Selection of court decisions. Software and Courts
This material highlights interesting cases from Russian judicial practice related to software: situations where there was plagiarism of the source code, when business entities neglected the terms of proprietary software licensing agreements and used “pirated” copies of programs and some others. I'll start with the most interesting:
1. Plagiarism software code
a. Opensky-2 vs aeronautics
Date of decision: 14.03.2011
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/ZluOeHnBykQd
The essence of the case: the Claimant (OJSC "Regional Information and Computing Center" Pulkovo ") - the copyright holder of the program" OpenSky-2 ", of which the module" Alerts "is a part. The defendant (Aeronavigator LLC) is the copyright holder of the Meridian program.
Both holders have certificates of state registration of their computer programs. The authors of the OpenSky-2 program are the team of authors who created the program as part of their work duties during the period of work at Pulkovo Regional Information Center, including citizen Sorokin SA, who subsequently went to work for Aeronavigator where he became one of the authors of the “Meridian” program.
Expert Document Management LLC Borisov E.V. Examination of the source code of the OpenSky-2 and Meridian programs was carried out to determine the degree of their identity.
According to the expert, when analyzing the source code fragments of the software products OpenSky-2 and Meridian, a difference (2 lines) was found in the name of the registry branch used to store settings defining the methods of the program, where instead of the \ Software \ RIVC_PULKOVO branch \ AS_RDS (Spp) \ Alerts ", which is used by" OpenSky-2 ", with the same purpose, with the same composition of tags and with the same formats of values ​​stored in them in" Meridian ", the branch" \ Software \ Aeronavigator \ Meridian \ Alerts.
As a result of the study of the source code fragments of the OpenSky-2 program and the Meridian program, it was established that the Meridian program, the rights to which are claimed by Aeronavigator LLC, is completely identical to the OpenSky-2 program, the exclusive rights to which belong to OJSC “ RIVC-Pulkovo.
Solution: Respondent's actions on using the plaintiff’s program by including the source code of the Alerts module, which is part of the OpenSky-2 program, in the Meridian program, and also providing the source text of the Alerts module for state registration in the Rospatent of the Meridian program »Found to violate the exclusive right of the plaintiff.
Compensation for violation of exclusive rights - 500 000 rubles.
Note: the decisions of higher instances (of the Thirteenth AAC of June 28, 2011, and the FAS of the North-West District of October 10, 2011) were upheld by the decision of the court of first instance.
')
b. QuantaFarm vs Pharmacy-Ural
Date of decision: 01.10.2012
Link to solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/T8AoSBxnaQJ8
The essence of the case: the Claimant (LLC "Aurit") - the copyright holder of the program "Program complex for the automation of pharmacy enterprises" Apteka-Ural "(Program complex" Apteka-Ural ").
The defendant (Kvart LLC) is the copyright holder of the registered program “System of automation of enterprises engaged in pharmaceutical activity“ Quartfarm ”. Both programs are registered in the state register of computer programs.
The authors of the program “Quartfarm”: Korkunov M.A., Fedorov M.V., Razboynikov P.A. - all three worked initially with the plaintiff, then as a result of a conflict with their management, they left Aurit LLC and moved to Kvart LLC.
To resolve the question of whether one program is a revised copy of another program, the court appointed a forensic examination, which was conducted by expert Sukhanov V. I. (head of the Department “Software and Systems” of the UFU named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin). Expert opinion: the program “Quartfarm” is not identical to the program “Pharmacy-Ural”, but the program “Quartfarm” is the result of the processing of the program “Pharmacy-Ural”.
Solution: Prevent the respondent from distributing or otherwise using the QuartFarm program. The state registration of the “QuartFarm” program in the register of computer programs is invalidated as based on inaccurate information.
Compensation for violation of exclusive rights - 500,000 rubles and 14,000 rubles for the costs of the examination.
Note: In determining the amount of compensation, the court drew attention to the fact that the period of violation of the claimant’s exclusive right to its program was about six months, hence the amount of compensation claimed (500,000 rubles) is reasonable and subject to recovery from the defendant in favor of the claimant.
I draw your reader's attention to the fact that the court ruling in the appointment of an examination (evidence that established the fact of plagiarism) established the amount of remuneration of expert V. Sukhanov. - 14 000 rubles (while the claimant, having won the process, received compensation in the amount of 500 000 rubles).
The defendant filed an appeal. In the appeals instance, the case was considered by the 17th AAS. A forensic examination was conducted by experts Khokhlov I.A. and Dobryakom P.V. Below, I propose to read the key conclusions from the expert opinions:
Khokhlov's conclusion:
1. the complete coincidence of software platforms (operating system, programming language, libraries and database management system) used in both software products was established
2. Descriptions of domain attributes and tables in database structures in many cases have a similar description structure, differing only in attribute names. The main table has the same name - ARTIKUL (they contain the main links; they also have the same methods for storing billing / expense documents).
3. no signs of formal processing were found in the source texts of the programs (conclusion: the programs were written anew).
4. a match was found between unique and non-obvious abbreviations (conclusion: there was a borrowing from the source code of the Apteka-Ural package, which is a key feature of the processing process)
5. the presence of similar windows with the help of which the main functionality of the program is implemented (this is also a sign of the processing of the program)
6. when creating “QuartFarm”, developers used access to the source code of “Apteka-Ural” and used them as a model when developing their own program texts, database structure and screen forms, i.e. reworked the program "Pharmacy-Ural".
