發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-01 17:02

  本文選題：專家輔助人 + 搜索引擎�。� 參考：《湖南大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：科學(xué)技術(shù)的快速發(fā)展給司法實(shí)踐帶來了許多新問題，越來越多專家輔助人參與訴訟，，搜索引擎侵權(quán)的現(xiàn)象也頻頻發(fā)生。專家輔助人的意見是否具有證明力、搜索引擎惡意代碼提示行為是否構(gòu)成侵權(quán)成為寶鼎律師事務(wù)所訴谷歌公司侵權(quán)案的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)。專家輔助人意見的合法地位和證據(jù)能力已經(jīng)得到了法律的確認(rèn)，衡量其證明力的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)很大程度上取決于專家輔助人的資格、專家輔助人意見的中立性以及對(duì)該意見是否經(jīng)過充分的詢問和質(zhì)證。在司法實(shí)踐中，具備專家資格、經(jīng)過充分交叉詢問和質(zhì)證的專家輔助人意見具有證明力。為了維護(hù)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)秩序，保護(hù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶的合法權(quán)益，搜索引擎應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)有限審查義務(wù)和社會(huì)公共職能，對(duì)鏈接網(wǎng)頁的合法性和安全性進(jìn)行監(jiān)測(cè)，因此，搜索引擎應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)惡意代碼進(jìn)行審查和提示。但是搜索引擎必須嚴(yán)格依法行使權(quán)利、履行義務(wù)，由于惡意代碼不是《互聯(lián)網(wǎng)信息管理辦法》第15條規(guī)定的明顯、直接違法信息，因此搜索引擎沒有權(quán)利屏蔽、刪除存在惡意代碼的網(wǎng)頁。自動(dòng)完成的惡意代碼監(jiān)測(cè)和提示行為雖然對(duì)鏈接網(wǎng)頁運(yùn)營商造成了負(fù)面影響，但是提示行為和損害結(jié)果之間不存在侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成要件中的因果關(guān)系。搜索引擎提示惡意代碼的行為如果構(gòu)成侵權(quán)，則屬于直接侵權(quán)行為，以過錯(cuò)責(zé)任為歸責(zé)要件。由于搜索引擎的惡意代碼提示行為沒有特定對(duì)象，也不存在人為干預(yù)，其目的是保護(hù)廣大網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶免受惡意軟件的侵害，因此這種提示行為是積極履行網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商義務(wù)的行為，不存在主觀過錯(cuò)。
[Abstract]:The rapid development of science and technology has brought many new problems to judicial practice. More and more experts assist people to participate in litigation, and the phenomenon of search engine infringement also occurs frequently. Whether the expert assistant's opinion has the proof power, whether the search engine malicious code prompt behavior constitutes the infringement becomes the dispute focal point in the Baoding law firm v. the Google company infringement case. The legal status and evidentiary capacity of expert auxiliaries have been recognized by law and the criteria for measuring their probative power depend to a large extent on the qualifications of expert auxiliaries, The neutrality of the expert Auxiliary opinion and whether it has been adequately questioned and cross-examined. In judicial practice, the opinions of experts who have the qualification of experts and are fully cross-examined and cross-examined have the power of proof. In order to maintain the Internet order and protect the legitimate rights and interests of network users, search engines should undertake limited censorship obligations and social public functions to monitor the legality and security of linked web pages. Search engines should review and prompt malicious code. However, search engines must strictly exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations according to law. Since malicious code is not an obvious and direct illegal information as stipulated in Article 15 of the Internet Information Management measures, search engines have no right to shield it. Delete pages with malicious code. Although the self-completed malicious code monitoring and prompting behavior has a negative impact on the operators of linked web pages, there is no causal relationship between the prompt behavior and the damage result in the constitutive elements of tort liability. If the behavior of malicious code prompted by search engine constitutes infringement, it is a direct tort, and the fault liability is the imputation element. Because the malicious code prompt behavior of the search engine has no specific object and no human intervention, its purpose is to protect the vast number of network users from malware, so it is an active act to fulfill the obligations of the network service provider. There is no subjective fault.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D920.5;D922.16;D925

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王雨雋;;惡意代碼特征及其危害[J];信息安全與技術(shù);2011年11期

2 王融;李長恩;;搜索引擎作為信息中介的侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究[J];北京郵電大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年01期

3 邵劭;;論專家證人制度的構(gòu)建——以專家證人制度與鑒定制度的交叉共存為視角[J];法商研究;2011年04期

4 張錚;;搜索引擎行業(yè)存在的法律問題及其規(guī)制[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年04期

5 左寧;;我國刑事專家輔助人制度基本問題論略[J];法學(xué)雜志;2012年12期

6 王素芳;;關(guān)于司法鑒定人出庭作證制度的思考[J];前沿;2011年14期

7 殷華;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索引擎侵權(quán)的事實(shí)認(rèn)定和法律價(jià)值判斷[J];人民司法;2010年10期

8 王俊民;沈亮;;訴訟輔助人意見與鑒定結(jié)論證據(jù)屬性比較研究[J];中國司法鑒定;2006年06期

9 胡衛(wèi)平;;專家證據(jù)的可采性——美國法上的判例和規(guī)則及其法理分析[J];環(huán)球法律評(píng)論;2005年06期

10 蔡智澄,王志華;搜索引擎的主要特點(diǎn)及其檢索策略[J];現(xiàn)代情報(bào);2005年05期

本文編號(hào)：1964980