什么叫诽谤？就是用虚假的事实来诋毁他人。因此，诽谤尤其是恶意诽谤往往也是一个诚信问题。杨文彬与GAOGAO HAN两人的恶意诽谤就是如此。 以杨文彬为例，他清楚地知道事实，因为我都已经跟他说了事实如何，他自己也能去查，但他却通过撒谎来攻击本人，这跟他把书上抄来的东西当成自己的伟大发明其实是同一模式---都是不诚实。 GAOGAO HAN则是不断说他一行代码解决了我一大堆代码的问题，借此谎言来贬低、否定、攻击本人的信誉与职业水平。 其实，你老实做人不好吗？我是专业的技术工作者，在相关行业摸爬滚打20年，开发的产品被多少公司用于 mission critical application, 我比一个菜鸟水平高是天经地义的事情--否则我凭什么让人家公司交钱--网上免费软件多的是，没有哪个菜鸟会因为水平比我低就会丢面子。结果他要通过谎言来诋毁你、骑在你头上。这就是做人不老实。 从这个角度，杨、HAN两人不如炎黄之子，他韩老先生卖壮阳药、吃救济都坦白地承认了，承认这个其实是需要勇气的。 文末是起诉书中关于ＨＡＮ的蓄意侵权、诽谤与不公平竞争的部分内容。 大致陈述如下。翰山早在2012年6月就是珍珠湾注册会员，并且使用 Tube.JS 软件，对其功能也熟悉。2012年7月31日，原告写了一篇介绍珍珠湾新功能的博文，并明确指出原告拥有相关知识产权，并已经申请法律保护。当时，翰山在该文下面献了花。2014年10月4日，翰山宣称微博可以张贴图像。经查，发现其网页出现” "Copyright(c) All Rights Reserved, Infringement Will Be Prosecuted"这一 Tube.JS 版权警告信息。进一步检查发现，翰山网把原告代码藏在另一个文件。 2014年10月9日，翰山宣布可以在翰山网任意一处包括微博、博客、论坛、相册、留言板、私信等张贴图片链接并显示，网友称赞而不知翰山代码源于窃取。。。被指出侵权后，翰山不断重复他一行代码解决所有问题，原告水平太低、娃娃程度，说话水分，版权可笑，等等 ... 实际上，直到2015年6月28日，翰山仍然没有解决论坛插入多媒体的问题，而这一初级功能早在2012年7月就存在于原告的软件，而且原告软件的这一功能翰山在2014年10月9日就注意到了并加以吹嘘。 另外，翰山注册 hanshan.co 的联系人信息的邮政编码不存在、地址也查不到。各位须知，用虚假信息注册域名并进行侵权是可能被加重惩罚的。我将试图核实相关联系人信息的真实性，到时再公布。 On October 11, 2014, Han posted a blog article which stated in part: "As I stated much earlier, this software was very simple, only at children 's level... Today, in order to remove code, but to keep image and video working, I wrote two lines of code in the backend, and solved the problem of image and video in micro-blog... So, you know, how ridiculous the so-called copyrighted code by Yue Dongxiao was. His large pile of code did about four things: inserting images, video, audio and voice recording. By my estimation, it was just a problem solvable with four lines of code." Han emphasized the words "two lines" with red color. On the same day, in the comment area of the blog article, Han posted a screenshot of a statement by Plaintiff that Plaintiff personally wrote the code for inserting images, video, audio, voice recording, blog synchronization, multiple micro-blogs and other features for ZZB. Han then commented on Plaintiff's statement: "His level is too limited. This is just a matter of a few lines of code. Yet he sounds as if he wants to apply for the Nobel Prize. It is clear how much water there is when he talks." Some people on HANSHAN believed Han's false statements and posted messages attacking Plaintiff. On November 1, 2014, Defendant Han posted a message stating: "Spent the whole day today on technology. In fact, the technology was very simple, to accomplish posting images, posting audio and video with one key, was just one line of code, used repeatedly, only in different combinations. This is essentially the main content of Yue Dongxiao's patent. Saying this, let's count it as defaming him!" O n November 2, 2014, in a blog article, ... Han wrote: "What is one line? All those have programmed know, a line is separated by semicolon (;)... Had Yue Dongxiao known that one line of code could solve these many problems, he wouldn't have written a large pile of code and applied for patent protection." On November 3, 2014, Defendant Han posted another blog article, in which he stated, in part: "Why did I use Yue Dongxiao's code? ... his code was indeed good to use. I used his code to display images in micro-blog, it was just grabbing and using (of course, there were some preparation work); to display video and audio, I only changed three parameters, just to substitute what I liked (example: icons)... Then later, to replace his program to achieve those functions such as pasting images, I wrote one line of code in the backend. In comparison, isn't writing one line of code less easier than not writing one line of code? So, I used his code.” On January 28, 2015, Defendant Han wrote a blog article about the monetary value of HANSHAN website. Defendant Han hinted that $25,000.00 was too little for it, and HANSHAN's core technology is invaluable. Defendant Han further stated that without his teaching, Plaintiff would not have known the core technology of HANSHAN. Defendant Han published numerous times the false statements that the functions of Plaintiff's code can be achieved with one line or four lines of code, on HANSHAN websites and elsewhere on the internet. Defendant Han published the false statements in a stated effort to defame Plaintiff and injure Plaintiff reputation as a professional software developer. In fact, by June 28, 2015, HANSHAN still lacked the capability of inserting video and audio into its forum area, a basic feature that was included in Tube.JS since July 2012, and a feature noticed and exalted by Han on October 9, 2014, when HANSHAN was operating with the stolen Tube.JS code. Plaintiff's Tube.JS program is a piece of high quality software providing many useful and reliable features. Defendants' code was at most a crude attempt to imitate a subset of features long existed in Tube.JS. On information and belief, Defendants' code merely consisted of rudimentary regular expression substitutions. As alleged above, Defendants had failed to achieve the basic functionality of Tube.JS after months of development. Defendants' false representations about the nature, characteristics and qualities of Tube.JS and their own code constitute false advertisement and unfair competition against Plaintiff, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
标签: simple