Conclusion of the Good-natured One:
1. functional similarity of programs, there are fundamental differences in the architecture of programs
2. The “QuartFarm” code and the script of its database are significantly smaller than the code and the “Pharmacy-Ural” script. Available identical names of elements are due to terms from the pharmaceutical industry or from business
3. The number of similar pieces of code in both programs is insignificant.
4. There are indirect signs that the programmer has moved from the Pharmacy-Ural development team to the QuartFarm team, which is a normal event in the IT field.
5. the similarity of the appearance of the programs is explained by the same needs of users, no obvious signs of borrowing were found and there are differences in the architecture (conclusion: the QuartFarm program was developed independently without processing any parts of the Apteka-Ural program).
According to the court, expert Dobryak P.V. He does not refute the findings of the expert Khokhlova IA, which are set out in the research part of the expert opinion, therefore the appellate court confirmed the correctness of the decision of the court of first instance.
2. Unlicensed software
In 2012, Russian companies violated software copyright in such sectors as construction, industrial production, architecture and design (that is, they used unlicensed software in their activities), so it’s not surprising that the most recent claimants in such cases are just the copyright holders of just such specialized software:
a. Adobe Inc.
Date of decision: 30.11.2010
Link to the solution: kad.arbitr.ru/PdfDocument/5b3ec91b-6b3f-44b8-9e56-04ea540c869c/A40-117808-2010_20101130_Reshenija%20i%20postanovlenija.pdf
Respondent: FSUE “Rostehinventarizatsiya – Federal BTI”
Software for Respondent: Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0 ”(15 copies) and“ Adobe Photoshop CS 2 9.0 ”(14 copies)
Solution: compensation - 1,485,497 rubles.
Note: recognizing the plaintiff’s claim for recovery of compensation from the defendant, the court noted the following: “The right holder certainly incurs losses from trade and the use of counterfeit goods, as a result of which the demand for licensed products decreases, taking into account the dumping prices for counterfeit goods.”
Date of decision: 16.03.2012
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/MPpENkWU40xZ
Respondent: Geo-Profi Ltd.
Software for Responder: Adobe Photoshop 8.0 (3 copies), Adobe Photoshop CS3
Solution: compensation for copyright infringement - 215 530 rubles.
Date of decision: 01.08.2012
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/iouVjG0LHjUT
Defendant: Multiplying Center Ltd.
Software of the respondent: "AdobeIllustratorCS2", "AdobeIllustratorCS", "AdobePhotoshopCS2" (2 copies), "AdobeInDesignCS2" (2 copies), "AdobeInDesignCS5", "AdobeAcrobat 7.0.", "AdobePageMaker 6.5."
Solution: compensation for copyright infringement - 472,739.52 rubles.
Date of decision: 10.10.2012
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/SQbkEsnE3WWn
Defendant: Street Magic LLC
Software of the respondent: “AdobePhotoshopCS3 Extended (v.RUS)”, “AdobePhotoshopCS5”, “AdobeCS5 MasterCollection”
Solution: compensation - 455 132.16 rubles.
Date of decision: 11.12.2012
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/LdDdL1HU1FHR
Defendant: Media Center Ltd.
ON the defendant: in a court decision, the specific software that was installed at the defendant was not indicated, but it indicated that the total cost of copies of the works for which the defendant had violated the rights amounts to 221,123 rubles. 97 kopecks
Solution: compensation - 442,247.94 rubles.
b. Autodesk Inc.
Date of decision: 23.08.2010
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/18043090 *
Respondent: Popyrin A.S.
Software for Respondent: AutoCAD-2008 (2 copies)
Solution: compensation - 985 677.78 rubles.
Note: this lawsuit comes from a criminal case against a defendant found guilty of committing crimes under Part 2 of Art. 146 of the Criminal Code in three episodes.
Date of decision: 17.04.2012
Link to the solution : docs.pravo.ru/document/view/25519171
Respondent: Usanin M.The.
Software for Respondent: AutoCAD 2008 (6 copies)
Solution: compensation - 327 691 rubles.
Note: this lawsuit comes from a criminal case against a defendant found guilty of committing crimes under Part 2 of Art. 146 of the Criminal Code in three episodes.
Date of decision: 31.01.2013
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/29801736
Respondent: Energotehmontazh Ltd.
Responder Software: Autodesk AutoCAD 2008 (2 copies)
Solution: compensation for copyright infringement - 411,729.76 rubles.
Date of decision: 01/04/2013
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/32674796
Respondent: Hermes OJSC
Software for Respondent : AutoCAD 2011 (2 copies)
Solution: compensation - 221,286.52 rubles.
c. Microsoft Corporation
Date of decision: 25.01.2010
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/4166682
Respondent: TC Besant-S LLC
Responder Software: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 (Rus) (1 copy), Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack 4 (Rus) (24 copies), Microsoft Office XP Professional (Rus) (24 copies), Microsoft Office 2003 Professional (Rus) (1 copy).
Solution: compensation - 844 464 rubles.
Date of decision: 30.09.2010
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/5037089
Defendant: Metallinvest-Ufa Ltd.
Software of the respondent: “Microsoft Windows XP Professional” (11 copies), “Windows XP Home Edition” (2 copies), “Microsoft Office 2002” (1 copy), “Microsoft Office 2003 Professional Rus” (12 copies) .
Solution: compensation - 411,478.94 rubles.
Date of decision: 04/26/2012
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/26267245
Respondent: Khasanov A.AND.
Software of the respondent: “Microsoft Windows XP Professional” (17 copies), “Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate” (2 copies), “Microsoft Office 2007 Professional” - (1 copies).
Solution: compensation - 370,690.32 rubles.
