宝鼎律师事务所诉谷歌公司侵权案评析

发布时间：2018-06-01 17:02

本文选题：专家辅助人 + 搜索引擎　；参考：《湖南大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：科学技术的快速发展给司法实践带来了许多新问题，越来越多专家辅助人参与诉讼，，搜索引擎侵权的现象也频频发生。专家辅助人的意见是否具有证明力、搜索引擎恶意代码提示行为是否构成侵权成为宝鼎律师事务所诉谷歌公司侵权案的争议焦点。专家辅助人意见的合法地位和证据能力已经得到了法律的确认，衡量其证明力的标准很大程度上取决于专家辅助人的资格、专家辅助人意见的中立性以及对该意见是否经过充分的询问和质证。在司法实践中，具备专家资格、经过充分交叉询问和质证的专家辅助人意见具有证明力。为了维护互联网秩序，保护网络用户的合法权益，搜索引擎应当承担有限审查义务和社会公共职能，对链接网页的合法性和安全性进行监测，因此，搜索引擎应当对恶意代码进行审查和提示。但是搜索引擎必须严格依法行使权利、履行义务，由于恶意代码不是《互联网信息管理办法》第15条规定的明显、直接违法信息，因此搜索引擎没有权利屏蔽、删除存在恶意代码的网页。自动完成的恶意代码监测和提示行为虽然对链接网页运营商造成了负面影响，但是提示行为和损害结果之间不存在侵权责任构成要件中的因果关系。搜索引擎提示恶意代码的行为如果构成侵权，则属于直接侵权行为，以过错责任为归责要件。由于搜索引擎的恶意代码提示行为没有特定对象，也不存在人为干预，其目的是保护广大网络用户免受恶意软件的侵害，因此这种提示行为是积极履行网络服务商义务的行为，不存在主观过错。
[Abstract]:The rapid development of science and technology has brought many new problems to judicial practice. More and more experts assist people to participate in litigation, and the phenomenon of search engine infringement also occurs frequently. Whether the expert assistant's opinion has the proof power, whether the search engine malicious code prompt behavior constitutes the infringement becomes the dispute focal point in the Baoding law firm v. the Google company infringement case. The legal status and evidentiary capacity of expert auxiliaries have been recognized by law and the criteria for measuring their probative power depend to a large extent on the qualifications of expert auxiliaries, The neutrality of the expert Auxiliary opinion and whether it has been adequately questioned and cross-examined. In judicial practice, the opinions of experts who have the qualification of experts and are fully cross-examined and cross-examined have the power of proof. In order to maintain the Internet order and protect the legitimate rights and interests of network users, search engines should undertake limited censorship obligations and social public functions to monitor the legality and security of linked web pages. Search engines should review and prompt malicious code. However, search engines must strictly exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations according to law. Since malicious code is not an obvious and direct illegal information as stipulated in Article 15 of the Internet Information Management measures, search engines have no right to shield it. Delete pages with malicious code. Although the self-completed malicious code monitoring and prompting behavior has a negative impact on the operators of linked web pages, there is no causal relationship between the prompt behavior and the damage result in the constitutive elements of tort liability. If the behavior of malicious code prompted by search engine constitutes infringement, it is a direct tort, and the fault liability is the imputation element. Because the malicious code prompt behavior of the search engine has no specific object and no human intervention, its purpose is to protect the vast number of network users from malware, so it is an active act to fulfill the obligations of the network service provider. There is no subjective fault.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D920.5;D922.16;D925

【参考文献】