1、北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court目目录录前 言.3一、涉数据产业竞争类案件基本情况.4二、依法保护数据权益 促进数字经济健康发展.7（一）扩大解释竞争关系，明确保护数据权益.71.拓宽对竞争关系的理解.72.明确合法数据权益应受保护.8（二）总结竞争行为类型，明晰竞争规则.91.不当抓取数据行为.92.刷量炒信行为.103.屏蔽视频广告行为.104.流量劫持行为.115.账号租赁行为.126.软件干扰行为.127.侵害数据商业秘密行为.13（三）综合考量多种因素，规范竞争秩序.131.是否对原告造成竞争性损害.142.是否损害消费者福利.1

2、43.是否损害竞争秩序.154.是否有利于技术创新.15（四）综合运用多种方式，合理确定赔偿责任.16三、涉数据产业竞争法保护面临的挑战.17北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court（一）竞争法保护进路有待拓宽.17（二）裁判依据有待探索厘清.17（三）对技术问题事实的查明与认定仍是难点.18（四）如何平衡多重价值仍存疑虑.19四、竞争法保护路径优化与数据治理建议.19（一）涉数据不正当竞争纠纷的司法应对建议.191.区分场景评价涉案被诉行为.192.根据技术特点合理分配举证责任.203.坚持利益平衡明确商业道德标准.21（二）数据治理方面的建议.

3、221.加强企业数据合规及风险防控.232.提升政府数据治理能力.24北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court3前 言数据，被誉为 21 世纪的“新石油”，已经成为数字经济时代新型生产要素。根据国家互联网信息办公室数字中国发展报告(2022 年)研究数据，2022 年我国数字经济规模达 50.2万亿元，总量稳居世界第二，同比名义增长 10.3%，占国内生产总值比重提升至 41.5%。以数据为重要动能的数字经济已经成为支撑我国经济高质量发展的关键力量。党的二十大报告指出，要加快建设网络强国、数字中国。为应对数字经济特别是涉数据产业发展带来的挑战，做强

4、做优做大数字经济，2022 年 12 月 19 日,中共中央、国务院印发了 关于构建数据基础制度更好发挥数据要素作用的意见，构建了数据基础制度体系的“四梁八柱”，形成了横向联动、纵向贯通的数字经济战略和政策体系；2023 年 2 月 27 日,中共中央、国务院印发了数字中国建设整体布局规划，明确了数字中国建设“2522”整体框架；2023 年 10 月 25 日，国家数据局正式成立，从国家层面协调推进数据基础制度建设，统筹数据资源整合共享和开发利用，此后，全国各省市纷纷成立数据管理机构，与国家数据局上下衔接，全面推动大数据发展战略实施。2022 年 7 月 25 日，最高人民法院发布关于为加快

5、建设全国统一大市场提供司法服务和保障的意见，要求依法保护数据权利人对数据控制、处理、收益等合法权益，加强数据产权属性、形态、权属、公共数据共北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court4享机制等法律问题研究，加快完善数据产权司法保护规则。北京知识产权法院高度重视以数据为核心的数字经济司法保护，在当前有关数据产权保护专门法律规范缺位的情形下，根据民法典保护数据权益的基本理念，通过适用合同法、著作权法、竞争法对数据权利或权益予以不同层面的保护，积极回应数字经济发展对司法提出的挑战。反不正当竞争法具有很强的开放性和包容性，是涉数据产业相关权益保护的主要方式。

6、北京知识产权法院充分发挥知识产权审判职能，及时总结涉数据产业反不正当竞争案件审判经验，审结了一批涉数据产业竞争类案件，并发布了涉数据反不正当竞争十大典型案例，及时遏制了涉数据产业不正当竞争行为，维护了公平的市场竞争秩序，促进了数字经济涉数据产业的健康发展。本白皮书简要介绍了北京知识产权法院近三年审理涉数据产业竞争类案件的基本概况，总结归纳了涉数据产业典型不正当竞争行为类型、涉数据竞争案件审理思路、涉数据产业竞争法保护面临的挑战，就进一步强化涉数据产业竞争法保护、加大企业数据权益保护、完善数据企业和政府双向管理等提出了对策建议。一、涉数据产业竞争类案件基本情况随着近年来数字经济的蓬勃发展，涉数据

7、产业的知识产权纠纷逐渐增多。2021 年至 2023 年，北京知识产权法院适北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court5用中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法（简称反不正当竞争法）1审结的涉数据产业知识产权案件数量逐年增加，其中，2021 年审结 75 件，2022 年审结 90 件，2023 年审结 174 件。2上述案件呈现出以下几方面特点：一是涉互联网行业案件超过八成一是涉互联网行业案件超过八成。北京知识产权法院受理的涉数据产业案件主要涉及互联网行业、软件和信息技术服务业、智能制造业等。2021 年至 2023 年审结的涉数据产业案件中，涉互联网行业的

8、案件共计 278 件，占比超八成，且呈逐年上升趋势，其中 2021 年为 65 件，2022 年为 74 件，2023 年为 139 件。二是二审案件数量占比高二是二审案件数量占比高，维持率高维持率高。从审级看，审结的涉数据产业案件以二审案件为主，占比为 86.1%；从结案方式看，以判决方式为主，占比为 69.0%（见图一）。以判决方式结案的二审案件改判率低，其中，2021 年无改判案件，2022 年改判率为 3.2%，2023 年改判率为 5.7%，均维持在较低水平。1截至目前暂无适用中华人民共和国反垄断法保护涉数据产业的判决，故本白皮书所称竞争法指中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法。2数据来源于

9、北京法院审判管理系统。检索条件：判决作出时间自 2021 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 12 月 31 日，审理法院：北京知识产权法院；案件类型为管辖权异议案件之外的涉数据产业的案件，包括涉及互联网行业、软件和信息技术服务业、智能制造、车联网、平台经济等融合型行业的案件；文书类型：不限；案件性质：民事案件；案由：不限；适用法律：反不正当竞争法。根据上述检索条件检索共获得案件 339 件；检索时间：2024 年 1 月 21 日。北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court6图一：涉数据案件判决、裁定、调解数量三是涉传统不正当竞争行为案件占比高三是

10、涉传统不正当竞争行为案件占比高。以判决方式结案的涉数据纠纷案件中，以传统不正当竞争行为为主，主要包括混淆类、虚假宣传类、商业诋毁类、侵害商业秘密类，上述类别的案件数量总共 162 件，占比近七成。四是新型不正当竞争行为层出不穷四是新型不正当竞争行为层出不穷。新型不正当竞争行为主要体现为广告屏蔽、账号租赁、数据抓取、技术手段干扰、关键词推广、刷量炒信、流量劫持等类型（见图二）。此类案件大多适用反不正当竞争法第二条原则性条款和第十二条互联网专条予以规制。北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court7图二：涉数据新型不正当竞争行为案件数量五是认定构成不正当竞

11、争行为的案件数量占比高五是认定构成不正当竞争行为的案件数量占比高。在以判决方式结案的案件中，超过三分之二的案件认定被诉涉数据行为构成不正当竞争，其中 2021 年 42 件，占比 89.4%；2022 年 53 件，占比 80.3%；2023 年 82 件，占比 67.2%。二、依法保护数据权益 促进数字经济健康发展数字经济背景下，涉数据产业竞争样态具有多样性、隐蔽性。为此，北京知识产权法院总结归纳了涉数据产业不正当竞争行为类型及审理思路，为构建涉数据产业知识产权保护规则体系提供了可资借鉴的司法裁判思路。（一）扩大解释竞争关系，明确保护数据权益（一）扩大解释竞争关系，明确保护数据权益1.拓宽对

12、竞争关系的理解拓宽对竞争关系的理解竞争关系的有无是判断被控不正当竞争行为是否正当的北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court8基础。数据资源在不同行业或产业间发生交互、融合，竞争模式从传统产品竞争转向数据流量竞争，涉数据产业跨界竞争已成为常态。在此背景下，以商品或服务之间相同或类似，以及是否具有可替代性作为判断竞争关系的依据已无法适应当前市场竞争样态，无法有效规制涉数据不正当竞争行为。为此，北京知识产权法院从竞争利益的视角对竞争关系进行扩大化解释，以适应数字经济时代经济发展形势。2.明确合法数据权益应受保护明确合法数据权益应受保护在有关数据产权保护专

13、门法律规范缺位的情况下，充分运用反不正当竞争法适应性强、弹性大的特点，从行为规制的角度，对数据产生、收集、流通、运用等全链条上的利益相关者的合法权益予以保护。明确了基于数据产生的商业机会和竞争优势可以得到有效保护，市场主体未经合法授权，不得采用不正当手段获取和使用数据。对于违反诚实信用原则和商业道德的涉数据竞争行为，灵活适用原则性条款、互联网专条、商业秘密条款、虚假宣传条款等对数据爬取、数据搬运、数据污染、数据干扰等涉数据不当行为予以规制，为涉数据产业市场主体提供可供参考的行为准则，增强数据权益主体参与市场竞争的信心，促进涉数据产业公平竞争、良性竞争。北京知识产权法院Beijing Intel