Date of decision: 04.03.2013
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/32506485
Defendant: FSI “Sevkasprybvod”
Software for Responder: Microsoft Windows XP Professional (3 copies), Microsoft Office 2003 Professional (2 copies), Microsoft Office 97 Standard (1 copy), Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (7 copies), Microsoft Office 2000 Professional (6 copy.), Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional (1 copy.), Microsoft Office Standard 2007 (1 copy.).
Solution: compensation - 391,596.04 rubles.
d. CJSC "1C"
Date of decision: 17.12.2007
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/fcW3tDOdl4g4
Defendant: Rail Trans Transport Company Ltd.
Software of the defendant: CJSC “1C”: “1C: enterprise.7.7 network version”, “1C: Enterprise 7.7 for SQL” (4 copies), “1C: Taxpayer 7.7”.
Solution: compensation - 706,350 rubles.
Date of decision: 20.05.2010
Reference to the decision: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/kUMMppPubE6X
Respondent: LLC Zherdevsky Plant of Vegetable Oils
Respondent's software: “1C: Enterprise 7.7 for SQL. Complex delivery + ITS USB "(1 copy)," 1C: Enterprise 7.7. Management of distributed information databases USB (1 copy).
Solution: compensation - 171,000 rubles.
Date of decision: 09/04/2012
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/regular/doc/MssEXdX4KjQl
Defendant: D. Kondratyev
Software of the defendant: “1C: Enterprise 7.7 TRADE. Complex delivery + ITS USB "(1 copy.) And" 1C: Enterprise 7.7 (network version) Complex delivery + ITS USB "(3 copy.)
Solution: compensation - 674,000 rubles.
Note: this lawsuit comes from a criminal case against a defendant found guilty of committing a crime, provided for in paragraph “c” of Part 3 of Art. 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (it “through the Internet, without having the permission of the owner, for the purpose of further use and distribution, acquired unlicensed software products, the rights holder of which is 1C,” then illegally installed this software for 1500 rubles ”).
Date of decision: 29.06.2012
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/KG0xupgneZY4
Defendant: Goodwin LLC
Software of the defendant: “1C: Enterprise 7.7 for SQL Integrated Delivery” (1 copy), “1C: Enterprise 8.0” (1 copy.), “1C: Enterprise 8.1” (1 copy.).
Solution: compensation - 288,000 rubles.
e. A whole bunch of copyright holders in one case
Date of decision: 25.02.2009
Reference to the decision: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/035RWUdOsrbC (this is a link to the decision of the appellate court)
Respondent: Hell Litbitum LLC
Responder Software: Excel 2003, AutoCAD-2007, OfficeAccess 2003, OfficePowerPoint 2003, MicrosoftWindowsXPProfessional, MicrosoftOffice 2003, OfficeOutlook 2003, Autedesk 3dsMax, IllustratorCS3, IllustratorCS2, IllustratorCS, PhotoshopCS2, CS3
Solution: compensation in favor of Microsoft is 424,935.9 rubles, in favor of Autodesk Inc. Corporation in the amount of 1,863,958.68 rubles, in favor of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the amount of 600,887.86 rubles.
Date of decision: 16.11.2009
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/qLqEx1jqX9l
Respondent: TechnoNICOL-Kuban Ltd.
Software of the respondent: “Microsoft Windows 2000 professional” (3 copies), “Microsoft Windows XP Professional” (7 copies), “Microsoft Office Professional Edition version 2003” (7 copies), “Microsoft Office Professional Edition” (1 copy .), "MicrosoftOffice 2000 premium" (2 copies.), "1C: Enterprise 7.7 for SQL Integrated Delivery" (9 copies.), "1C Enterprise 7.7 network version" (1 copy.), "AutoCAD 2002" (1 copy .).
Solution: compensation in favor of CJSC “1C” - 1,602,000 rubles, in favor of Microsoft Corporation - 350,786.46 rubles, in favor of Autodesk Corporation - 408,000 rubles.
Date of decision: 28.06.2010
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/10875982
Respondent: SP Masterkin DS
Software of the defendant: “Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003”, “Microsoft Office 2007 Enterprise SP1”, “Microsoft Office 2007”, “Microsoft Windows XP Professional”, “Microsoft Office 2000 Rus. Extended Edition, Microsoft Office 2000 Front Page, Microsoft Windows 2000 PRO SP4, Microsoft Windows Vista (Final), Microsoft Office XP, Microsoft Windows 98 RUS, 1C: Enterprise 7.7 for SQL. Integrated delivery of ITS USB ”(all this software was at the respondent on CD / DVD - disks in the amount of 16 pieces and flash – cards in the amount of 3 pieces)
Solution: compensation in favor of Microsoft - 467,126 rubles, in favor of CJSC "1C" - 756,000 rubles.
Date of decision: 08.10.2010
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/28461838
Respondent: LLC “Company LK”
Software of the respondent: “Microsoft Windows Vista Business OEM RUS” (1 copy), “1C: Enterprise 7.7 network version Integrated delivery” (2 copies), “Microsoft Office 2003 (professional edition version)” (1 copy), “ AutoCAD Architecture 2008 ENG (1 copy), “Microsoft Windows XP Professional RUS” (2 copies).
Solution: compensation in favor of Microsoft Corporation - 73 199.24 rubles, in favor of Autodesk Inc. Corporation - 262 920 rubles, in favor of CJSC "1C" - 312 000 rubles.
Date of decision: 25.08.2011
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/20370611
Defendant: MUP Tikhoretsky urban settlement of Tikhoretsk district "Vodokanal", Tikhoretsk
Software of the defendant: “Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional” (4 copies), “Microsoft Office 2003 Professional” (2 copies), “Microsoft Office 2000 SR-1 Premium” (1 copy), “Microsoft Office 2000 Professional” (1 Ex.), “1C: Enterprise 7.7 Integrated Delivery (network version)” (3 copies), “1C: Enterprise 7.7 Accounting and Calculation (network version)” (3 copies).
