[TechWeb] reported on September 19th, Shanghai City People’s court today on the 360 companies v. Chengdu daily economic news title of the right to make the first instance verdict, each lost and sentenced to pay $1 million 500 thousand yuan. Daily economic news said in a statement, the contents of the first instance verdict is unclear, the application of legal errors. We will appeal to the Shanghai first intermediate people’s court. (rain)
below is the full text of the statement:
we believe that the contents of the first instance verdict is not clear, the application of legal errors. Entrusted by the newspaper, we will appeal to the Shanghai first intermediate people’s court.
: the first to report the fact that there are earlier reported from other media, some facts for fixing the notarized, are issued by the third party expert report, there are 35 groups of video data as evidence, the evidence submitted to the court in each by the newspaper has been fully involved in covering the report thus, the fact that reported facts have no source, after each newspaper invented and fabricated.
second: the technical phenomenon reported in the case, the 360 companies are recognized. The report on the 360 security guards and 360 security browser two software problems questioned, while the 360 companies in the identification of the hearing also admitted that its software has these phenomena of technology, therefore, the description of the facts are objective, true and accurate. Not only that, the experts in the industry involved in the technical issues involved in the case after the demonstration, the experts agreed that the case involved in the report of the contents of the 360 software is a technical basis for the problem. However, it is very regrettable that the court of first instance in the absence of technical identification of the 360 models of software, the lack of professionalism, serious violation of the facts of the conclusion of the.
third: every newspaper reported the original intention of the report is to the majority of 360 software users’ right to know. According to the evidence submitted to the court by every newspaper, the technical measures of software has exceeded its software function of the prospectus, and these measures are running in the 360 software users are unaware of the situation, may constitute a violation of consumer privacy. The newspaper for a thorough investigation and study of 360 software, consulting experts, a large collection of evidence, and ultimately the formation of the report, is to protect the consumer’s right to know, not constitute 360 of the company’s infringement.
fourth, a large number of detailed evidence in support, each by the newspaper on the facts and understanding based on the criticism of the software and the 360 companies, is the legitimate exercise of the right of public opinion, does not have subjective infringement of the reputation of the company’s 360 intention and behavior. Every newspaper that the court of first instance failed to correctly define the boundaries of the reputation of the enterprise and the interests of the public, the failure to accurately define the reputation of infringement and media coverage, damage the public’s right to know and the right of public opinion.
fifth, 360 software >