14、lectual Property Court9（二）总结竞争行为类型，明晰竞争规则（二）总结竞争行为类型，明晰竞争规则北京知识产权法院及时总结归纳涉数据产业不正当竞争行为类型，通过个案提炼裁判规则，为涉数据产业市场主体提供示范性竞争准则。1.不当抓取数据行为不当抓取数据行为不当抓取数据行为主要表现为以下 3 类：（1）抓取他人数据并使用。在某网络技术公司诉某文化传播公司不正当竞争纠纷案3中，某文化传播公司通过绕开或破坏某网络技术公司技术保护措施的手段实施了抓取和展示新浪微博数据，构成不正当竞争。（2）不当利用他人数据产品或数据资源。在某信息科技公司诉某教育科技公司等不正当竞争纠纷案4中，某教育

15、科技公司等被告运营的网站、APP 和微信公众号中提供了与某信息科技公司相同或基本相同的关于大学生就业薪酬和行业的数据，且未举证证明被诉数据的合法来源，构成不正当竞争。（3）整体数据资源搬运。在某科技有限公司诉某文化传媒公司不正当竞争纠纷案5中，某文化传媒公司系采用技术手段或人工方式获取来源于抖音 APP 中的视频文件、评论内容并通过自己的刷宝 App 向公众提供，构成不正当竞争。3北京知识产权法院(2019)京 73 民终 2799 号民事判决。4北京知识产权法院（2020）京 73 民终 3422 号民事判决。5北京知识产权法院(2021)京 73 民终 1011 号民事判决。北京知识产权法

16、院Beijing Intellectual Property Court102.刷量炒信行为刷量炒信行为刷量炒信案件中的被诉行为主要表现为通过人为的操作或利用技术手段向他人提供针对视频网站、短视频平台、电商平台等产品的刷量服务，例如提高网页访问量、视频播放量、广告点击量、搜索引擎搜索量、文章的阅读量和粉丝量，制造虚假的点评数量或内容等，对真实的商业数据进行了污染。在某网讯科技公司诉某网络技术公司不正当竞争案6中，某网络技术公司通过在“我爱广告任务网”设置针对百度搜索的任务专题等方式，帮助或诱导他人发布搜索任务、点击搜索任务，干扰百度搜索的客观排序。法院认为某网络技术公司向目标网站刷点击量的活动

17、提供明确指引和诱导，知悉某网讯科技公司运营的百度搜索存在“反作弊算法”，但仍积极提供规避的方法和指引，向发单用户和接单用户收取一定比例费用，以此获取直接经济收益；其行为制造了虚假的用户需求和点击量数据，欺骗了搜索引擎的算法，未遵循搜索引擎优化行业的一般规则，并据此谋取收益，有悖于诚实信用原则和商业道德，构成不正当竞争。3.屏蔽视频广告行为屏蔽视频广告行为屏蔽视频广告类案件主要涉及对视频网站所提供的视频资源含有的片前广告或是贴片广告的屏蔽。此类案件往往通过可实现“屏蔽广告”效果的软件、手机 App、插件等产品实6北京知识产权法院（2022）京 73 民终 1148 号民事判决。北京知识产权法院B

18、eijing Intellectual Property Court11施广告屏蔽行为。此外，此类案件还涉及突破视频网站设置的会员权限，直接观看仅有付费会员能够观看的海量视频，对视频数据资源进行不当干扰。在某计算机系统公司诉某科技公司不正当竞争纠纷案7中，某科技公司的被诉世界之窗浏览器向用户提供“强力拦截页面广告”功能，用户在勾选该功能后，可以不再观看腾讯视频中的视频广告，同时 VIP 用户付费按钮也相应消失。法院认为被诉行为属于采取技术措施直接干涉、插手他人经营的行为，不当干扰了他人视频数据资源的运营，构成不正当竞争。4.流量劫持行为流量劫持行为流量劫持行为的典型表现为未经其他经营者同意，在

19、其合法提供的网络产品或者服务中，插入链接、强制进行目标跳转。在某人才公司、某咨询公司诉某科技有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案8中，某科技有限公司经营域名为 的网站，通过“省钱招”浏览器插件，在用户选择智联招聘网站提供的服务时，篡改智联招聘网站页面设置，插入比价窗口链接，以更低的价格诱导用户通过“省钱招”下载简历，干扰文本数据运营，截取用户流量。法院认定网站经营者篡改他人网页设置，在他人网站上插入比价链接，诱导用户点击相关按钮，将页面跳转至自己网站的行为，截取了他人网站7北京知识产权法院（2018）京 73 民终 558 号民事判决。8北京知识产权法院（2021）京 73 民终 1092 号民事判决。北

20、京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court12的流量，具有明显的主观恶意，具有不正当性，构成不正当竞争。5.账号租赁行为账号租赁行为账号租赁类案件的被诉行为主要表现为：提供视频网站会员账号或游戏账号租赁服务的平台经营者，为出租方提供发布、出租账号服务和为租赁方提供租用账号服务，租号平台从中收取利益分成。账号租赁案件可能还会涉及违规注册倒卖账号、批量注册等行为，破坏账号实名注册规则，干扰视频、游戏数据运营。在某计算机系统公司诉某电子商务公司、某畅科技公司不正当竞争纠纷案9中，某电子商务公司运营的 APP 以设置专区、标示出租信息等方式，大规模、高频率、集

21、中地为其用户出租自身游戏账号和租用他人游戏账号提供中介服务，并提供一键上号功能、在平台中使用涉案游戏名称和角色形象图片等服务，从中收取费用，牟取利益。法院认定被诉行为违反了“一人一号”和账号禁止转租、转借的通行商业惯例，损害了游戏运营者和用户公共利益，危害个人信息安全，构成不正当竞争。6.软件干扰行为软件干扰行为软件干扰类案件的被诉行为主要表现为寄生于他人正常运营的软件、游戏等产品或服务，通过外挂、插件等技术手9北京知识产权法院（2022）京 73 民终 3270 号民事判决。北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court13段修改其程序，实现异化产品功

22、能、突破产品规则等效果，影响他人产品或服务正常运行，干扰了软件、游戏产品的数据内容。在某计算机系统公司诉某景科技公司、某畅科技公司不正当竞争纠纷案10中，某景科技公司开发运营“微信自动抢红包”软件，下载安装案涉软件后，在不开启微信软件时，能实现自动抢红包功能。法院认定上述软件利用技术手段破坏了“微信”软件的正常运行等，构成不正当竞争。7.侵害数据商业秘密行为侵害数据商业秘密行为当涉案数据具备秘密性、保密性、价值性，构成商业秘密的，非法获取、披露、使用数据的行为构成侵犯商业秘密的行为。在某信息技术公司诉赵某、某广告公司侵害商业秘密案11中，赵某将某信息技术公司 市场花费台账模板 2018-7月e

23、xcel 文件等商业秘密违法披露给竞争对手某广告公司，某广告公司获悉后主动联系其中记载的渠道商寻求商务合作。法院认定赵某的涉案行为构成违反保密义务披露权利人商业秘密的行为，某广告公司明知赵某掌握某信息技术公司商业秘密情况下仍然获取并实际使用涉案商业秘密，同样构成侵犯商业秘密的行为。（三）综合考量多种因素，规范竞争秩序（三）综合考量多种因素，规范竞争秩序涉数据产业不正当竞争案件类型新，“首案”多，对于行10北京知识产权法院（2019）京 73 民初 438 号民事判决。11北京知识产权法院（2020）京 73 民终 2581 号民事判决。北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual

24、Property Court14为定性往往争议较大。在评价被诉涉数据行为是否构成不正当竞争时，法院重点关注被诉行为是否合法合规、是否违反诚实信用原则和商业道德，并综合考量以下多种因素，权衡被诉行为后果，谨慎作出认定。1.是否对原告造成竞争性损害是否对原告造成竞争性损害反不正当竞争法的经济基础是市场经济，竞争的本质在于优胜劣汰，而经营资源和商业机会具有稀缺性，经营者必须将损害作为一种竞争结果予以适当的容忍。不能仅因原告由于被诉行为产生了损失，就判定被诉行为不具有正当性，而是应当给合法利用他人经营成果留有相应的空间。只有当被诉行为给原告造成竞争性损害时，才应当给予相应救济。相关判决中认定的竞争性损

25、害主要包括：食人而肥、实质性替代了相关产品或服务、对服务器运行带来负担、导致原有产品功能的异化、使得用户对产品或服务的安全性评价降低等。2.是否损害消费者福利是否损害消费者福利反不正当竞争法对于消费者权益的保护应当是一种间接的保护，个体消费者在反不正当竞争法之下并未被赋予独立的诉权以及损害赔偿请求权。在涉数据产业的相关不正当竞争案例中，消费者保护主要体现为获得未受扭曲的商业选择。考察被诉行为是否损害消费者权益，应考察被诉行为是否误北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court15导、欺骗、强迫用户，是否明确告知并获得消费者的许可，是否符合消费者的主观意愿