Solution: compensation in favor of CJSC "1C" - 918 000 rubles, in favor of Microsoft Corporation - 181 318.60 rubles.
Date of decision: 27.10.2011
Link to the solution: ras.arbitr.ru/PdfDocument/3186ec94-a4b2-4c83-9fa1-4422395e1a14/%D0%9040-57750-2011__20111027.pdf
Defendant: LLC LG Electronics Marketing, LLC LG Electronics RUS
Respondent's software: Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro, Adobe Acrobat 8 ​​Pro, Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended, Adobe Illustrator CS, Adobe Photoshop CS, Adobe Photoshop CS2, Adobe Photoshop CS3 and CorelDRAW Graphics Suite 12 »
Solution: compensation from LG Electronics RUS-Marketing LLC in favor of Adobe Systems Incorporated - 1,180,848.48 rubles, in favor of Corel Corporation - 14,730.04 rubles;
compensation from LG Electronics RUS LLC in favor of Adobe Systems Incorporated - 2,582,766.86 rubles, in favor of Corel Corporation - 29,460.08 rubles.
Date of decision: 11/24/2011
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/OorPQVpSQtdn
Respondent: OJSC Zheldorremmash
Software of the respondent: AdobePhotoshop 7.0 (3 copies), AdobeIllustrator 10.0 (1 copy), AdobePagemaker 7.0 (1 copy), AdobeIndesign, 2.0 (1 copy) - following the results of the first search; AdobePhotoshop of different versions (7 copies), AdobePagemaker (1 copy), AdobeIndesign (1 copy), AdobeIllustrator (1 copy), AdobeAudition (1 copy) - according to the results of the second search;
"AutoCAD" versions 2002 and 2004 (3 copies),
"CorelDRAWGraphicsSuite" different versions (6 copies),
Solution: compensation in favor of Autodesk Incorporated - 350,042.28 rubles, compensation in favor of Corel Corporation - 137,579.56 rubles, compensation in favor of Adobe Systems Incorporated - 948,327.78 rubles.
: , , «» 01.07.2009 . 02.03.2009 , , , «», «». , «» (AdobePhotoshop, CorelDRAW, AuCAD) . , , . «» «» Microsoft, , , .
, , , .
: 09.07.2012
: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/27114629
: ..
: , , 11 «DVD» .
: «» — 324 492 , « » — 751 464 .
: , , . «» . 3 . 146 ( 1 () 5 000 ).
.. , , , , , , , , .
, 1 .
: 01.03.2013
: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/32502213
: «-»
: AutoCAD 2005 (1 .), AutoCAD 2007 (1 .), Adobe Photoshop CS2 (1 .)
: « » — 416 416 , « » — 57 241,42 .
: , , . , , , «-» , , , , .
: 26.03.2013
: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/32664246
: « » , .
: «Microsoft Windows XP Professional (2 .), Microsoft Office 2003 Professional (2 .), 1: 7.7 ( ) (1 .), Adobe Photoshop CS (1 .), Adobe Photoshop CS2 (1 .), AutoCAD 2006 (1 .), AutoCAD 2009 (1 .).
: — 175 660,08 , «1» — 156 000 , « » – 97 852,14 , « » – 1 187 331,2 .
. :
: 26.03.2013
: ras.arbitr.ru/PdfDocument/9d136253-7210-4f03-b802-364726641f40/%D0%9060-14190-2011__20121004.pdf
: «- „ “
: „-“
: « » .411734.002-01.002
: – 5 200 000 .
: 24.07.2012
: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/b3LgiXBWMOog
: « »
: « » «»
: « CSE»
: , 3 400 000 .
. , , «» ( «» 5 ). :
1) 2033 — . , ,
2) Disciples 3: Renaissance — . , , ( — Disiples 2: — « » — . )
3) Assassin's Creed — .
4) Assassin's Creed 2 — . ( «»)
5) Left 4 Dead 2 — . , ,
, «» — 100 000 (, , , , 1; , ). , 70 000, 50 000, 30 000, 10 000 . , «» Disciples 3: Renaissance , Assassin's Creed 2 , Left 4 Dead 2 .
3.
: 11.03.2009
: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/1292794
: «1C »
: « »
: «1: 7.7. ( )»
: – 60316,66 .
: . , «1: 7.7. ( )» , «1», «1V7.» HAS – . , exe- , .
4.
..
, «», « », «», « » «1».
, , 7 705 653,9 .
09 2012 , , , .«» . 3 . 146 . 242 3 6 (), ( ).
28.11.2012 .
, « .. , , , , , , .» , , , . ?
5.
: 11.03.2009
: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/23693662
: «»
: ..
: Web-, Web- ( )
: 179 097,55 .
: – . , . 04.06.2010 . , , , , . ( – ). , .
15.06.2010 . , 14.06.2010 , , , 14.06.2010 .
.. «» , , . . , «» , 179097,55 .
. .
6. – ?
Punto Switcher @ Mail.Ru
skan.ru Punto Switcher:
«» «Punto Switcher». .., skan.ru, . , , , .. «Punto Switcher» , ( « @ Mail.Ru»).
, Punto Switcher , , Punto Switcher , , , , , , .
, , 4.2 , ( ), , .
, , , Punto Switcher , «.».
, , , , .
, Punto Switcher: « «» « , » @ Mail.Ru, , , ».
