP judicial expertise institution with Software and Integrated Circuit Enhancement Center of Ministry of Industry and Information Technology to conduct expert testimony against APICloud1.1.12 and HBuilder.window.5.5.0. Both sides agreed to the versions to be appraised. The appraisal institution’s expert testimony is as follows: 1. Code input method function plug-in: 29 out of 30 source code files are identical with the corresponding source codes
  • 3. in the plaintiff’s software; 2. Real machine running function plug-in: 18 out of 23 source code files are identical with the corresponding source codes in the plaintiff’s software; 3. Changing while viewing function plug-in: 44 out of 56 source code files are identical with the corresponding source codes in the plaintiff’s software. As the two defendants consider the plaintiff’s source codes of said software are identical to prior third-party open source software codes, they filed application for a second appraisal. This court entrusted the same appraisal institution with the appraisal based on the previous expert testimony. The object of the appraisal is the source codes considered identical in the previous expert testimony and multiple open source and third-party software provided by the defendants. 130 files involve real machine running function, 775 files involve changing while viewing function, but none of them involve code input method function. The appraisal institution’s second expert testimony is as follows: 1. Comparison of the 29 source code files in code input method function plug-in with prior source codes provided by the defendants shows no corresponding relationship, i.e. they are not identical; 2. Comparison of the 18 source code files in real machine running function plug-in with prior source codes provided by the defendants shows 13 of the files are identical; 3. Comparison of the 44 source code files in changing while viewing plug-in with prior source codes provided by the defendants shows 2 of the files are identical. Neither sides raised objection against the testimony. The above facts are supported by evidence including Notarization No. 7186(2015), MIIT ICC IP Appraisal No. 251(2016) and court hearing record, etc. 3. Facts about open source software referred to by the defendants The plaintiff’s HBuilder software(Version 5.5.0) includes GNU GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (“GPL”). GPL v3 published on June 29, 2007 includes terms as below: 0 Definition: “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work. 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) … b)… c)… This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. …d)… A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. 7. …“Additional permissions” are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent that they are valid under
  • 4. applicable law. If additional permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions. According to the court hearing, the two defendants confirmed the plaintiff’s HBuilder V.5.5.0 was downloaded by zip file and no installation program was needed. When unzipped, the three pluy-ins alleged by the plaintiff exist as three separate file folders. Further, the two defendants admitted that GPL license is not included in the root directory of the plaintiff’s HBuilder software, nor in the said three file folders. The license is in other files. In order to prove that the three function plug-ins are independently running software instead of derivative work covered by GPL license, the plaintiff submitted three computer software copyright registration certificates corresponding to the three plug-ins. The work involved are named respectively: Code Input Method Plugin(“CIM plugin”), HTML Application Real Machine Coupler Plugin(“ACR plugin”), and HTML Code Real-time Rendering Plugin. The first two software were published on August 10, 2013 and the latter one was published on Dec. 13, 2013. The defendants confirmed the certificates to be authentic. The above facts are supported by evidence including GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, copyright registration certificates, Notarization No. 7181(2015), cross- examination opinions submitted by the two sides, transcript of conversation, etc. 4. Other facts 1) Facts relevant to bad-faith infringement alleged by plaintiff In “Properties” of ResetPwdll.dll file of the allegedly infringing APICloud software, the digital signature shows “Digital Heaven(Beijing) Internet Technology Co. Ltd.” (i.e. the plaintiff in this case). The plaintiff asserts that this single fact shows the software sued is plagiarism of the plaintiff’s software in bad faith. The defendants published an announcement on their official website on June 5, 2015, which says “…we will not respond to some company’s public slander or rumor in case this company utilizes the fame of APICloud to hype itself”. The plaintiff asserted this fact was malicious as well. 2) Facts relevant to the plaintiff’s claim for compensation and reasonable costs The defendants’ WeChat official account published an article which says “Currently our platform has gathered more than 100,000 mobile application developers. In April(2015), the number of new developers was the total of the past 6 months.” The plaintiff proposed the statement could prove the user number of the allegedly infringing software. The defendants, however, said the number of developers should not be considered as the number of users. The costs of the plaintiff: attorney fee of 200,000RMB, notarization fee of 24,330RMB, and national library search fee of 270RMB. The above facts are supported by evidence like Notarization No. 6284(2015), attorney fee invoice, notarization fee invoice, search fee invoice, declaration of notarization authority,
  • 5. etc. This court finds: HBuilder software in suit is a computer software governed by Article 3 of Copyright Law of People’s Republic of China. The defendants admit that the plaintiff is the copyright owner of the said software. The three plug-ins, i.e. code input method function plug-in, real machine running function plug-in, and changing while viewing function plug-in are part of HBuilder software, but they run independently. The plaintiff filed separate copyright registrations for the three plug-ins. So they are independent computer software work owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the right to prohibit use of other people according to Article 10 of Copyright Law, which includes the right of reproduction, modification and internet transmission asserted by the plaintiff in this case. According to the expert testimonies it can be concluded as below: For code input method function plug-in, 29 out of 30 source code files are identical with the corresponding source codes in the plaintiff’s software; For real machine running function plug-in, 18 out of 23 source code files are identical with the corresponding source codes in the plaintiff’s software; For changing while viewing function plug-in, 44 out of 56 source code files are identical with the corresponding source codes in the plaintiff’s software. In the said identical source codes, only a small portion is identical with third-party or open- source software. Therefore, the allegedly infringing software copied most part of