26、，是否尊重消费者的选择权，是否由消费者自愿、主动实施等。3.是否损害竞争秩序是否损害竞争秩序反不正当竞争法力图构建公平的竞争环境，致力于维护公平、有序的竞争秩序，防止竞争者通过不正当手段获得竞争优势，损害竞争秩序。分析被诉涉数据行为的行为后果时，数据主体的合法权益保护固然重要，但应主要从维护公平竞争秩序出发，关注涉数据行为对公平竞争秩序是否产生不良影响，而不仅仅局限于维护数据权益主体合法权益这一单一目标。4.是否有利于技术创新是否有利于技术创新在数字经济背景下，对数据的开发和利用是经营者进行创新的重要资源，而数据资源本身的价值也在于共享和利用。技术创新成为判断涉案行为是否具有正当性的重要考量因

27、素。例如在涉及网络爬虫的案件中，在其他因素相同的情况下，当某个平台爬取数据后，将数据用于和被爬取平台类似的商业场景中，此时应当倾向于认定数据爬取行为构成不正当竞争；而当数据爬取的目的是为了对数据进行进一步处理或在其他场景下对数据进行利用，此时应当倾向于认定数据爬取行为构成合理使用。这是因为，前一种行为并没有对数北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court16据进行创造性的利用，也没有为消费者提供差异化服务，其对数据的爬取完全是一种搭便车行为，不利于构建良好的市场竞争环境。相对而言，第二种数据爬取行为虽然也具有搭便车的因素，但鉴于数据较强的公共属性和此类

28、服务的创新和差异化服务，此时应当更多倾向于认定数据的合理使用，或者应当更为慎重地认定为不正当竞争。（四）综合运用多种方式，合理确定赔偿责任（四）综合运用多种方式，合理确定赔偿责任数据的权益主体存在多元性，如何合理评估和确定数据价值是涉数据案件确定损害赔偿的重点和难点所在。在多数涉数据案件中，原告经济损失或被告侵权获利难以精确计算，此时，可以灵活运用法定赔偿、酌定赔偿、举证妨碍规则等多种方式确定损害赔偿责任。在故意侵权且情节严重的情况下，对侵害涉数据商业秘密案件中，也可以适用惩罚性赔偿确定赔偿责任。在确定赔偿数额时，主要考量因素包括数据的体量、密度、与网络产品的关联度，数据使用方式、使用范围、使

29、用后果、影响范围，被诉行为人的主观过错程度等。如在某科技有限公司与某文化传媒公司不正当竞争纠纷案12中，法院综合考虑刷宝 APP 的用户数量，刷宝 APP 涉案短视频、用户信息、用户评论的数量，被诉行为的持续时间、实施范围，某文化传媒公司的主观过错等因素，同时考虑某文化传媒公司拒不提交其掌握的计算损害赔偿的相关证据的12北京知识产权法院(2021)京 73 民终 1011 号民事判决。北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court17情况下，酌定某文化传媒公司赔偿某科技有限公司经济损失500 万元。三、涉数据产业竞争法保护面临的挑战（一）竞争法保护进路（

30、一）竞争法保护进路有待拓宽有待拓宽反不正当竞争法能够在著作权法等知识产权部门法保护方式存在局限时，为涉数据产业提供补充性保护，但该保护进路也有其自身局限性。一是反不正当竞争法为行为法而非权利法，难以对有关数据权利予以界定，无法有效满足数字经济背景下对数据产权的制度需求，在一定程度上不利于数据价值的释放。二是无法有效明确数据的保护范围，且属于事后救济类措施，涉数据行为边界界定模糊，事前防范作用有限。（二）裁判依据有待探索厘清（二）裁判依据有待探索厘清涉数据反不正当竞争案件的法律供给不尽完善，法律适用有待进一步厘清。一是一是个案中仍然存在对于反不正当竞争法相关条款选择的困惑，具体包括：反不正当竞争

31、法第二条的原则条款和第十二条“互联网专条”的适用仍较为混杂；“互联网专条”与反不正当竞争法其他类型化条款（如商业诋毁、虚假宣传条款）之间的适用仍有争议；“互联网专条”第二款前三项的具体行为条款彼此之间规制的行为类型不够周延，第二款前三项的具体行为条款和第四项的兜底条款之间的界北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court18限不甚分明。二是二是商业道德内涵尚需细化。商业道德是诚实信用原则在不正当竞争案件中的具体化表述，作为裁判依据其本身属于不确定法律概念，涵盖面广，内涵较为模糊。在现有的涉数据产业不正当竞争案件的裁判文书中，对于商业道德的阐述尽管内容丰富

32、多样，但仍然缺乏较为统一清晰的表述。行业公约、自律规范、产业标准等行业性规范在一些案件中可以作为论证商业道德的佐证，但此类规范性文件在论证商业道德内涵和外延方面的作用及选取和使用方式仍然有待进一步明确。三是三是关于反不正当竞争法与其他知识产权专门法之间的适用关系仍需要进一步明确。（三）对技术问题（三）对技术问题事实事实的查明与认定仍是难点的查明与认定仍是难点在涉数据产业不正当竞争案件中，原告提出的证据往往仅能反映被诉不正当竞争行为的结果，难以全面展示、固定、确定被告采用的技术手段和事实范围。而被告往往怠于披露真实情况或提交证据。此外，被告往往抗辩被诉行为系技术创新，不具有不正当性。由此带给法院

33、在查明技术问题、理解技术手段、确定技术事实方面的困难。此外，数字经济领域的竞争行为常常由平台经营者、网站运营者、APP 经营者、技术支持者等多个主体在不同环节相互合作、共同实施，相关案件中还存在被告主体难以确定的问题。在经济损失的证明方面，由于数字环境下后台数据、技术痕迹、用户访问量等资料容易被修改，由此导致经济损失的数额难以被较为充北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court19分的客观证据所证明。（四）如何平衡多重价值仍存疑虑（四）如何平衡多重价值仍存疑虑司法实践中对如何行使自由裁量权、平衡多重价值仍有疑虑。裁判者不同价值取向的侧重及裁判思路的选择

34、，往往影响具体个案中对被诉行为不正当性评价的结果。在判断案涉行为正当性时，需要考量被诉行为对经营者合法权益、消费者利益、竞争秩序、数据产业发展等多种价值进行评价。司法实践中，如何寻求保护投资者利益和促进数字经济下的自由竞争之间的平衡点始终是困扰裁判者的问题。面对涉数据产业的新型不正当竞争案件，特别是在适用“诚实信用”帝王条款时，法院需要在清楚确定案件事实、准确适用法律规则的基础上，对行业现状、技术发展和竞争状况进行合理预判，评估相关裁判规则对于未来市场上竞争者利益和竞争行为的影响。如何审慎行使自由裁量权，避免市场自由竞争空间被不当压缩，仍然是困扰司法实践的一大难题。四、竞争法保护路径优化与数据

35、治理建议（一）涉数据不正当竞争纠纷的司法应对建议（一）涉数据不正当竞争纠纷的司法应对建议1.区分场景评价涉案被诉行为区分场景评价涉案被诉行为数字经济背景下，基于技术的飞速发展、跨界经营的普遍性以及应用场景的不断丰富，经营者之间的竞争行为的多样性和复杂性表现得尤为明显，而面对不同场景之下的竞争北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court20行为，需要综合相关行业惯例、交易习惯等因素来对涉案行为进行具体评价。例如对设置 robots 协议限制抓取行为的正当性评价，某网讯科技公司与某科技有限公司不正当竞争案13以及某网络技术公司与某信息服务公司不正当竞争案1

36、4虽然都系因设置 robots 协议而引发的纠纷，但由于应用场景不同而导致不同的裁判结果。某网讯科技公司与某科技有限公司不正当竞争案发生于限制搜索引擎抓取信息的应用场景中。搜索引擎的爬虫程序往往是为了互联网信息的自由流动，便于使用该搜索引擎的用户可实现快速准确地查询所需要的信息。因此，法院认定该案中的设置 robots 协议行为具有不正当性。而在某网络技术公司与某信息服务公司不正当竞争案15中，法院认为，在非搜索引擎应用场景中，经营者显然无义务将自己网站的数据信息开放给他人的爬虫程序，允许网站经营者通过 robots 协议对非搜索引擎应用场景下的抓取限制，正是网站经营者经营自主权的一种体现。2

37、.根据技术根据技术特点特点合理分配举证责任合理分配举证责任利用技术手段展开竞争具有隐蔽性，而数字技术大多具体表现为相应的计算机程序，而此类程序运行过程中产生的痕迹并非都能以符合证据规则的形式予以留存，由此带来原告举证证明被诉侵权行为的存在以及具体表现形式的困难。13北京市高级人民法院（2017）京民终 487 号民事判决。14北京市高级人民法院（2021）京民终 281 号民事判决。15北京市高级人民法院（2021）京民终 281 号民事判决。北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court21这种情况下，尤其需要法院正确适用举证责任分配规则，特别是在准确