, «» . , , , .
: .
: .
* docs.pravo.ru .
1. Plagiarism software code
a. Opensky-2 vs aeronautics
Date of decision: 14.03.2011
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/ZluOeHnBykQd
The essence of the case: the Claimant (OJSC "Regional Information and Computing Center" Pulkovo ") - the copyright holder of the program" OpenSky-2 ", of which the module" Alerts "is a part. The defendant (Aeronavigator LLC) is the copyright holder of the Meridian program.
Both holders have certificates of state registration of their computer programs. The authors of the OpenSky-2 program are the team of authors who created the program as part of their work duties during the period of work at Pulkovo Regional Information Center, including citizen Sorokin SA, who subsequently went to work for Aeronavigator where he became one of the authors of the “Meridian” program.
Expert Document Management LLC Borisov E.V. Examination of the source code of the OpenSky-2 and Meridian programs was carried out to determine the degree of their identity.
According to the expert, when analyzing the source code fragments of the software products OpenSky-2 and Meridian, a difference (2 lines) was found in the name of the registry branch used to store settings defining the methods of the program, where instead of the \ Software \ RIVC_PULKOVO branch \ AS_RDS (Spp) \ Alerts ", which is used by" OpenSky-2 ", with the same purpose, with the same composition of tags and with the same formats of values ​​stored in them in" Meridian ", the branch" \ Software \ Aeronavigator \ Meridian \ Alerts.
As a result of the study of the source code fragments of the OpenSky-2 program and the Meridian program, it was established that the Meridian program, the rights to which are claimed by Aeronavigator LLC, is completely identical to the OpenSky-2 program, the exclusive rights to which belong to OJSC “ RIVC-Pulkovo.
Solution: Respondent's actions on using the plaintiff’s program by including the source code of the Alerts module, which is part of the OpenSky-2 program, in the Meridian program, and also providing the source text of the Alerts module for state registration in the Rospatent of the Meridian program »Found to violate the exclusive right of the plaintiff.
Compensation for violation of exclusive rights - 500 000 rubles.
Note: the decisions of higher instances (of the Thirteenth AAC of June 28, 2011, and the FAS of the North-West District of October 10, 2011) were upheld by the decision of the court of first instance.
')
b. QuantaFarm vs Pharmacy-Ural
Date of decision: 01.10.2012
Link to solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/T8AoSBxnaQJ8
The essence of the case: the Claimant (LLC "Aurit") - the copyright holder of the program "Program complex for the automation of pharmacy enterprises" Apteka-Ural "(Program complex" Apteka-Ural ").
The defendant (Kvart LLC) is the copyright holder of the registered program “System of automation of enterprises engaged in pharmaceutical activity“ Quartfarm ”. Both programs are registered in the state register of computer programs.
The authors of the program “Quartfarm”: Korkunov M.A., Fedorov M.V., Razboynikov P.A. - all three worked initially with the plaintiff, then as a result of a conflict with their management, they left Aurit LLC and moved to Kvart LLC.
To resolve the question of whether one program is a revised copy of another program, the court appointed a forensic examination, which was conducted by expert Sukhanov V. I. (head of the Department “Software and Systems” of the UFU named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin). Expert opinion: the program “Quartfarm” is not identical to the program “Pharmacy-Ural”, but the program “Quartfarm” is the result of the processing of the program “Pharmacy-Ural”.
Solution: Prevent the respondent from distributing or otherwise using the QuartFarm program. The state registration of the “QuartFarm” program in the register of computer programs is invalidated as based on inaccurate information.
Compensation for violation of exclusive rights - 500,000 rubles and 14,000 rubles for the costs of the examination.
Note: In determining the amount of compensation, the court drew attention to the fact that the period of violation of the claimant’s exclusive right to its program was about six months, hence the amount of compensation claimed (500,000 rubles) is reasonable and subject to recovery from the defendant in favor of the claimant.
I draw your reader's attention to the fact that the court ruling in the appointment of an examination (evidence that established the fact of plagiarism) established the amount of remuneration of expert V. Sukhanov. - 14 000 rubles (while the claimant, having won the process, received compensation in the amount of 500 000 rubles).
The defendant filed an appeal. In the appeals instance, the case was considered by the 17th AAS. A forensic examination was conducted by experts Khokhlov I.A. and Dobryakom P.V. Below, I propose to read the key conclusions from the expert opinions:
Khokhlov's conclusion:
1. the complete coincidence of software platforms (operating system, programming language, libraries and database management system) used in both software products was established
2. Descriptions of domain attributes and tables in database structures in many cases have a similar description structure, differing only in attribute names. The main table has the same name - ARTIKUL (they contain the main links; they also have the same methods for storing billing / expense documents).
3. no signs of formal processing were found in the source texts of the programs (conclusion: the programs were written anew).
4. a match was found between unique and non-obvious abbreviations (conclusion: there was a borrowing from the source code of the Apteka-Ural package, which is a key feature of the processing process)
5. the presence of similar windows with the help of which the main functionality of the program is implemented (this is also a sign of the processing of the program)
6. when creating “QuartFarm”, developers used access to the source code of “Apteka-Ural” and used them as a model when developing their own program texts, database structure and screen forms, i.e. reworked the program "Pharmacy-Ural".
Conclusion of the Good-natured One:
1. functional similarity of programs, there are fundamental differences in the architecture of programs
2. The “QuartFarm” code and the script of its database are significantly smaller than the code and the “Pharmacy-Ural” script. Available identical names of elements are due to terms from the pharmaceutical industry or from business
3. The number of similar pieces of code in both programs is insignificant.
4. There are indirect signs that the programmer has moved from the Pharmacy-Ural development team to the QuartFarm team, which is a normal event in the IT field.
