Intel and Dongjin Company 's lawsuits on "head documents" have become the focus of these days. Information obtained from related news, roughly true:
On January 23, Shenzhen Dongjin Communication Technology Co., Ltd. disclosed in Beijing. Intel US Headquarters officially submitted a complaint on the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court on January 20th, said Shenzhen Dongjin Communication Technology Company (defendant) (Plaintiff) License, Replica, Issue, and Software Intel Dialogic System Release 5.1.1 version of the information network propagation, its behavior constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff copyright. And asked Dongjin Company to compensate $ 7.96 million (with 65.78 million yuan).
In the prosecution, Intel accused the NADK series of voice cards in the East into the "Intel header file" intellectual property in the SR5.1.1 software of its products, and vs. to help and abet the license agreement that violates the document, At the same time, it also questioned the compatibility issues in both products.
At present, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court applies for the application of Intel's evidence, and has been seated and seized by the products, software, user manuals, related document materials, financial accounts such as Shenzhen Dongjin suspected infringement. It is reported that the case will be officially heard on March 23.
In the case where there is no more, more exact information, you can only explain the current situation of this case according to the above news.
1. An important issue in this case is whether "header file" is part of the software as a software, which is protected by copyright. Some of the relevant news and reports are considered "header files" cannot be protected by copyright. I tried to analyze this problem from relevant legal basis.
Article 2 of the Computer Software Protection Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance): The computer software (hereinafter referred to as software) in this Ordinance refers to the computer program and its related documents.
Article 3 of the Ordinance: Computer program, refers to a code-based instruction sequence executed by a device having information processing capabilities such as a computer or the like, or can be automatically converted into symbolicization of a code-based instruction sequence. Instruction sequence or symbolic lithographic sequence. The source program and target program of the same computer program are the same work.
Intel's SR5.1.1 software should be called software in the Ordinance. As a part of the SR5.1.1 software, "header file" is also in accordance with the regulations, which belongs to a computer program or document?
Personally, the "header file" should belong to the symbolization instruction sequence or symbolicization instruction sequence or symbolic language sequence of the code-based instruction sequence. "Header file" and library (library) After compiling, it can be converted into a code-based instruction sequence, so I think "head file" is the source program specified in the Ordinance and should be protected by the regulations.
In addition, some articles believe that "header file" can be modified by users and is open to users, so "head file" is not independent. I think that if Dongjin does have a plagiarism, "header file" can be used alone and cooperate with files such as the company's own research and development, it is enough to explain the independence of "header file".
2. Does Dongjin's behavior constitute an infringement?
my country's copyright law stipulates that the rights of copyright owners include replication rights and information about information network communication. If the "header file" is also the "header file" of the East into Intel, then, whether it is copying SR5.1.1 software or Participate of SR5.1.1 software, plagiarism. However, after the law recognizes the plagiarism, whether there is a legal identification, but also to investigate other factors, such as:
A, the purpose and nature of use, including this use of whether there is a business nature or for non-profit educational purposes;
B, the nature of copyright works;
c, the substantial nature of the number and content of the part as compared to the entire copyright work;
D, this use of the potential market or value of copyright works, etc.
Personally, it is locked, then this kind of plagiarism is based on commercial profit, but it also needs to consider "head document" and the overall work of the overall work in quantity and content, etc., From the information obtained from the news, it is impossible to determine whether the Dongjin constitutes an infringement. 3, is Intel's behavior constitute a monopoly?
my country did not specify corresponding laws and regulations such as "anti-monopoly law", and it is difficult to find the definitive specification in my country's anti-unfair competition law, so personal thinking cannot rank Intel's behavior constitute monopoly.
In the category of civil legal norms, the law does not have a clear text prohibited, and the civil entity can do. So I think that Intel does not have to do without clear legal basis. At the same time, I think the judge will consider the public's interests and interest in the interests of intellectual property rights. If this case is lost, you can associate the DVD patent cases in the past, and domestic manufacturers have almost no one's rights proposed by the patent. Audit, that is, agree to pay the license fee, leading to abroad to the right to use, domestic manufacturers are difficult to cope.
According to Japan and domestic lawyers, the United States is used to the handheld certificate to the target company they think that maybe infringe, if they succeed, they will continue to ask other costs, and other rights holders also Will swar up. Domestic companies should recognize this habit of intellectual property.
From this case, our domestic manufacturers should pay attention to:
From the perspective of copyright, on the one hand, it is to protect its intellectual property, such as the registration of software copyright, and retain evidence to enjoy copyright. On the other hand, it is to avoid infringing intellectual property rights of others. If the works of others should be authorized, or completely develop.
In addition, today, enterprises will have often happened, and enterprises should establish their own legal protection agencies or to delegate professional institutions to handle the corresponding matters. At the same time, if they are accused of infringement, the company should first examine whether the prosecutor is the right person? Rights is it legal? Is it still in the validity? Whether the evidence is legal, etc. At the same time, it is also necessary to establish an emergency processing mechanism, which cannot affect the normal production and operation of the enterprise due to the face of prosecution.
This article is only discussed for specific examples. The assumptions in the text are not targeted, only for discussion.
Copyright by 9CBS lawyer is not authorized online, it is strictly forbidden to reprint.