38、理解技术问题的基础上进行裁判。例如在数据爬取类案件中，数据享有方难以掌握数据获取方通过何种手段获取数据的直接证据，而数据获取方对此清楚知晓且掌握其自身使用该种技术手段的证据。在数据运营方已经穷尽所有其所能掌握的证明材料，初步证明数据获取方采用不当技术手段获取其数据的高度可能性时，应当由数据获取方就此给出合理解释并提供相应证据证明。3.坚持利益平衡明确商业道德标准坚持利益平衡明确商业道德标准关于商业道德，最高人民法院在某食品公司与马某某等不正当竞争案16中首次明确提出“经济人伦理标准”，即“商业道德要按照特定商业领域中市场交易参与者即经济人的伦理标准来加以评判，它既不同于个人品德，也不能等同于一

39、般的社会公德，所体现的是一种商业伦理。经济人追名逐利符合商业道德的基本要求，但不一定合于个人品德的高尚标准；企业勤于慈善和公益合于社会公德，但怠于公益事业也并不违反商业道德”。商业道德的阐述需要综合考虑行业规范、用户行业等多重因素，确定多元、适中的商业道德标准。例如在某网络技术公司诉某淘技术公司案17中，法院考虑了OpenAPI 开发模式运行规则。在某网讯科技公司与某科技有16最高人民法院（2020）最高法知民终 1101 号民事判决。17北京知识产权法院（2016）京 73 民终 588 号民事判决。北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court22限

40、公司不正当竞争案18中，法院参考了当时国内主要搜索引擎公司参加的互联网搜索引擎服务自律公约，认为从行业角度，不仅遵守 robots 协议是一项行业惯例，设置 robots协议也需要遵循公平、开放和促进信息自由流动的原则。网络经营者的竞争行为不仅涉及经营者之间的竞争利益，而且由于网络服务涉及用户的数量广泛性、短时聚集性等特点，在判断被诉行为是否具有不正当性时，往往需要作出经营者与消费者之间利益平衡的考量。一方面，需要强调用户权益，尊重用户知情权、选择权，例如某网络技术公司诉某淘技术公司案19中，法院强调了原告对用户信息妥善保存以及审慎收集用户信息的义务，并阐明了在 Open API 开发合作模式

41、中，第三方通过 Open API 获取用户信息时应坚持“用户授权”+“平台授权”+“用户授权”的三重授权原则。对于严重损害用户知情权、选择权的涉案行为，往往会被认为系不正当竞争。另一方面，需要坚持不唯用户的司法态度。消费者福利并非反不正当竞争法关注的核心问题，在无损用户权益或对用户权益影响较小的情况下，重点考虑其他因素对涉案行为进行评价，如经营者竞争利益的损害以及对市场秩序的影响。（二）数据治理方面的建议（二）数据治理方面的建议随着数字经济背景下数据要素作用的凸显，数据治理将18北京市高级人民法院（2017）京民终 487 号民事判决。19同上北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellect

42、ual Property Court23是未来发展的重要主题。1.加强企业数据合规及风险防控加强企业数据合规及风险防控（1）建立健全数据合规制度建立健全数据合规制度。建立完善的数据合规制度，根据网络安全法数据安全法个人信息保护法等法律的相关规定，系统、全面地开展数据合规工作。加强数据内容合规，根据数据类型和数据等级采取不同安全程度的保护措施。加强数据来源和获取方式合规，确保数据获取途径合法，用户授权自愿，授权链路完整。准确识别数据风险，避免违规收集用户信息、强制授权、不合理索取授权等行为发生。（2）强化数据全链条风险防控强化数据全链条风险防控。数据全生命周期管理贯穿数据收集、加工、交易等全链条

43、各环节。建议对个人数据、商业数据等进行分级分类管理的同时，加强数据全链条风险防控。在数据采集阶段，不仅在面向用户直接收集数据时应以取得授权同意为核心，还应关注从公开网络平台采集数据的合法性，确保爬虫技术在合理限度范围内使用。在数据加工阶段，依法对敏感数据进行脱敏或匿名处理，避免个人信息泄露。在数据交易阶段，确保交易数据来源合法、交易方式合法。北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court242.提升政府数据治理能力提升政府数据治理能力（1）完善数据登记制度完善数据登记制度。数据要素登记是数据要素市场化配置改革的“先手棋”。建议在数据资源持有权、数据加工使

44、用权、数据产品经营权“三权分置”的产权运行机制的基础上，建立健全数据要素登记制度，为企业明确数据产权权属、促进数据交易流通提供支持。可分类分级开展数据登记体系设计，将数据登记分为初始登记、交易登记等多种类型。建议建立数据资产/产品登记与数据交易登记相结合、场内和场外交易相互支撑的可信登记体系，具体为：一是一是构建场内数据登记与场内外数据交易备案相结合的数据登记制度架构；二是二是根据不同的登记内容颁发不同类型的登记证书，并形成不同的定价、入表机制；三是三是区别不同的数据登记类型赋予不同的金融属性，有效防范金融风险；四是四是配合数据交易备案证明的数据持有证书，在诉讼中赋予其初步证据的效力；五是五是

45、建立数据登记中的双轨制争议解决机制，对于登记机关公示的登记事项出现争议的，允许争议人向登记机关设置的争议解决机构投诉，或向法院提起诉讼。（2）完善数据交易制度完善数据交易制度。明确交易原则，确立合法合规、公平自愿、场内外相结合、安全可控等交易原则，促进数据流通。明确数据交易标的，包括数据产品、数据服务、数据工具等。探索数据资产评估机制，继续推进数据资产入表。构建以数据交易所为主的可信交易平台，完善数据交易规则，北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court25明确数据交易所撮合交易、数据定价、数据交付、数据交易登记结算、数据清洗与增值、数据合规与质量评估

46、等服务职能，构建低成本、高效率、可信赖的流通环境。建立健全数据交易争议解决机制，维护交易主体正当权益。（3）完善数据应用制度完善数据应用制度。完善数据运用管理制度，为企业深度运用数据提供政策支持和制度保障。加强数据应用基础设施建设，拓展和推进数据在不同行业、社会管理、公共服务等领域的应用。积极探索开发利用公共数据运营模式，明确公共数据授权运营原则、职责分工、安全监管等内容，使得公共数据的潜在价值惠及全社会，为数字经济发展提供新动能。Beijing Intellectual Property CourtWhite Paper on Protection of the DataIndustry u

47、nder Competition Law北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property CourtContentsPreamble.1I.Basic Information of Competition Cases in the dataindustry.4II.Protect Data Interests According to Law,and PromoteHealthy Development of the Digital Economy.8(I)Expandingtheinterpretationofcompetitiverelationships,and

48、clarifyingtheprotectionofdatainterests.81.Broadentheunderstandingofcompetitiverelationships.82.Specify that legitimate data interests shall beprotected.9(II)Summarizingtypesofcompetitiveactsandclarifying the competition rules.101.Improper data crawling.112.Artificially boosting traffic.113.Video ad

49、blocking.134.Traffic hijacking.145.Account leasing.156.Software interference.167.Misappropriation of trade secrets of data.17北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court(III)Comprehensively considering multiple factors toregulate the competitive order.181.Whether competitive damage is caused to thepl

50、aintiff.182.Whether consumer welfare is jeopardized.193.Whether the competitive order is jeopardized.204.Whether it is beneficial to technical innovation.20(IV)Comprehensivelyusingmultiplemethodstoreasonably determine compensation liability.21III.Challenges Faced by Competition Law in protecting the

51、data industry.23(I)The approach of competition law protection need tobe broadened.23(II)The basis of judgment remains to be explored andclarified.24(III)Identification and determination of technical issuesis still difficult.25(IV)There is still doubt on how to balance multiplevalues.26IV.Optimizatio

52、n of the Approach of Competition LawProtection,and Suggestions for Data Governance.27(I)Suggestions of judicial responses on disputes overdata-related unfair competition.27北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court1.Evaluating the accused act based on differentsituations.272.Reasonably allocate the

53、 burden of proof accordingto the technical characteristics.293.Insist on balance of interests,clarify standards ofbusiness ethics.30(II)Suggestions for data governance.331.Bolsterenterprises datacomplianceandriskprevention.332.Enhancethegovernmentscapacityofdatagovernance.34北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellect

54、ual Property Court1PreambleThe data,which is hailed as“new petroleum”in the 21stcentury,has become a new factor of production in the digitaleconomy era.According to the research data in the Report onChinasDevelopmentofDigitalTrade(2022)fromtheCyberspace Administration of China,Chinas digital economy

55、scale reached 50.2 trillion Chinese yuan in 2022,representing ayear-on-year nominal growth of 10.3%,and its proportion inGDP rose to 41.5%,ranking second in the world in total.Thedigital economy,mainly driven by data,has become a key forceunderpinning Chinas development of high-quality economy.The r