5. the similarity of the appearance of the programs is explained by the same needs of users, no obvious signs of borrowing were found and there are differences in the architecture (conclusion: the QuartFarm program was developed independently without processing any parts of the Apteka-Ural program).
According to the court, expert Dobryak P.V. He does not refute the findings of the expert Khokhlova IA, which are set out in the research part of the expert opinion, therefore the appellate court confirmed the correctness of the decision of the court of first instance.
2. Unlicensed software
In 2012, Russian companies violated software copyright in such sectors as construction, industrial production, architecture and design (that is, they used unlicensed software in their activities), so it’s not surprising that the most recent claimants in such cases are just the copyright holders of just such specialized software:
a. Adobe Inc.
Date of decision: 30.11.2010
Link to the solution: kad.arbitr.ru/PdfDocument/5b3ec91b-6b3f-44b8-9e56-04ea540c869c/A40-117808-2010_20101130_Reshenija%20i%20postanovlenija.pdf
Respondent: FSUE “Rostehinventarizatsiya – Federal BTI”
Software for Respondent: Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0 ”(15 copies) and“ Adobe Photoshop CS 2 9.0 ”(14 copies)
Solution: compensation - 1,485,497 rubles.
Note: recognizing the plaintiff’s claim for recovery of compensation from the defendant, the court noted the following: “The right holder certainly incurs losses from trade and the use of counterfeit goods, as a result of which the demand for licensed products decreases, taking into account the dumping prices for counterfeit goods.”
Date of decision: 16.03.2012
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/MPpENkWU40xZ
Respondent: Geo-Profi Ltd.
Software for Responder: Adobe Photoshop 8.0 (3 copies), Adobe Photoshop CS3
Solution: compensation for copyright infringement - 215 530 rubles.
Date of decision: 01.08.2012
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/iouVjG0LHjUT
Defendant: Multiplying Center Ltd.
Software of the respondent: "AdobeIllustratorCS2", "AdobeIllustratorCS", "AdobePhotoshopCS2" (2 copies), "AdobeInDesignCS2" (2 copies), "AdobeInDesignCS5", "AdobeAcrobat 7.0.", "AdobePageMaker 6.5."
Solution: compensation for copyright infringement - 472,739.52 rubles.
Date of decision: 10.10.2012
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/SQbkEsnE3WWn
Defendant: Street Magic LLC
Software of the respondent: “AdobePhotoshopCS3 Extended (v.RUS)”, “AdobePhotoshopCS5”, “AdobeCS5 MasterCollection”
Solution: compensation - 455 132.16 rubles.
Date of decision: 11.12.2012
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/LdDdL1HU1FHR
Defendant: Media Center Ltd.
ON the defendant: in a court decision, the specific software that was installed at the defendant was not indicated, but it indicated that the total cost of copies of the works for which the defendant had violated the rights amounts to 221,123 rubles. 97 kopecks
Solution: compensation - 442,247.94 rubles.
b. Autodesk Inc.
Date of decision: 23.08.2010
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/18043090 *
Respondent: Popyrin A.S.
Software for Respondent: AutoCAD-2008 (2 copies)
Solution: compensation - 985 677.78 rubles.
Note: this lawsuit comes from a criminal case against a defendant found guilty of committing crimes under Part 2 of Art. 146 of the Criminal Code in three episodes.
Date of decision: 17.04.2012
Link to the solution : docs.pravo.ru/document/view/25519171
Respondent: Usanin M.The.
Software for Respondent: AutoCAD 2008 (6 copies)
Solution: compensation - 327 691 rubles.
Note: this lawsuit comes from a criminal case against a defendant found guilty of committing crimes under Part 2 of Art. 146 of the Criminal Code in three episodes.
Date of decision: 31.01.2013
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/29801736
Respondent: Energotehmontazh Ltd.
Responder Software: Autodesk AutoCAD 2008 (2 copies)
Solution: compensation for copyright infringement - 411,729.76 rubles.
Date of decision: 01/04/2013
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/32674796
Respondent: Hermes OJSC
Software for Respondent : AutoCAD 2011 (2 copies)
Solution: compensation - 221,286.52 rubles.
c. Microsoft Corporation
Date of decision: 25.01.2010
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/4166682
Respondent: TC Besant-S LLC
Responder Software: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 (Rus) (1 copy), Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack 4 (Rus) (24 copies), Microsoft Office XP Professional (Rus) (24 copies), Microsoft Office 2003 Professional (Rus) (1 copy).
Solution: compensation - 844 464 rubles.
Date of decision: 30.09.2010
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/5037089
Defendant: Metallinvest-Ufa Ltd.
Software of the respondent: “Microsoft Windows XP Professional” (11 copies), “Windows XP Home Edition” (2 copies), “Microsoft Office 2002” (1 copy), “Microsoft Office 2003 Professional Rus” (12 copies) .
Solution: compensation - 411,478.94 rubles.
Date of decision: 04/26/2012
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/26267245
Respondent: Khasanov A.AND.
Software of the respondent: “Microsoft Windows XP Professional” (17 copies), “Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate” (2 copies), “Microsoft Office 2007 Professional” - (1 copies).
Solution: compensation - 370,690.32 rubles.
Date of decision: 04.03.2013
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/32506485
Defendant: FSI “Sevkasprybvod”
Software for Responder: Microsoft Windows XP Professional (3 copies), Microsoft Office 2003 Professional (2 copies), Microsoft Office 97 Standard (1 copy), Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (7 copies), Microsoft Office 2000 Professional (6 copy.), Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional (1 copy.), Microsoft Office Standard 2007 (1 copy.).
