“鹰击系统抓取微博数据”不正当竞争纠纷案
Case Analysis
Hunan Eefung Software Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Weimeng Internet Technology Co., Ltd.
“鹰击系统抓取微博数据”不正当竞争纠纷案
Docket No.: 3789, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (京73)
Lower Court Docket No.: 28643, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2018) Beijing Haidian District People's Court (京0108)
一审案号：（2018）京0108民初28643号
二审案号：（2019）京73民终3789号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
Platform data can be divided into public data and non-public data. The illegal capturing of non-public data to which access rights have been set is of obvious impropriety. Capturing the data from a platform and storing it may lead to the leakage and infringement of the users' personal information and damage the platform's right to the relevant data, constituting unfair competition; Since it is an unfair act to capture and store the platform data, the subsequent use of such data for display and analysis does not have a legitimate basis as the source of the data is illegal. In addition, if it is impossible to prove that public platform data has been captured through normal channels, the act of capturing the public data also constitutes unfair competition.
平台数据可分为公开数据与非公开数据。非法抓取已设置访问权限的非公开数据，具有明显的不正当性；抓取平台数据后进行存储，可能导致用户个人信息的泄露和被侵害，损害平台对相关数据的权利，构成不正当竞争；因抓取、存储平台数据的行为存在不正当性，故将这部分数据用于展示和分析的后续使用行为，因数据来源不合法而不具有正当性之基础。此外，如不能证明其系通过正常途径抓取平台公开数据，则抓取公开数据的行为亦构成不正当竞争。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Defendant-Appellant: Hunan Eefung Software Co., Ltd. ("Eefung Software")
Plaintiff-Appellee: Beijing Weimeng Internet Technology Co., Ltd. ("Weimeng")
上诉人（原审被告）：湖南蚁坊软件股份有限公司（简称蚁坊公司）
被上诉人（原审原告）：北京微梦创科网络技术有限公司（简称微梦公司）
Weimeng is the operator and service provider of the Weibo platform and has the rights and interests of the Weibo data protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In its "Eagtek" system, Eefung captured a large amount of Weibo data without permission, displayed it in full text in the Eagtek system, formed it into data products through processing and analysis and sold them to users for a fee. Weimeng claimed that the act of Eefung was an act of unfair competition that had illegally acquired, stored, displayed and used Weibo data, and that Eefung should bear the corresponding legal responsibility.
微梦公司是“微博”平台的运营者及服务提供者，对微博数据享有受《反不正当竞争法》保护的权益。蚁坊公司在其经营的“鹰击”系统中，未经许可擅自抓取大量微博数据，在鹰击系统中全文展示，并经加工分析形成数据产品并有偿售卖给用户。微梦公司主张，蚁坊公司该行为系非法获取、存储、展示和使用微博数据的不正当竞争行为，蚁坊公司应当承担相应的法律责任。
The judgments of the court in both the first instance and the second instance combined the opinions of both parties and the evidence of this case, and analyzed whether the act of capturing, storing, displaying and analyzing Weibo data by Eefung had been in violation of Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law from the following dimensions.
一审、二审法院判决结合双方诉辩意见及本案证据，从以下层面分析蚁坊公司被诉抓取、存储、展示、分析微博数据的行为是否违反了《反不正当竞争法》第十二条之规定。
First, whether there was a competitive relationship between Weimeng and Eefung. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law tends to protect the interests of multiple parties, and should not construe and limit competitive relationships in a narrow sense. Eefung unfairly obtained Weibo data and used it to provide services of commercialized public opinions, which, while gaining real benefits without paying the costs, would reduce the business benefits that Weimeng may have gained by using the data. Therefore, there was a competitive relationship between Weimeng and Eefung.
首先，微梦公司和蚁坊公司之间是否存在竞争关系。反不正当争法趋向于保护多元利益，对竞争关系不应作狭义的理解和限制。蚁坊公司不正当获取微博数据并用以提供商业化舆情服务，在未付成本即获得现实利益的同时，会减损微梦公司利用该部分数据而可能获得的经营利益，因此微梦公司和蚁坊公司之间存在竞争关系。
Secondly, whether Eefung's way of acquiring Weibo data was legal. Based on the evidence in this case, the court found that the Weibo content in the Eagtek system had been published at a more precise time and included content that could only be accessed by Weibo users after they had logged in and went beyond the scope of normal access by users. Therefore, the court held that Eefung had captured non-public and public data from the Weibo platform through illegal means. In addition, Eefung had stored the data after having captured it. Such acts of Eefung may lead to the leakage and infringement of the users' personal information and damage the right of Weimeng to the relevant data, constituting unfair competition. As it was an unfair act of Eefung to capture and store the data of Weibo, the subsequent use by Eefung of such data for display and analysis in the Eagtek system did not have a legitimate basis as the source of the data was illegal. Eefung claimed that its data had come from the data interface, but the claim lacked a factual basis. Furthermore, the facts it had claimed in the first instance and the second instance contradicted each other, and part of the evidence it had submitted in the second instance proceedings was not new, so the court did not support the claim.