56、eport to the 20th National Congress of the CPCpointed out that there is a need to speed up the construction of aleading power in cyberspace and the building of digital China.To cope with challenges brought by the digital economy,especiallybythe developmentof dataindustry,andtostrengthen,optimize and

57、 expand the digital economy,onDecember 19th,2022,the CPC Central Committee and the StateCouncil jointly issued the Opinions on Building Basic Systemsfor Data to Better Play the Role of Data Factors,establishingthe“main framework and key pillars”of the basic systems fordata,and forming a horizontally

58、 linked and vertically connected北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court2digital economy strategy and policy system;on February 27th,2023,jointly issued the Plan for the Overall Layout of theCountrysDigitalDevelopment,clarifyingtheoverallframework“2522”of Chinas digital development;on October25th

59、,2023,the National Data Bureau was established tocoordinate the development of basic systems for data from acountrylevel,andscheduletheintegration,sharing,development and utilization of data resources.Afterwards,theprovincial and municipal governments across the countryestablished data administratio

60、n institutions one after another,connected with the National Data Bureau,comprehensivelypromoted the implementation of big data development strategy.On July 25th,2022,the Supreme Peoples Court publishedOpinions on Providing Judicial Services and Guarantees forAccelerating the Construction of a Unifi

61、ed National Market,requiring to protect the data rights holders legal rights on thecontrolling,processing and benefits of data according to law,enhance the research on legal issues such as the data propertyattributes,forms,ownership,and public data sharing systems,and reinforce the efforts to perfec

62、t the judicial rules on theprotection of the data property rights.The Beijing Intellectual Property Court attaches greatimportance to the judicial protection of digital economy whose北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court3essence lies in data.In the current circumstance that the legalprovisions

63、on the data property rights protection are absent,according to the basic concept of protection of data interests bythe Civil Code,the judicial protection of data property rights ordata interests with varying degrees has been provided byapplying the contract laws,copyright laws and competition laws,w

64、hich has actively responded to challenges brought to justice bythedevelopmentofdigitaleconomy.TheAnti-unfairCompetition Law is highly open and inclusive,which is a mainmethod for the protection of interests related to the data industry.The Beijing Intellectual Property Court fully exercises ourjudic

65、ial duties in terms of intellectual property adjudication,timelysummarizesthetrialexperienceofanti-unfaircompetition cases in the data industry,concludes a number ofdata-related competition cases,and publishes ten typical casesof data-related anti-unfair competition,promptly curbs theunfair competit

66、ion in the data industry,maintains the fair marketcompetition order,and promotes the healthy development ofdata industry in the digital economy.This white paper introduces the basic information of thecompetition cases in the data industry tried by the BeijingIntellectual Property Court in the last t

67、hree years,summarizesthe typical acts of unfair competition in the data industry,the北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court4judicial perspective of data-related competition cases,andchallenges faced to the data industry competition law,as well asproposes suggestions on further enhancement of the

68、 dataindustry competition law,strengthening the protection of datainterests,and improvement of bidirectional management of databetween enterprises and governments.I.Basic Information of Competition Cases in the dataindustryWith the digital economy flourishing in recent years,intellectual property di

69、sputes in the data industry are on the rise.From 2021 to 2023,the number of data-related intellectualproperty cases concluded by the Beijing Intellectual PropertyCourt under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PeoplesRepublic of China(hereinafter referred to as the Anti-UnfairCompetition Law)20ha

70、s grown year by year,among which 75,90 and 174 cases were concluded in 2021,2022 and 2023respectively.21The following characteristics are presented fromthe above cases:20Since there is no judgment of protection on the data industry applied under theAnti Monopoly Law of thePeoples Republic of China,t

71、he competition law referred to in this white paper means theAnti-unfair CompetitionLaw of the Peoples Republic of China.21The data is sourced from the trial management system of Beijing courts.Search conditions:time of judgmentfrom January 1,2021 to December 31,2023,trial court:the Beijing Intellect

72、ual Property Court;type of cases arecases of data industry beyond the jurisdictional objection cases,including cases of integrated industries likeInternet-related industry,software and information technology services industry,intelligent manufacturing,Internetof vehicles,and platform economy;documen

73、t type:unlimited;case nature:civil;cause of case:unlimited;applicable laws:Anti-unfair Competition Law.Atotal of 339 cases are displayed after retrieval based on the abovesearch conditions;time of search:January 21,2024.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court5First,the cases related to the Inter

74、net-related industryare over 80%.The data-related cases heard by the BeijingIntellectual Property Court mainly involve the Internet-relatedindustry,software and information technology services industry,intelligent manufacturing industry,etc.Among the data-relatedcases concluded from 2021 to 2023,the

75、 Internet-related industrycases totaled 278,which accounted for over 80%and spiraledup year by year.Among these,65 cases,74 cases,and 139 caseswere concluded in 2021,2022 and 2023 respectively.Second,the second instance cases account for a largeproportion with a high maintenance rate.From the trial

76、level,the data-related cases concluded are based primarily on thesecond instance cases,accounting for 86.1%;from the way ofcase closing,most cases are concluded by judgment,accountingfor69.0%(seeFigure1).Theconversionrateofsecond-instance cases concluded by judgment is low.Amongthem,there were no ca

77、ses of conversion in 2021,the conversionrate in 2022 was 3.2%,and the conversion rate in 2023 was5.7%,all maintaining a relatively low level.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court6Figure 1:The Number of Judgments,verdicts,and mediation indata-related casesThird,cases involving traditionally unf

78、air competitionaccount for a large proportion.Among the data-related casesconcluded by judgment,they are dominated by traditionallyunfair competition,mainly including the types of confusion,false advertising,business defamation,and misappropriation oftrade secrets.The types above of cases totaled 16

79、2,accountingfor nearly 70%.Fourthly,new forms of unfair competition acts continueto surface.The newly identified unfair competition actspredominantly include ad blocking,account leasing,datacrawling,technical interference,keyword promotion,artificial北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court7traffi

80、c boosting,and traffic hijacking,among others(Refer toFigure 2).These cases typically fall under the purview of Article2 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law,which is a principleclause,and Article 12 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law,which specifically addresses issues related to the Internet.Figure2

81、:Numberofdata-relatedcasesonnewunfaircompetitionFifthly,a significant proportion of cases are identifiedasconstitutingunfaircompetition.Amongthecasesconcluded by judgment,the accused acts were found toconstitute unfair competition in over two-thirds of the cases,with 42 cases in 2021,accounting for

82、89.4%;53 cases in 2022,北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court8accounting for 80.3%;and 82 cases in 2023,accounting for67.2%.II.Protect Data Interests According to Law,andPromote Healthy Development of the Digital EconomyUnder the background of the digital economy,competitionin the data industry

83、 exhibits diversity and complexity.Therefore,the Beijing Intellectual Property Court summarizes the types ofunfair competition in the data industry and the approach tohandling them,providing a judicial perspective that can bereferenced in establishing a system for protecting intellectualproperty rig

84、hts in the data industry.(I)Expandingtheinterpretationofcompetitiverelationships,and clarifying the protection of data interests1.BroadentheunderstandingofcompetitiverelationshipsThe presence of the competitive relationship is the basis fordetermining the legitimacy of alleged unfair competition.Wit

85、hdata resources interacting and integrating across differentindustries,competition has shifted from traditional product北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court9competition to data traffic competition.The cross-industrycompetition in the data industry has been common.Against thisbackground,using t

86、he similarity between goods or services andtheir substitutability as the basis for determining the competitiverelationships has been unable to adapt to the current marketcompetition modes and cannot effectively regulate unfaircompetition involving data.For this purpose,the BeijingIntellectual Proper

87、ty Court has expanded the interpretation ofcompetitive relationships from the perspective of competitiveinterests to adapt to the digital economy era.2.SpecifythatlegitimatedatainterestsshallbeprotectedIn the absence of specific legal norms regarding theprotection of data property,it is crucial to l

88、everage theadaptability and flexibility of the Anti-unfair Competition Law.From a behavioral regulation standpoint,it is essential tosafeguard the legitimate interests of stakeholders across theentire data life-cycle,encompassing generation,collection,circulation,and utilization.Emphasis is placed o

89、n effectivelysafeguarding the commercial opportunities and competitiveadvantages derived from data,ensuring that market entities do北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court10not acquire or utilize data through unfair means without legalauthorization.In cases where data-related competitive actsbrea

90、ch the principles of good faith and business ethics,keyprovisions such as Article 2(principal clauses),Article 12(Internet-specific clauses),Article 9(trade secret clauses),Article 11(false advertising clauses),among others,should beflexibly applied to regulate improper practices like data crawling,

91、data scraping,data pollution,and data interference.Thisapproachoffersbehavioralguidelinesformarketentitiesoperating in the data industry,boosts the confidence of datainterest stakeholders in engaging in market competition,andfosters fair and healthy competition within the data sector.(II)Summarizing

