Introduction to China Courts’ Evidence Preservation System in Software Litigation

(By You Yunting) China’s computer software infringement is very severe. In litigations of cracking down on computer software infringement, however, how to fix infringement evidence is always a real problem for right holders. In practice, there are two means of computer software evidence perseveration: one is evidence preservation taken by the right holder, and the other is applying for the court to take evidence preservation.

Right holders always would like to take pretrial evidence preservation in network software infringement, cases of installing infringing computer software in public places such as Internet bar. As for enterprises that use unauthorized software for commercial use in workplaces, however, in most cases, evidence preservation is taken by the administrative authorities of copyright or people’s courts. At present, China’s administrative organization have involved less and less in software infringement litigation, because the mainstream opinion is that administrative organizations shall handle with the cases involving in infringing public interests whereas software infringement cases regarding as civil disputes between right holders of software and unauthorized users of aforesaid software shall be settled down though civil proceedings. In our today’s post, we would like to introduce some legal ground of software pretrial evidence preservation taken by the people’s courts in China.


The Exposure Legal Defects of Chinese Crackdown on Online Rumors

(By You Yunting) Recently, Chinese governments have cracked down on the spreading of rumors online, and have arrested some web users for allegedly fabricating or disseminating online rumors. A lot of netizens have voiced their objections that this crackdown suppressed the “proper freedom of speech.” In our opinion, theoretically, online rumors shall better be handled through other means of self-remedy, such as the victims filing civil or criminal lawsuits against the alleged rumormongers. However, government intervention is in some cases a realistic necessity to more effectively crackdown online rumors, because in some cases the victims hurt by online rumors cannot file a lawsuit on their own initiative, often resulting from a failure to discern the rumormonger’s identity.