| A lot of proble ms appeared in the judic ia l practice with the deve lopment of science and technolo gy. More and more expert assistants partic ipate in litigation. Searchengine infr inge me nt pheno meno n occurred frequently. There are two focus in the casethat Baoding law fir m sued Google for infr inge ment, if the expert assistant couldprove the fact a nd if the beha vior of po inting o ut ma lic ious code by search enginesconstitutes infr inge me nt. The expert assistant’s opinion is legal and has the evidenceability. The probative force of expert assistant’s opinion depends large ly on theexpert’s qualifications, their neutral opinion and the process of questioning andcross-examinatio n. Expert assistants who have the qualificatio ns of experts and theopinio ns which pass full cross examination and cross-examination are credible. Inorder to mainta in the order of the Inter net, to protect the legitima te rights andinterests of inter net users, the search engine should bear limited review of obligationsand socia l pub lic functions, mo nitor ing the legitimacy a nd secur ity o f the linkedwebpages, search engines should review and hints of ma lic ious code. But the searchengine must exercise the ir rights in strict accordance with the law. Malic io us code isnot obvio us ly d irect illega l informatio n, so the search engine has no right to shie ld ordelete the webpage whic h exists ma lic ious code. Automatic ma lic ious codemonitoring and prompting behaviors may ha ve a negative impact on the linked webpages, but there is no liab ility for tort causation between the tip and damage results.The I nfr inge ment of ma lic io us code monitor ing is the d irect infr inge ment, based onfault liab ility r ule ele ments. Monitor ing ma lic ious code by search engines has nospecific object, without human intervention, the aim is to protect Internet users fromma lic ious so ftware. This k ind of beha vior fulfills the obligations o f I nternet serviceproviders, there is no fa ult. |
PDF Full Text Request