92、typesofcompetitiveactsandclarifying the competition rulesTheBeijingIntellectualPropertyCourtpromptlysummarizes and categorizes the types of acts of unfaircompetition related to the data industry,extracts judicial rulesthrough individual cases,and provides exemplary competitionguidelines for market e

93、ntities in the data industry.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court111.Improper data crawlingImproper data crawling mainly falls into the followingthree types:(1)Scraping and using others data.In a case wherea cultural media company bypassed or destroyed the technicalprotection measures of a ne

94、twork technology company to scrapeand display Weibo data,it constituted unfair competition.22(2)Improper use of others data products or data resources.In acase where an education technology company operates websites,apps,and WeChat public accounts providing data similar oressentially the same as tha

95、t of another information technologycompany without proving the legality of the data source,23itconstitutes unfair competition.(3)Wholesale transfer of dataresources:In a case where a technology company used technicalor manual means to obtain video and comments from DouyinAPP and provided them to the

96、 public through their own app,24itconstitutes unfair competition.2.Artificially boosting trafficIn cases of artificially boosting traffic,the acts of thedefendant mainly involves providing services like boosting22The Beijing Intellectual Property Court(2019)J73MZ No.2799 Civil Judgment.23The Beijing

97、 Intellectual Property Court(2020)J73MZ No.3422 Civil Judgment.24The Beijing Intellectual Property Court(2021)J73MZ No.1011 Civil Judgment.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court12website visits,video viewers,ad clicks,search engine searches,article reads,and fan counts for video sites,short vid

98、eoplatforms,e-commerceplatforms,etc.,throughmanualoperations or technical means.This includes creating fakereview quantities or content,which contaminates the realcommercial data.In a case where a tech company sued anothertech company for unfair competition,the defendant company setup tasks related

99、to Baidu searches on to help orinduce others to publish and click on search tasks,thusinterfering with the objective ranking of Baidu searches.25Thecourtfoundthatthedefendantcompanyprovidesclearguidelines and induction for improving click-through rates to atarget website,knowing about the“anti-cheat

100、ing algorithm”operated by the plaintiffs company but still actively providingmethods and guidelines for circumvention,charging a certainpercentage fee to both the user placing the order and the useraccepting it to gain directly economic benefits.The defendantsaction has generated false user demands

101、and click data,cheatedthe algorithm of the search engine,failed to comply with thegeneral rules of the search engine optimization industry,andmade profits accordingly,which is contrary to the good faithprincipleandcommercialethics,andconstitutedunfair25The Beijing Intellectual Property Court(2022)J7

102、3MZ No.1148 Civil Judgment.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court13competition.3.Video ad blockingCases involving video ad blocking primarily revolvearound the obstruction of pre-roll or mid-roll advertisementswithin video content offered by video platforms.These casestypically entail the utili

103、zation of software,mobile applications,plug-ins,and similar tools capable of implementing ad-blockingfunctionalities.Moreover,such cases often entail circumventingthe membership restrictions imposed by video platforms toaccess premium video content reserved for paid subscribers,thereby improperly di

104、srupting video data resources.In an unfaircompetition dispute case between a certain computer systemcompany and a technology company,the accused WorldWindow Browser provided users with the strongly interceptpage ads feature.Upon selecting this feature,users could stopwatching video ads on Tencent Vi

105、deo,and the VIP user paymentbutton would disappear accordingly.26The court determines thealleged act as direct intervention and interference in theoperation of others by taking technical measures,improperlydisturbing the operation of others video data resources,which26The Beijing Intellectual Proper

106、ty Court(2018)J73MZ No.558 Civil Judgment.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court14constitutes unfair competition.4.Traffic hijackingTraffichijackingtypicallyinvolvestheunauthorizedinsertion of links and the redirection of target pages withinnetwork products or services offered by other operator

107、s.In anunfair competition dispute case of a recruitment company and aconsulting company vs.a technology company27,the technologycompany who operates a website with the domain (Zhilian Recruitment Website)and inserted aprice comparison window link through a browser plug-in called“Shengqianzhao”to ind

108、uce users to download resumes throughShengqianzhao at a lower price when they chose the servicesprovided by the Zhilian website.Such an act interferes with thetext data operation and intercepts user traffic.The court findsthat the website operator tampers with others web page settings,inserts a pric

109、e comparison link in others websites,induces usersto click the link which redirects the page to its website,andintercepts others website traffic,with obvious malice,whichconstitutes unfair competition.27The Beijing Intellectual Property Court(2021)J73MZ No.1092 Civil Judgment.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intelle

110、ctual Property Court155.Account leasingIn cases of account leasing,the purported misconductprimarily involves platform operators offering services forleasing video website memberships or game accounts.Theseservices entail providing account posting and leasing servicesfor lessors,as well as account r

111、ental services for lessees,withthe leasing platforms receiving a portion of the profits.Accountleasing instances may also encompass illicit activities such asunauthorized registration,account resale,bulk registration,andother actions that contravene the guidelines for real-nameaccount registration,t

112、hereby disrupting the data operations ofvideos and games.In an unfair competition dispute case of acomputer system company vs.an e-commerce company and atechnology company,28an APP operated by the e-commercecompany provided intermediary services for its users to rent outtheir game accounts and rent

113、others game accounts on a largescale,at a high frequency,and in an intensive manner utilizingsetting up special zones and displaying rental information,andprovided services such as automatic login by one click and theuse of case-involved game names and role image pictures,tocharge fees and make prof

114、its.The court finds the alleged act28The Beijing Intellectual Property Court(2022)J73MZ No.3270 Civil Judgment.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court16violates the common business practice of“one account for oneperson”and the prohibition of renting and borrowing ofaccounts damages the interests

115、 of game operators and the publicinterests of users,endangers personal information safety,whichconstitutes unfair competition.6.Software interferenceThe alleged act of software interference cases is mainlymanifested as parasitism in software,games,and products orservices operated normally by others,

116、modifying their programsthrough add-ons,plug-ins,and other technical means to achievethe effect of alienating product functions,breaking product rules,and so on,affecting the normal operation of others products orservices,and interfering with the data contents of software andgame products.In an unfa

117、ir competition dispute case of acomputer system company vs.the A technology company andthe B technology company,29the A technology companydeveloped and operated“automatically grabbing red envelopesin WeChat”software,which can realize the function ofautomatically grabbing red envelopes without openin

118、g WeChatsoftware.The court finds the aforesaid software damages the29The Beijing Intellectual Property Court(2019)J73MC No.438 Civil Judgment.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court17normal operation of WeChat software by technical means,whichconstitutes unfair competition.7.Misappropriation of

119、trade secrets of dataWhere case-involved data is secret,confidential,andvaluable,which constitutes a trade secret,the act of illegallyobtaining,disclosing,andusingthedataconstitutesmisappropriationofthetradesecret.Inacaseofmisappropriation of trade secrets of an information technologycompany vs.Zhao

120、 and an advertising company,30Zhaodisclosed the trade secrets including the“Market ExpenseLedger Template in July 2018”Excel file to a competitor,theadvertising company,which actively contacted the channelproviders recorded therein to seek for commercial cooperationafter receiving the information.Th

121、e court found the Zhaos actconstituted a violation of the confidentiality obligation anddisclosure of the right holders trade secrets,and the advertisingcompany obtained and used the case-involved trade secrets eventhough it had learned Zhaos access to trade secrets ofinformationtechnologycompany,wh

122、ichalsoconstitutesmisappropriation of trade secrets.30The Beijing Intellectual Property Court(2020)J73MZ No.2581 Civil Judgment.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court18(III)Comprehensively considering multiple factors toregulate the competitive orderThe types of unfair competition cases in the

123、data industryare novel,with many being the first of their kind.Thecharacterization of the act is often highly contentious.Whendetermining whether the alleged data-related act amounts tounfaircompetition,thecourtexaminesitslegalityandcompliance,assesses if it breaches the principle of good faithand b

124、usiness ethics,evaluates the impact of the alleged act,andmakes a judicious decision after considering a range of factorscomprehensively.1.Whether competitive damage is caused to the plaintiffThe economic foundation of the Anti-unfair CompetitionLaw is rooted in the principles of a market economy.Co

125、mpetition thrives on the survival of the fittest,whereoperational resources and commercial opportunities are limited,necessitating operators to accept reasonable losses due tocompetition.The mere fact that the alleged act causes harm tothe plaintiff does not automatically render it unjustified;inste

126、ad,space for legitimate use of others operational achievements北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court19should be acknowledged.Remedies are only warranted whenthe alleged act results in competitive harm to the plaintiff.Thecompetitive harm outlined in relevant judgments typicallyencompass imprope

127、r exploitation of others interests,significantdisplacement of related products or services,disruption of serveroperations,alteration of the original product function,anddegradation of user perceptions regarding product or servicesafety,among others.2.Whether consumer welfare is jeopardizedThe protec

128、tion of consumer rights and interests under theAnti-unfair Competition Law shall be indirect,and individualconsumers are not given independent rights to sue and claimdamages under the Anti-unfair Competition Law.In relevantunfaircompetitioncasesinvolving data-relatedindustries,consumerprotectionisma

