Mr. Chambers Yang Had an Interview with Journalist of IT-Times on the Copyright Infringement of Baidu Wenku and the Alleged Monopoly of Baidu

文章摘要 本文围绕百度文库未经作者许可免费分享文学作品是否构成侵权,以及百度能否以“避风港原则”免责展开讨论。资深律师杨先生认为,百度明显侵犯了作者的信息网络传播权,并造成财产损失。百度作为具有广泛影响力的互联网企业,开放上传平台时应当预见侵权风险,不能滥用“避风港原则”规避责任。同时,文章探讨了互动百科诉百度垄断案,指出百度通过人为调整搜索结果排序、将百度百科置于更前位置,涉嫌滥用市场支配地位及不正当竞争。杨先生强调,需有充分证据证明百度具有支配地位并滥用该地位,但竞价排名已明显损害用户和其他服务商权益。若互动百科能举证成功,将有助于改善互联网竞争环境,但拆分百度公司的合法性仍需法律直接支持。

Does it constitute a copyright infringement of Baidu Wenku for sharing literature works for free without obtaining consent of the writers? Can Baidu be exempted from liabilities for the reason that the documents are uploaded by internet users? The above issues have become most debated topics recently. Under such circumstances, journalist of IT-Times had an interview with Senior Lawyer Mr. Chambers Yang. In Mr. Yang's opinion, Baidu obviously infringed the right to network dissemination of information of writers and caused certain amount of property losses of such writers. Meanwhile, some non literature works, which have not attracted public attention, have also been shared on Baidu Wenku. As an internet company with wide influence inChina's IT industry, Baidu should have realized that an infringement on writers' right to network dissemination ofinformation would be caused by opening the uploading platform of Baidu Wenku to all internet users. Obviously, Baidu cannot be exempted from its liability for infringement by abusing the "SafeHarbor"principles.

 

Also, the journalist of IT Times had an interview with Mr. Yang on the case of Hudong.com ("Hudong") against Baidu, in which Hudong claims that Baidu takes advantage of its dominant position by manually modifying the search results and placing Baidu Baike at a higher rank than Hudong, which violates the Anti-Monopoly Law of China and constitutes an unfair competition. Mr. Yang considers that supporting evidences are needed to prove the dominant position of Baidu and its dominant position has been abused. However, by advancing the ranking auction above the search results, Baidu has obviously infringed the rights of search engine users and other internet services providers. If Hudong is able to prove Baidu's abuse of dominant position, it will be helpful to the internet environment. However, the legitimacy of splitting Baidu Corporation still needs to be directly supported by laws and regulations.

最后编辑于:2019-09-13 16:19

杨春宝一级律师简介

杨春宝一级律师,大成上海高级合伙人、资本市场部主任、国资基金研究中心主任,大成中国区私募基金专业带头人、科技与文化法律研究中心联合牵头人。执业30余年,长期从事私募基金、投融资、并购重组法律服务,尤其对对赌研究颇深且具有非常丰富的实战经验,并专注于金融机构股权投资业务。2004年起多次入选The Legal 500"私募基金"和"公司与商业"等境内外各类律师榜单,代理的中国法院首例适用外国法律审理外国公司的董事损害小股东权益纠纷案入选上海高院发布的《上海法院域外法查明典型案例》和威科先行"要案头条"。入选上海涉外法律人才库、上海市司法局鼎新法治人才库、上海国有企业改制法律顾问团,具有上市公司独立董事任职资格,系多家知名高校的兼职教授或兼职研究生导师及上海市商务委跨国经营人才培训班讲师。出版《私募股权投资基金风险防控操作实务》等16本投融资法律专著。了解更多

常见法律问题

互动百科诉百度垄断案中,百度行为是否构成滥用市场支配地位?

在中国反垄断法框架下,认定滥用市场支配地位需先界定相关市场,再评估经营者是否具有支配地位,最后判断其是否实施了排除、限制竞争的行为。互动百科主张百度利用其在搜索引擎市场的支配地位,通过人为调整搜索排序,将百度百科置于互动百科之前,这属于差别待遇或搭售行为,违反反垄断法。但法律实践要求原告承担较重的举证责任,必须证明相关市场的边界(如通用搜索服务市场)、百度的市场份额、市场控制力、进入壁垒等因素。仅凭搜索结果的排序差异,难以直接推定滥用。然而,百度在搜索结果中优先展示自家产品,可能构成自我优待,若该行为严重损害竞争对手的流量和商业机会,则可能被认定为不正当竞争或滥用行为。杨律师指出,百度通过竞价排名将商业推广结果置于自然搜索结果上方,已明显侵犯了搜索用户获取真实信息的权利,也损害了其他服务提供者的公平竞争机会。若互动百科能提供证据证明百度具有市场支配地位,并滥用该地位排斥竞争,将有助于净化互联网环境。但拆分百度公司这一主张,需要法律明确授权,现行法并无直接依据。实务中,此类案件胜诉难度较高,需依赖经济分析报告、用户数据、市场份额调查等专业证据。风险提示:反垄断诉讼周期长、成本高,且法院对相关市场界定持审慎态度。争议焦点集中在“相关市场”如何划定、百度的市场份额是否达到推定支配地位的标准,以及排序算法是否具有正当商业理由。

以上内容仅供参考,不构成法律意见。如需专业法律服务,请联系杨春宝一级律师:chambers.yang@dentons.cn

  • 本站声明:本站所载之法律论文、法律评论、案例、法律咨询等,除非另有注明,著作权人均为站长杨春宝高级律师本人。欢迎其他网站链接,但是,未经书面许可,不得擅自摘编、转载。引用及经许可转载时均应注明作者和出处"法律桥",并链接本站。本站网址:https://lawbridge.org/。
  •  
  •         本站所有内容(包括法律咨询、法律法规)仅供参考,不构成法律意见,本站不对资料的完整性和时效性负责。您在处理具体法律事务时,请洽询有资质的律师。本站将努力为广大网友提供更好的服务,但不对本站提供的任何免费服务作出正式的承诺。本站所载投稿文章,其言论不代表本站观点,如需使用,请与原作者联系,版权归原作者所有。

发表回复