OTOY诉KOZLOV Octane渲染器起诉FStorm渲染器侵权判定！

13.02.2020 | OTOY诉KOZLOV Octane渲染器起诉FStorm渲染器侵权判定！

OTOY诉Kozlov
自从纽西兰的奥玩具和PinkSoft的创始人AndreyKozlov，FStormRender的创作者AndreyKozlov之间的对峙结束以来，已经过去了两年。
Zuykov及其合作伙伴(知识产权保护)成功地捍卫了Andrey Kozlov和PinkSoft的权利，并给出了反馈他们是怎么想的。

OTOY诉Kozlov
判断这个州的最佳标准是它如何判断。
S.E.让我们

OTOY新西兰有限公司(新西兰)和Pinksoft有限公司(俄罗斯联邦)之间一年多的法律纠纷已经结束。它被认为是关于谁是FStormRender计算机程序的版权持有者的问题，以及Pinksoft LLC和Kozlov A.A.是否侵犯了新西兰公司对OcaverRender程序的版权。

同时，这些插件的许多用户想要使用许可的软件，不想接触假冒仍然无法理解谁是对的。OTOY新西兰有限公司说，PinkSoft LLC及其首席执行官Andrei Kozlov是剽窃者，侵犯了版权，Pinksoft说其公司是由Andrei Kozlov开发的FStormRender软件的正确版权持有者。

在此，双方乍一看，提出了相当令人信服的论点，提到俄罗斯和新西兰关于保护这些软件产品版权的司法裁决。

新西兰OTOY有限公司以新西兰高等法院2017年9月22日对其有利的司法裁决(OTOY新西兰有限公司诉Andrey Kozlov案)为其立场辩护。在这一司法裁决中，法院认定Kozlov A.A.抄袭了OTOY新西兰有限公司所属的计算机程序OcaverRender。因此，法院承认被告的行为(向公众提起并分发计算机程序FStormRender)侵犯了OTOY新西兰有限公司的版权。
Https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/c8/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/07187d66-d156-44dc-9ce7-4feb335a0a5c/07187d66-d156-44dc-9ce7-4feb335a0a5c.pdf

此外，莫斯科市法院裁定，原告没有证明https://fstormrender.ru，网站上托管的FStormRender程序产品与2017年12月5日第3-0292/2017号案件中的OcaverRender软件程序相同。在这方面，OTOY新西兰有限公司提出的禁止创造技术条件的诉讼，以确保在网站上以FStormRender的名义放置、分发和以其他方式使用计算机程序辛烷渲染。Https://fstormrender.ru至A.A.Kozlov和Pinksoft有限责任公司被拒绝。因此，莫斯科市法院的司法裁决有利于Kozlov A.A.和Pinksoft LLC。
Https://www.mos-gorsud.ru/mgs/cases/docs/content/99970eef-c4e0-4341-bfba-7ccc6959389e
Https://www.mos-gorsud.ru/mgs/services/cases/first-civil/details/9824ceaf-435e-4e9e-9362-b3c050de2437
Https://www.mos-gorsud.ru/mgs/services/cases/board-civil/details/0493a152-bb7f-4c68-80d8-115a528e097c
Https://www.mos-gorsud.ru/mgs/services/cases/cassation-civil/details/abe81aca-a424-4b5e-a4d8-ee82577c6340

因此，两个司法裁决在意义和本质上是对立的，而这些软件产品的用户对这一事实产生了误解。

本文的目的是向公众提供这一情况的客观情况。它将允许每个为Autodesk产品设计的插件用户(为3DS MAX设计的程序)选择该程序的功能和法律纯度。

我们建议分析两种法律程序，并比较它们的法律程序，因为双方都侧重于司法裁决，其中包含了关于情节确定的相互矛盾的结论。这一事实导致了争议当事人关系的法律不确定性。它将让每个人自己决定他相信什么司法决定。

我建议从规范与保护计算机程序版权有关的法律关系的法律规则开始进行分析。

根据“保护文学和艺术作品伯尔尼公约”(俄罗斯联邦和新西兰是本公约缔约国)第5条，1886年在新西兰创作的作品的作者应享有俄罗斯有关法律现在或今后可能给予其国民的权利。

根据1996年12月20日“知识产权组织版权条约”第4条(俄罗斯联邦是该条约的缔约国)，计算机程序作为“伯尔尼公约”第2条意义上的文学作品受到保护。这种保护适用于计算机程序，而不论其表达的方法或形式如何。