129、inlymanifestedasaccesstoundistorted commercial options.When determining whether thealleged act damages the rights and interests of consumers,itshould be examined whether the alleged act is misleading,deceptive or coercive to the users,whether it is clearly informedand permitted by the consumers,whet

130、her it corresponds with thesubjective will of the consumers,whether it respects the北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court20consumers right of choices,and whether it is voluntarily andactively implemented by the consumers,and so on.3.Whether the competitive order is jeopardizedAnti-unfair Compet

131、ition Law strives to build a faircompetitive environment,maintain fair and orderly competitiveorder,andpreventcompetitorsfromgainingcompetitiveadvantages by illegal means and jeopardizing competitive order.When analyzing the consequences of the alleged data-related act,the protection of the legitima

132、te rights and interests of dataentities is certainly important,but it should start from themaintenance of fair competitive order primarily,focusing onwhether the data-related act has an adverse impact on the faircompetitive order,and not only limited to the single goal ofmaintainingthelegitimaterigh

133、tsandinterestsofthestakeholders of data.4.Whether it is beneficial to technical innovationIn the context of the digital economy,the development andutilization of data are important resources for operators toinnovate,and the value of data resources lies in sharing and北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Prop

134、erty Court21utilization.Technological innovation has become a key factor indetermining the legitimacy of the behavior in question.Forexample,in cases involving web crawling,all other factorsbeing equal,when a platform scrapes data and uses it in abusiness scenario similar to the scraped platform,the

135、 scrapingbehavior should be inclined to be deemed unfair competition;whereas when the purpose of scraping data is for furtherprocessing or utilization in other scenarios,the scrapingbehavior should be inclined to be deemed reasonable use.This isbecause the former behavior does not involve creative u

136、tilizationof data or provide differentiated services to consumers;it merelyconstitutes free-riding behavior,which is detrimental to buildingahealthymarketcompetitionenvironment.Conversely,although the second type of data scraping behavior also involveselements of free-riding,given the strong public

137、nature of dataand the innovation and differentiation of such services,it shouldbe more inclined to be considered as reasonable use,or shouldbe more cautiously deemed as unfair competition.(IV)Comprehensivelyusingmultiplemethodstoreasonably determine compensation liabilityThere are diversified entiti

138、es of data interests.How to北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court22reasonably assess and determine data value is the key anddifficult point to determine compensation liability for damagesin a data-related case.In most data-related cases,it is difficult toaccurately calculate the economic losses

139、 of the plaintiff orprofits gained by the defendants infringement,in such cases,the liability for damages may be determined by diverse methodssuch as statutory compensation,discretionary compensation,aswell as assessing the damages by using the rule of spoliation ofevidence.When there is an intentio

140、nal infringement and thecircumstances are particularly serious,punitive damages canalso be applied to determine the liabilities for compensation incases of infringement of data-related trade secrets.Whendetermining the compensation amount,main factors to considerinclude the volume and density of dat

141、a,correlation with thenetwork products,and data using method,scope,consequences,and impact scope,as well as the level of subjective fault.In theunfair competition dispute case of a technology company vs.aculturalmediacompany31,thecourtcomprehensivelyconsidered factors like the user scale of Shuabao

142、APP,thenumber of short videos,pieces of user information and usercomments involved in the case,as well as the duration and thescope of implementation of accused act,and the subjective fault31The Beijing Intellectual Property Court(2021)J73MZ No.1011 Civil Judgment.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Proper

143、ty Court23of the cultural media company.The court also took into accountthat the cultural media company refused to submit evidencerelated to calculation of compensation for damages it acquired,so it was decided that the cultural media company shallcompensate economic losses of 5 million Chinese Yuan

144、 to thetechnology company.III.Challenges Faced by Competition Law in protectingthe data industry(I)The approach of competition law protection need tobe broadenedAnti-unfair competition law can provide complementaryprotection where the protection provided by intellectual propertylaw such as copyright

145、 law are limited,but such protection pathalso has its own constraints.First,the Anti-unfair CompetitionLaw regulates practices instead of protecting rights,whichmakes it difficult to define relevant data rights,and cannoteffectively satisfy the data propertys system demand under thedigital economy b

146、ackground.This is not conducive to fullyleveraging the value of data.Second,the protection scope ofdata cant be specified effectually.Besides,it is a remedialmeasureafterward.Theboundaryofdata-relatedactis北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court24ambiguous,and the function of prevention in advanc

147、e is limited.(II)The basis of judgment remains to be explored andclarifiedThe law supply on data-related anti-unfair competitioncases is incomplete.The application of law remains to beclarified.First,thereisstillconfusiononchoiceofcorresponding clauses of Anti-unfair Competition Law inindividual cas

148、es,specifically including the application of Article2(namely the principle clauses)s and Article 12(namely theInternet clauses)of Anti-unfair Competition Law is still mixed;the application of the Internet clauses and other type clauses(such as commercial defamation and false advertising clauses)isst

149、ill controversial;the types of act regulated by the specific actclauses of the first three items of Paragraph 2 of Internet clausesare not extensive,and the boundary between the specific actclauses of the first three items of Paragraph 2 and themiscellaneous provisions of the fourth item is not clea

150、r.Second,the connotation of business ethics remains to be refined.Business ethics is a concretified expression of good faithprinciple in anti-unfair competition cases.As a judicial basis,itis an uncertain legal concept,that covers a wide range,with北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court25vague c

151、onnotations.In the existing judgment documents relatedto unfair competition cases in the data industry,although theelaboration of business ethics is diverse,it still lacks a relativelyunifiedandclearexpression.Industryconventions,self-regulatory norms,industry standards,and other industrynorms are s

152、upporting evidence for demonstrating business ethics,but the effect,selection,and use of such normative documents indemonstrating the connotation and extension of business ethicsstillneedtobefurtherclarified.Third,theapplicablerelationship between the Anti-unfair Competition Law and otherlaws on int

153、ellectual property protection still needs furtherclarification.(III)Identification and determination of technical issuesis still difficultIn unfair competition cases in the data industry,theevidence presented by the plaintiff often reflects the result ofaccused unfair competition only,instead of com

154、prehensivelydisplaying,fixing and determining technical means and factualscope adopted by the defendant.While the defendant often lacksthe inclination to disclose the facts or present evidence.Moreover,the defendant tends to defend that the accused act is北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court26

155、technical innovation,which is justified.This causes difficultiesforcourtsinidentifyingtechnicalissues,understandingtechnical means,and determining technical facts.In addition,inmost cases,the competition in digital economy fields iscooperated and carried out by several entities including platformope

156、rators,website operators,APP operators,and technicalsupporters in different sectors.There are also difficulties indetermining the defendant in related cases.With respect toevidence for economic losses,because data like backstage data,technical trace,and user visits are easily revised in the digitale

157、nvironment,the amount of economic loss resulted in thereby isdifficult to prove by sufficient objective evidence.(IV)There is still doubt on how to balance multiplevaluesThere is still doubt on how to exercise discretion andbalance multiple values in judicial practice.The emphasis ondifferent value

158、orientations and choice of adjudication methodby the judge often affect the result of the unjustified evaluationof the alleged act.When judging the justification of the allegedact,the alleged act on values like protection of operatorslegitimate rights and interests,consumer welfare,competition北京知识产权

159、法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court27order,and development of the data industry shall be consideredfor evaluation.In judicial practice,the equilibrium pointbetween how to seek the protection of the interests of investorsand the promotion of free competition in a digital economy isalways an issue t

160、hat the judges tackle.In the face of new unfaircompetition cases in the data industry,especially when applyingthe empire provision of“good faith”,the court,based on a cleardetermination of the facts of the case and accurate application oflegal rules,needs to reasonably prejudge the quo status of the

161、industry,technical development,and competition status,andassess relevant judicial rules impact on the interests ofcompetitors and competition in the future market.How toexercise discretion prudently,and avoid improper compressionof free competition space of market remains a challenge injudicial prac

162、tices.IV.Optimization of the Approach of Competition LawProtection,and Suggestions for Data Governance(I)Suggestions of judicial responses on disputes overdata-related unfair competition1.Evaluating the accused act based on differentsituations北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court28In the conte

163、xt of the digital economy,with the rapiddevelopmentoftechnology,universalityofcross-industryoperation,and continuous diversity of application scenes,a veryobvious diversity and complexity of competitive acts havearisen among operators.In the face of competitive acts underdifferent scenarios,it is ne

164、cessary to take into account relevantindustry practices,trading habits,and other factors to make aspecific evaluation of the case involving unfair competition.Forexample,regarding the justification of setting up robot protocol,in the unfair competition cases of a network communicationtechnology comp

165、any vs.a technology limited company32and ofa network technology company vs.an information servicecompany33,although disputes are both caused due to setting uprobot protocol,different judicial results are resulted in due todifferent application scenes.The unfair competition case of thenetwork communi