the plaintiff’s software and modified a small part of it, which falls into the protection scope of the plaintiff’s right of reproduction and modification. The allegedly infringing software was available on the defendants’ official website for users to download, which falls into the protection scope of internet transmission. Based on the above, if not authorized by the plaintiff and no legal defense exists, the defendants’ use constitutes infringement of the plaintiff’s said rights. The defendants claimed the plaintiff used third-party source codes covered by GPL license, so the software should also be open-sourced and any third party has the right to use the codes to build derivative work based on GPL license. This court concludes that the three plug-ins in HBuilder software are independent software work, so the point is whether the three plug-ins are governed by GPL license. At the court hearing, the defendants admitted that the three plug-ins exist in separate files which do not include GPL license documents. Further, the root directory of HBuilder software does not include GPL license either. According to GPL license, the covered work includes copyright protected programs licensed under GPL and derivative and modified work based on GPL licensed work. The three plug-ins do not contain GPL license and the root directory of HBuilder software does not include GPL license either. Although GPL license exists in other files of HBuilder software, the license does not cover the three plug-ins in suit. Therefore, the three plug- ins are not open-sourced derivative or modified work under GPL License. The defendants’ reasoning about open source is ungrounded. The defendants’ use constitutes infringement of the plaintiff’s said rights. According to Article 48 and Article 49 of Copyright Law, whoever commits acts of infringement shall bear the civil liability for such remedies as eliminating the effects of the act, making a public apology or paying compensation for damages. As the
  • 6. defendants’ act in suit constitutes infringement of the plaintiff’s right of modification, the defendants shall bear the civil liability of making a public apology and eliminating the ill effects. The two defendants shall publish a declaration to apologize to the plaintiff in the most prominent positions on the website www.apicloud.com and the defendants’ official WeChat accounts. This court does not support the plaintiff’s request for publishing the apology declaration on other platforms like Sina Weibo because those platforms are not operated by the defendants and thus not under the defendants’ control. The plaintiff’s actual losses and the defendants’ gains cannot be determined as the plaintiff did not submit evidence to prove its losses and the defendants’ gains. According to Article 49 of the Copyright Law, the compensation shall be determined by the court and shall be equal or below 500,000RMB. It’s important to note that in case No.1055 of Beijing IP Court(2015), the judicial limit of compensation of 500,000RMB was for one infringement act instead of for the whole case. When multiple acts are involved, the whole case shall not be limited up to 500,000RMB. The current case involves 3 separately independent work and the defendants’ act shall be considered as infringement of 3 works, so the compensation limit shall be 1500,000RMB. Considering facts as follows, this court sets the compensation limit for this case to be 1250,000RMB: Firstly, the defendants conducted bad-faith plagiary. The infringing software includes files from the plaintiff’s three plug-ins. Particularly, the defendants used most parts of code input method function plug-in and changing while viewing function plug-in. Without reasonable causes, coincidence may be excluded, so the copying was considered intentional. The digital signature of the plaintiff in the infringing software reaffirmed the plagiary. The false announcement on the defendants’ official website shows intentional bad faith. Secondly, the number of software users and its growth rate was clearly announced on the defendants’ official WeChat account as “Currently our platform has gathered more than 100,000 mobile application developers. In April(2015), the number of new developers was the total of the past 6 months.” Although the defendants claimed that the number of developers should not be considered as the number of users, they did not provide any evidence or reasonable grounds. So the above are the major considerations for compensation. The attorney fee of 200,000RMB is fully awarded by this court considering the complexity of computer software litigation and circumstances of this case. Notarization fee of 24,330RMB is awarded partially because only a part of the notarization was related to this case and the plaintiff did not point out clearly the corresponding relationship. The national library search fee of 270RMB is awarded because it was spent on this case. In summary, this court supports the plaintiff’s cause of action based on facts and law. In accordance with Article 3, Paragraph 1, (3), (5) and (12) of Article 10, Article 48 and Article 49 of Copyright Law of People’s Republic of China, this court’s verdict is as follows:
  • 7. 1. The defendants Grapefruit(Beijing) Technology Co. Ltd. and Grapefruit(Beijing) Mobile Technology Co. Ltd. shall, within 10 days after this decision takes effect, publish a declaration to apologize to the plaintiff and keep it for a whole month in the most prominent positions on the website www.apicloud.com and the defendants’ official WeChat accounts in order to eliminate the ill effects of the infringement. The declaration shall be reviewed by this court. Overdue performance will result in publication of major content of this decision at the request of Digital Heaven(Beijing) Internet Technology Co. Ltd. The costs for publication shall be burdened by the defendants. 2. The defendants Grapefruit(Beijing) Technology Co. Ltd. and Grapefruit(Beijing) Mobile Technology Co. Ltd. shall, within 10 days after this decision takes effect, pay a compensation of 1250,000 and the reasonable costs of 210,000RMB to the plaintiff. The other claims of the plaintiff are rejected. In case the defendants do not make payment within the designated 10 days according to this decision, Article 253 of Civil Procedure Law of People’s Republic of China will take effect, requiring the defendants to double pay the interest for the period of delay in performance. This court’s prosecution fee of 34,800RMB shall all be burdened by the defendants(Payment due 7 days after this decision takes effect). The appraisal fees shall all be burdened by the defendants. The amount of 150.000RMB for the first appraisal already paid by the plaintiff shall be paid by the defendants within 10 days after this decision takes effect. If dissatisfied with this decision, both sides may file petition for appeal with this court. Any petition shall be filed within 15 days from the date of service of this decision. Copies of any petition shall be submitted per number of entities and appeal fee shall be paid. The petition will be handled at Beijing Higher Court. Presiding judge: Rui Songyan People’s juror: Wang Hongbo People’s juror: Guo Yanqin April 12, 2018 Assistant judge: Zhou Wenjun Clerk: Song Yunyan