其次，蚁坊公司获取微博数据的方式是否合法。根据本案证据，法院认定，鹰击系统中的微博内容发布时间更为精确，包含了微博用户登录后才可访问的内容且超出了用户可正常访问的范围，故法院认定蚁坊公司系通过非法手段抓取了微博平台的非公开数据和公开数据。此外，蚁坊公司抓取微博数据后进行了存储。蚁坊公司的此行为可能导致用户个人信息的泄露和被侵害，损害了微梦公司对相关数据的权利，构成不正当竞争。因蚁坊公司的抓取、存储微博数据的行为存在不正当性，故其将这部分数据用于鹰击系统中展示和分析的后续使用行为，因数据来源不合法而不具有正当性之基础。蚁坊公司主张其数据来源于数据接口，但缺乏事实依据，且其在一审、二审中主张的事实相互冲突，二审程序中提交的部分证据不属于新证据，法院不予支持。
Finally, whether Weimeng's legal rights and interests had been harmed. Weimeng had the legal rights and interests of the Weibo data involved in this case, and the accused act of Eefung had affected the performance of the terms of the agreement between Weimeng and its users regarding data processing and security; Eefung had captured Weibo data through abnormal technical means, destroying or bypassing the protection measures set by Weimeng. Also, it had changed the display form of Weibo in the Eagtek system, changing the access and display rules set by Weimeng for Weibo data and affecting the normal functioning of the product. Eefung had captured a large amount of Weibo data in real time, which had increased the operating cost of Weimeng.
最后，微梦公司的合法权益是否受到损害。微梦公司对涉案微博数据享有合法权益，蚁坊公司被诉行为影响微梦公司与用户间协议关于数据处理和安全等条款的履行；蚁坊公司通过非正常的技术手段抓取微博数据，破坏或绕开微梦公司设置的保护措施，且在鹰击系统中改变了微博的展示形式，改变了微梦公司为微博数据设定的访问和展示规则，影响产品的正常运行；蚁坊公司实时抓取大量微博数据，加大了微梦公司的运营成本。
In summary, the court eventually ruled that Eefung had violated Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and constituted unfair competition, and thus ordered Eefung to stop its acts accused in this case, publish a statement to eliminate the impact, and compensate Weimeng for an economic loss of RMB 5 million.
综上，法院最终判定蚁坊公司违反了《反不正当竞争法》第十二条之规定，构成不正当竞争，判令蚁坊公司停止涉案行为，刊登声明、消除影响，并赔偿微梦公司经济损失500万元。
Wu Zifang and Wu Fan, lawyers of Beijing Rongtai Law Firm, participated in this case as the representatives of the Plaintiff-Appellee, Weimeng.
北京市融泰律师事务所律师吴子芳、吴凡作为原审原告、被上诉人微梦公司的代理人参加本案诉讼。
Typical Significance
典型意义
In this case, the court divided Internet data into "public data" and "non-public data" from the perspective of balancing the interests of the operators and the public interests. Data for which no access rights have been set is generally open to the public; Data to which access rights have been set through login rules or other measures is non-public data.
本案中，法院从平衡经营者利益与公共利益的角度出发，将互联网数据分为“公开数据”和“非公开数据”。未设定访问权限的数据，一般属于向公众公开的数据；通过登录规则或其他措施设置了访问权限的数据，则应属于非公开数据。
This case has adopted the paradigm of judging the legitimacy of competitive behaviors. When acquiring "non-public data", access can only be possible by breaking or bypassing the access rights by technical means, which is clearly an unfair act. The key to determining whether an act of capturing "public data" is legitimate is to see whether the capturing means are legal and legitimate. Ineligible data storage may lead to the leakage and infringement of users' personal information and affect the security of the platform data. It is an unfair act to capture and store data, and the subsequent use of such data for display and analysis does not have a legitimate basis as the source of the data is illegal.
本案采用了竞争行为正当性判断的范式。当获取“非公开数据”时，只能利用技术手段破坏或者绕开访问权限，而此种行为显然具有不正当性。而判断抓取“公开数据”的行为是否具有正当性，关键是要看其抓取数据的手段是否合法正当。未经许可的数据存储可能导致用户个人信息的泄露和被侵害，影响平台数据安全。抓取、存储数据的行为存在不正当性，那么将这部分数据进行展示和分析的后续使用行为，则因数据来源不合法而不具有正当性之基础。
Although Internet connectivity is promoted, it is still necessary to carry out specific analysis on specific behaviors, instead of rigidly deciding that public data can be accessed arbitrarily. In addition, the judgment of this case has also discussed the rights and interests of platform data from the perspective of users' personal information and data security, affirming the role of data protection in promoting the rights and interests of both the users and the public. This case has important reference value and guidance for future data protection and how to take into account the rights and interests of the information accessors, information users and the public, and delineate the boundaries of acts on the basis of a balance of rights and interests.
互联网互联互通之精神之下，仍需就具体行为进行具体分析，不能一刀切地认定公开数据可被任意获取。此外，本案判决亦从用户个人信息及数据安全角度对平台数据权益进行了论述，肯定了数据保护对用户利益、公共利益的促进作用。本案对于未来数据保护，以及如何兼顾信息获取者、信息使用者和社会公众三方的利益，在利益平衡的基础上划定行为的边界，具有重要的借鉴价值和指导意义。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