166、cation technology company vs.the technologylimited company occurs in the application scene of restriction ona search engine that crawls information.The crawlers of searchengines are often for the free flow of Internet information.Userswho are convenient to use such search engines can rapidly andaccu

167、rately query information they need.Therefore,the courtfinds that the setting up of robot protocol in the case is32The Beijing Intellectual Property Court(2017)J73MZ No.487 Civil Judgment.33The Beijing Intellectual Property Court(2021)J73MZ No.281 Civil Judgment.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property

168、Court29unjustified.However,in an unfair competition case of a networktechnology company vs.an information service company,34thecourt holds that in an application scene of non-search engines,the operator has no obligation to open data information on itswebsite to others crawlers.Allowing crawling res

169、triction in anapplication scene of non-search engines by operators of websitesthrough robot protocol is a reflection of autonomy in themanagement of operators of websites.2.Reasonably allocate the burden of proof according tothe technical characteristicsThe use of technological means to engage in co

170、mpetition iscovert.Most digital technology manifests as correspondingcomputer programs,whereas not all traces produced during therunning process of such programs can be retained in a form thatconforms to the evidence rules,resulting in difficulties for theplaintiff to provide evidence to prove the e

171、xistence and specificmanifestations of the alleged misappropriation.Under suchcircumstances,it is particularly necessary for the court tocorrectly apply allocation rules on the burden of proof,especiallyinmakingjudgmentsbasedonthecorrect34The Beijing Intellectual Property Court(2021)J73MZ No.281 Civ

172、il Judgment.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court30understanding of technical issues.For example,in data crawlingcases,its hard for a data owner to obtain direct evidence onhow a data acquisition party has accessed the data,but the dataacquisition party knows this and masters evidence of his u

173、se ofsuch technical means.When the data operator has exhausted allavailable evidence to prove the high probability that the dataacquisition party has applied improper technical means foraccessing the data,the data acquisition party shall make areasonable explanation for this and provide correspondin

174、gevidence.3.Insist on balance of interests,clarify standards ofbusiness ethicsAs for business ethics,the Supreme Peoples Court firstlyclarified“ethical standards for economists”in the unfaircompetition case of a food company vs.Ma35,namely,“thebusiness ethics shall be judged according to ethical sta

175、ndards ofeconomists,that is,participants of market transactions in specialcommercial fields.It is different from personal morality,orgeneral social morality.Rational-economic man pursuing profitcomply with the basic requirements of business ethics but may35The Supreme Peoples Court(2020)ZGFZMZ No.11

176、01.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court31not necessarily meet the noble standard of personal morality.Anenterprise that is diligent in charity and public welfare meetssocial morality,but which is negligent in public welfare does notviolate business ethics”.Multiple factors like industry norms

177、,and industry category shall be considered comprehensively forthe elaboration of business ethics to determine diverse andmoderate standards of business ethics.For example,in the caseof a network technology company vs.a Tao technologycompany,36the court takes into account the running rule forOpenAPI

178、development modes.In an unfair competition case ofa network communication technology company vs.a technologycompany,37thecourt,referringtotheSelf-disciplineConvention on Internet Search Engine Services engaged in bymain search engine companies domestically,holds that from theperspective of the indus

179、try,not only is complying with therobots protocol an industry practice,but setting up robotsprotocols also requires adhering to the principles of fairness,openness and promotion of free flow of information.The competition of network operators involves not only thecompetitive interests of operators.M

180、oreover,due to thecharacteristics of network services whose users could be a widerange and aggregated in a very short time,the balance of36The Beijing Intellectual Property Court(2016)J73MZ No.588.37The Beijing High Peoples Court（2017）JMZ No.487.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court32interests

181、 between operators and consumers often needs to beconsidered when judging whether the alleged act is justified.Onthe one hand,it is necessary to stress the rights and interests ofusers,and respect usersrights to know and choose.For instance,in the case of a network technology company vs.a Taotechnol

182、ogy company38,the court stresses the obligations of theplaintifftoproperlykeepandprudentlycollectusersinformation,and clarifies in that Open API development andcooperation mode,the triple authorization principle of“userauthorization”+“platform authorization”+“user authorization”shallbeinsistedonwhen

183、athird-partyaccessesusersinformation through Open API.The case-involved act thatseriously impairs users rights to know and choose is oftendeemed as unfair competition.On the other hand,it is necessaryto adhere to a judicial attitude that goes beyond just users.Consumer welfare is not always the core

184、 issue focused by unfaircompetition law.In cases where users rights and interests arenot compromised or are impacted slightly,other factors areconsidered for evaluating the case-involved act,such as thedamages of the competitive interests of operators and the impacton the market order.38Ditto.北京知识产权

185、法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court33(II)Suggestions for data governanceWith the prominence of the effect of data elements in thedigital economy,data governance will be an important topic forfuture development.1.Bolsterenterprises datacomplianceandriskprevention(1)Establish a sound data compliance

186、 system.Build up asound data compliance system,and carry out compliance workof data systematically and comprehensively in accordance withrelevant provisions of Network Security Law,Data SecurityLaw and Personal Information Protection Law,and other laws.Enhance compliance of data contents,and take pr

187、otectionmeasures of different security degrees according to data typesand data grades.Intensify compliance of data sources and accessmethods,so as to ensure legality of access of data and voluntaryauthorization with entire authorization links.Correctly identifydata risks,and avoid collecting user in

188、formation illegally,authorizing mandatorily and seeking authorization unreasonably,etc.北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court34(2)Reinforce risk prevention across the entire chain ofdata.The management of whole life cycle of data runs throughthe entire chain of all sectors including data collec

189、tion,processing and transaction.It is suggested that when conductinggraded and classified management of personal data and businessdata,the entire chain of risk prevention shall be enhanced.During the data collection stage,not only should authorizationand consent be the core when directly collecting

190、data from users,but also attention should be paid to the legality of collecting datafrom public network platforms to ensure that the crawlertechnique is used within a reasonable range.During the dataprocess stage,efforts should be made to desensitize oranonymize sensitive data according to law,so as

191、 to avoiddisclosure of personal information.During the data transactionperiod,efforts should be made to ensure the sources of data andthe transaction methods are legal.2.Enhancethegovernmentscapacityofdatagovernance(1)Improve the system of data registration.Dataelement registration is an“first move”

192、of the reform ofmarket-oriented allocation of data elements.It is suggested that北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court35on the basis of“system for separating three rights”including theownership of data resources,the right of processing and utilizingdata,and the right of operating the data produ

193、cts,a soundregistration system of data elements should be established tosupport for enterprises in clarifying ownership of data property,and in promotion of circulation of data transactions.The designof data registration system can be carried out in classificationand grade.The data registration may

194、include multiple typesincluding primary registration and transaction registration.It issuggestedthatatrustedregistrationsystemshouldbeestablished where data assets or product registration combineswith data transaction,and on-market and off-market transactionssupport each other.First,build a data reg

195、istration systematicstructure that on-market data registration and off-market datatransaction recordation combines;second,different types ofregistration certificates should be issued according to differentregistrations while different pricing and financial statemententering mechanisms should be form

196、ed;third,the differentfinancial attributes of different types of data registration shouldbe distinguished to prevent financial risks efficiently;fourth,thecertificate of the ownership of data with the data transactionsrecordation should be deemed as the primary evidence inlawsuits;fifth,a dispute se

197、ttlement mechanism of dual-track北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court36approach involving data registration should be established.Fordisputes arising from the registration notified by registrationauthorities,the disputing parties should be allowed to complainto the dispute settlement instituti

198、ons set up by registrationauthorities,or bring a lawsuit to the court.(2)Improve the system of data transaction.To facilitatedata flow,data transaction principles should be clarified.Thefollowingvaluesshouldbeconsidered:thelegalityandcompliance,the fairness and voluntariness,the combinationwith the

199、transactions inside and outside the market,the safetyand controllability.The objects of data transactions should beclarified,including data products,data services and data tools,etc.Also we should keep exploring the evaluation mechanism ofdata assets,continuously promote the efforts to record dataas

200、setsinfinancialstatements.Buildtrustedtransactionplatforms leading by data exchanges,improve rules for datatransaction,clarifyservicefunctionslikematchingoftransaction,data pricing,data delivery,registration settlement ofdatatransactions,datacleaningandvalue-adding,datacompliance and quality assessm

201、ent,and build an circulationenvironmentfeaturinglow-cost,high-efficiencyandtrust.Establish a sound dispute settlement mechanism of data北京知识产权法院Beijing Intellectual Property Court37transactions to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests oftransaction parties.(3)Perfect the system of data applic

202、ation.Improve datausage and management system so as to provide policy supportand system guarantee that enables enterprises to make in-depthuse of the data.Strengthen construction of infrastructure of dataapplication,expand and promote application of data throughindustries,social management and publi

203、c services,and otherfields.Make active efforts to explore,develop and utilize publicdata,clarify the principle of authorized operation of public data,assignment of duties,safety monitoring,etc.to benefit the wholesociety from the potential value of public data and to empowerthe development of digital economy.