Solution: compensation - 391,596.04 rubles.
d. CJSC "1C"
Date of decision: 17.12.2007
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/fcW3tDOdl4g4
Defendant: Rail Trans Transport Company Ltd.
Software of the defendant: CJSC “1C”: “1C: enterprise.7.7 network version”, “1C: Enterprise 7.7 for SQL” (4 copies), “1C: Taxpayer 7.7”.
Solution: compensation - 706,350 rubles.
Date of decision: 20.05.2010
Reference to the decision: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/kUMMppPubE6X
Respondent: LLC Zherdevsky Plant of Vegetable Oils
Respondent's software: “1C: Enterprise 7.7 for SQL. Complex delivery + ITS USB "(1 copy)," 1C: Enterprise 7.7. Management of distributed information databases USB (1 copy).
Solution: compensation - 171,000 rubles.
Date of decision: 09/04/2012
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/regular/doc/MssEXdX4KjQl
Defendant: D. Kondratyev
Software of the defendant: “1C: Enterprise 7.7 TRADE. Complex delivery + ITS USB "(1 copy.) And" 1C: Enterprise 7.7 (network version) Complex delivery + ITS USB "(3 copy.)
Solution: compensation - 674,000 rubles.
Note: this lawsuit comes from a criminal case against a defendant found guilty of committing a crime, provided for in paragraph “c” of Part 3 of Art. 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (it “through the Internet, without having the permission of the owner, for the purpose of further use and distribution, acquired unlicensed software products, the rights holder of which is 1C,” then illegally installed this software for 1500 rubles ”).
Date of decision: 29.06.2012
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/KG0xupgneZY4
Defendant: Goodwin LLC
Software of the defendant: “1C: Enterprise 7.7 for SQL Integrated Delivery” (1 copy), “1C: Enterprise 8.0” (1 copy.), “1C: Enterprise 8.1” (1 copy.).
Solution: compensation - 288,000 rubles.
e. A whole bunch of copyright holders in one case
Date of decision: 25.02.2009
Reference to the decision: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/035RWUdOsrbC (this is a link to the decision of the appellate court)
Respondent: Hell Litbitum LLC
Responder Software: Excel 2003, AutoCAD-2007, OfficeAccess 2003, OfficePowerPoint 2003, MicrosoftWindowsXPProfessional, MicrosoftOffice 2003, OfficeOutlook 2003, Autedesk 3dsMax, IllustratorCS3, IllustratorCS2, IllustratorCS, PhotoshopCS2, CS3
Solution: compensation in favor of Microsoft is 424,935.9 rubles, in favor of Autodesk Inc. Corporation in the amount of 1,863,958.68 rubles, in favor of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the amount of 600,887.86 rubles.
Date of decision: 16.11.2009
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/qLqEx1jqX9l
Respondent: TechnoNICOL-Kuban Ltd.
Software of the respondent: “Microsoft Windows 2000 professional” (3 copies), “Microsoft Windows XP Professional” (7 copies), “Microsoft Office Professional Edition version 2003” (7 copies), “Microsoft Office Professional Edition” (1 copy .), "MicrosoftOffice 2000 premium" (2 copies.), "1C: Enterprise 7.7 for SQL Integrated Delivery" (9 copies.), "1C Enterprise 7.7 network version" (1 copy.), "AutoCAD 2002" (1 copy .).
Solution: compensation in favor of CJSC “1C” - 1,602,000 rubles, in favor of Microsoft Corporation - 350,786.46 rubles, in favor of Autodesk Corporation - 408,000 rubles.
Date of decision: 28.06.2010
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/10875982
Respondent: SP Masterkin DS
Software of the defendant: “Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003”, “Microsoft Office 2007 Enterprise SP1”, “Microsoft Office 2007”, “Microsoft Windows XP Professional”, “Microsoft Office 2000 Rus. Extended Edition, Microsoft Office 2000 Front Page, Microsoft Windows 2000 PRO SP4, Microsoft Windows Vista (Final), Microsoft Office XP, Microsoft Windows 98 RUS, 1C: Enterprise 7.7 for SQL. Integrated delivery of ITS USB ”(all this software was at the respondent on CD / DVD - disks in the amount of 16 pieces and flash – cards in the amount of 3 pieces)
Solution: compensation in favor of Microsoft - 467,126 rubles, in favor of CJSC "1C" - 756,000 rubles.
Date of decision: 08.10.2010
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/28461838
Respondent: LLC “Company LK”
Software of the respondent: “Microsoft Windows Vista Business OEM RUS” (1 copy), “1C: Enterprise 7.7 network version Integrated delivery” (2 copies), “Microsoft Office 2003 (professional edition version)” (1 copy), “ AutoCAD Architecture 2008 ENG (1 copy), “Microsoft Windows XP Professional RUS” (2 copies).
Solution: compensation in favor of Microsoft Corporation - 73 199.24 rubles, in favor of Autodesk Inc. Corporation - 262 920 rubles, in favor of CJSC "1C" - 312 000 rubles.
Date of decision: 25.08.2011
Link to the solution: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/20370611
Defendant: MUP Tikhoretsky urban settlement of Tikhoretsk district "Vodokanal", Tikhoretsk
Software of the defendant: “Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional” (4 copies), “Microsoft Office 2003 Professional” (2 copies), “Microsoft Office 2000 SR-1 Premium” (1 copy), “Microsoft Office 2000 Professional” (1 Ex.), “1C: Enterprise 7.7 Integrated Delivery (network version)” (3 copies), “1C: Enterprise 7.7 Accounting and Calculation (network version)” (3 copies).
