Case summary
Mengniang Company and Chaojiao Zhong Company signed a "Game Product Custom R&D Cooperation Agreement," stipulating that Chaojiao Zhong would develop the game software <I Jiu Da Zhe Qi> for Mengniang, with all related intellectual property rights belonging to Mengniang. However, Chaojiao Zhong uploaded a fully plagiarized <I Jiu Da Zhe Liu> version of the game software without authorization. Consequently, Mengniang filed a lawsuit, alleging that Chaojiao Zhong committed copyright infringement and unfair competition.
The first-instance court ruled that the expert opinion from Moumeng Company contained errors in its classification and should not be admitted. Furthermore, other relevant evidence failed to prove that Chaojiaozhong Company had committed infringement. Dissatisfied with the ruling, Moumeng Company appealed. The second-instance court ultimately overturned the first-instance judgment, finding Chaojiaozhong Company guilty of both copyright infringement and unfair competition. The court also imposed punitive damages, ordering Chaojiaozhong Company to compensate Moumeng Company over 3 million yuan.
brief summary
Point 1: In the dispute of computer software copyright, how to obtain evidence of infringing game software?
Standard forensic procedures typically involve documenting the download processes, access channels, interface screenshots, and payment screenshots of licensed versus infringing games. However, since such disputes involve computer software rights, it is crucial to preserve evidence of the software packages (e.g., APK files) for both parties. This facilitates forensic analysis to determine code-level similarity ratios between the disputed games, thereby assessing potential infringement. Special attention must be paid to the classification and methodology of forensic evidence (e.g., using audiovisual categories instead of electronic data standards). Any procedural errors could significantly undermine judicial credibility, potentially leading to outright rejection of the appraisal conclusions.
Point 2: How to retrieve the revenue sharing and recharge flow details of the infringing games from the game platform?
Given that such information involves cooperation agreements between gaming platform providers and game operators/research developers, courts typically issue letters demanding revenue-sharing and recharge transaction records from platform providers. However, these providers often refuse to comply, citing the absence of such agreements. Numerous court rulings confirm this pattern. Nevertheless, if evidence demonstrating platform involvement is obtained during initial evidence collection, such refusal justifications become invalid. The following scenarios serve as reference points:
Point 3: In the dispute of computer software copyright infringement, how to understand the infringement judgment standard of "contact + substantial similarity"?
(1) The "contact" element can be easily proved by evidence;
(2) However, the "substantial similarity" requirement poses challenges for software copyright holders, as they often lack access to the alleged infringing softwares source code. The rights holder only needs to provide prima facie evidence of infringement to shift the burden of proof to the accused party, who must then demonstrate that the alleged software source code does not constitute substantial similarity. Failure to meet this burden would result in the presumption of compliance with the "substantial similarity" criterion, thereby incurring unfavorable evidentiary consequences.
In Case No.3042, the rights holder has already conducted judicial appraisal comparisons demonstrating a 74% similarity rate between the disputed software and the copyrighted work. If the defendant disputes this appraisal, they must provide additional evidence proving non-infringement—specifically, demonstrating that the defendants software source code does not substantially resemble the rights holders source code (e.g., through reorganization analysis). However, despite repeated court orders to provide the source code, the defendant persistently refused and failed to provide reasonable justification, rendering infringement comparison impossible. Consequently, pursuant to legal provisions, the defendant shall bear the legal consequences of failing to meet the burden of proof.