Solution: compensation in favor of CJSC "1C" - 918 000 rubles, in favor of Microsoft Corporation - 181 318.60 rubles.
Date of decision: 27.10.2011
Link to the solution: ras.arbitr.ru/PdfDocument/3186ec94-a4b2-4c83-9fa1-4422395e1a14/%D0%9040-57750-2011__20111027.pdf
Defendant: LLC LG Electronics Marketing, LLC LG Electronics RUS
Respondent's software: Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro, Adobe Acrobat 8 ​​Pro, Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended, Adobe Illustrator CS, Adobe Photoshop CS, Adobe Photoshop CS2, Adobe Photoshop CS3 and CorelDRAW Graphics Suite 12 »
Solution: compensation from LG Electronics RUS-Marketing LLC in favor of Adobe Systems Incorporated - 1,180,848.48 rubles, in favor of Corel Corporation - 14,730.04 rubles;
compensation from LG Electronics RUS LLC in favor of Adobe Systems Incorporated - 2,582,766.86 rubles, in favor of Corel Corporation - 29,460.08 rubles.
Date of decision: 11/24/2011
Link to the solution: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/OorPQVpSQtdn
Respondent: OJSC Zheldorremmash
Software of the respondent: AdobePhotoshop 7.0 (3 copies), AdobeIllustrator 10.0 (1 copy), AdobePagemaker 7.0 (1 copy), AdobeIndesign, 2.0 (1 copy) - following the results of the first search; AdobePhotoshop of different versions (7 copies), AdobePagemaker (1 copy), AdobeIndesign (1 copy), AdobeIllustrator (1 copy), AdobeAudition (1 copy) - according to the results of the second search;
"AutoCAD" versions 2002 and 2004 (3 copies),
"CorelDRAWGraphicsSuite" different versions (6 copies),
Solution: compensation in favor of Autodesk Incorporated - 350,042.28 rubles, compensation in favor of Corel Corporation - 137,579.56 rubles, compensation in favor of Adobe Systems Incorporated - 948,327.78 rubles.
: , , «» 01.07.2009 . 02.03.2009 , , , «», «». , «» (AdobePhotoshop, CorelDRAW, AuCAD) . , , . «» «» Microsoft, , , .
, , , .
: 09.07.2012
: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/27114629
: ..
: , , 11 «DVD» .
: «» — 324 492 , « » — 751 464 .
: , , . «» . 3 . 146 ( 1 () 5 000 ).
.. , , , , , , , , .
, 1 .
: 01.03.2013
: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/32502213
: «-»
: AutoCAD 2005 (1 .), AutoCAD 2007 (1 .), Adobe Photoshop CS2 (1 .)
: « » — 416 416 , « » — 57 241,42 .
: , , . , , , «-» , , , , .
: 26.03.2013
: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/32664246
: « » , .
: «Microsoft Windows XP Professional (2 .), Microsoft Office 2003 Professional (2 .), 1: 7.7 ( ) (1 .), Adobe Photoshop CS (1 .), Adobe Photoshop CS2 (1 .), AutoCAD 2006 (1 .), AutoCAD 2009 (1 .).
: — 175 660,08 , «1» — 156 000 , « » – 97 852,14 , « » – 1 187 331,2 .
. :
: 26.03.2013
: ras.arbitr.ru/PdfDocument/9d136253-7210-4f03-b802-364726641f40/%D0%9060-14190-2011__20121004.pdf
: «- „ “
: „-“
: « » .411734.002-01.002
: – 5 200 000 .
: 24.07.2012
: sudact.ru/arbitral/doc/b3LgiXBWMOog
: « »
: « » «»
: « CSE»
: , 3 400 000 .
. , , «» ( «» 5 ). :
1) 2033 — . , ,
2) Disciples 3: Renaissance — . , , ( — Disiples 2: — « » — . )
3) Assassin's Creed — .
4) Assassin's Creed 2 — . ( «»)
5) Left 4 Dead 2 — . , ,
, «» — 100 000 (, , , , 1; , ). , 70 000, 50 000, 30 000, 10 000 . , «» Disciples 3: Renaissance , Assassin's Creed 2 , Left 4 Dead 2 .
3.
: 11.03.2009
: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/1292794
: «1C »
: « »
: «1: 7.7. ( )»
: – 60316,66 .
: . , «1: 7.7. ( )» , «1», «1V7.» HAS – . , exe- , .
4.
..
, «», « », «», « » «1».
, , 7 705 653,9 .
09 2012 , , , .«» . 3 . 146 . 242 3 6 (), ( ).
28.11.2012 .
, « .. , , , , , , .» , , , . ?
5.
: 11.03.2009
: docs.pravo.ru/document/view/23693662
: «»
: ..
: Web-, Web- ( )
: 179 097,55 .
: – . , . 04.06.2010 . , , , , . ( – ). , .
15.06.2010 . , 14.06.2010 , , , 14.06.2010 .
.. «» , , . . , «» , 179097,55 .
. .
6. – ?
Punto Switcher @ Mail.Ru
skan.ru Punto Switcher:
«» «Punto Switcher». .., skan.ru, . , , , .. «Punto Switcher» , ( « @ Mail.Ru»).
, Punto Switcher , , Punto Switcher , , , , , , .
, , 4.2 , ( ), , .
, , , Punto Switcher , «.».
, , , , .
, Punto Switcher: « «» « , » @ Mail.Ru, , , ».
, «» . , , , .
: .
: .
* docs.pravo.ru .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/182848/
All Articles