众所周知，版权只是一个想法的表达，而不是观念本身。因此，同样的限制也适用于计算机程序。通过对与计算机软件版权保护有关的司法实践的分析表明，法院认为有关程序功能的理念本身是不受保护的，因为版权的客体只能在程序代码中表达这一思想。作者思想的唯一创造性表达是受到保护的，因为技术上的、非创造性的作品没有创造出版权的对象。这种情况假设在源代码中有几种表达相同想法的方法。

根据“伯尔尼公约”的原则，如果方案是原创的，是作者创造性活动的结果，则该方案将受到保护。没有为其可保护性确立其他标准。

如果我们考虑对程序代码的作者版权的保护及其侵犯的争议，特别是当主程序代码的要素被包含在另一个软件产品中时，应该记住，对作品的处理是基于现有作品的新(派生)作品的创作，而对作品处理的版权是使用该作品的一种方式。

为了确定侵犯计算机程序版权的事实，必须解决软件产品在范围、操作原则以及源代码中借入的可能性等方面的比例问题。与法院有关的是为这类纠纷指定计算机技术考试。

我们建议你阅读下表，其中载有法院审查的证据，以了解法院是如何得出结论的。

新西兰高等法院案

•OTOY新西兰有限公司董事Jules Urbach的宣誓证据表明，计算机程序Oktay Render是渲染技术市场上的一种独特产品，70%以上的知识产权和FStormRender软件的一般形式侵犯了奥托伊对OcaverRender软件的版权。

•截图和相应的部分源代码的辛烷和暴风软件。

•法院考虑到，Kozlov A.A.在他在新西兰OTOY有限公司的工作期间可以使用OcaverRender方案，并被专门雇用来协助开发OcaverRender方案。

莫斯科市法院案

•2017年3月16日由ZAO联邦知识产权和商业认证和估价研究所专家编写的专家意见(CJSC Sois)；

•审查Nita公司软件工程师Gavrilov V.G.于2017年3月16日编写的专家意见(有动机的意见)；

•№8014专家意见，日期为2017年6月30日，由独立专家研究、认证和技术测试中心专家ANOBorovkov D.A.汇编；

•一审法院指定了一项法医计算机技术检查，由MSTU数字信息研究中心的一名专家进行，名为N.E.Bauman，LLC I.A.Yakovlev。他的结论是，FStormRender程序的源代码/程序代码不是计算机程序“辛烷渲染”的源代码/代码的复制(副本)，在这方面，FStormRender计算机程序是一项独立的工作；

•专家Yakovlev I.A.在听证会上作证并证实了他的结论。此外，他就原告对专家意见的评论提供了详细的书面解释，他在听证会上证实了这一点；

•法院评估了被告Kozlov A.A.是OTOY新西兰有限公司的雇员这一事实，并得出结论认为，仅凭这一事实不能证明A.A.Kozlov的劳动义务和保密条件，包括他创造的软件产品不适当。根据联邦知识产权局提供的一个计算机程序的州注册证书№2016662237，计算机程序FStormRender的作者是A.A.Kozlov。

如果我们分析经新西兰法院和俄罗斯法院核实的证据，可以看出，新西兰高等法院在OTOY新西兰有限公司董事Jules Urbach的宣誓证据和不涉及计算机技术专家的情况下对反对软件产品的源代码进行了可视化比较，得出了其结论。在我们看来，这似乎是相当奇怪的，因为FStormRender程序的源代码至少由1000 A4格式的文件组成，没有特殊的编程技巧和使用特殊的软件是不可能确定借用源代码的事实的。

此外，新西兰法院无法探索FStormRender程序的源代码，因为A.A.Kozlov在新西兰高等法院审理此案时被从辩护方除名。因此，他无法实现自己的权利和保护自己。法院没有审查A.A.Kozlov提出的论点和证据。

根据俄罗斯法院审理的案件的情况，OTOY新西兰有限公司最初也希望在A.A.Kozlov和PinkSoft LLC缺席的情况下审议这一争端。在此，该公司对网站https://fstormrender.ru-域名注册官REG.RU，LLC的托管提供商提出了要求，而FStormRender程序正是在这里托管的。

然而，莫斯科市法院吸引了第三方作为第三方参与本案，但没有就争议主题A.A.Kozlov和Pinksoft LLC提出独立申诉，认为司法裁决可能影响到他们的权利和义务。

随后，OTOY新西兰有限公司提出申请，将不适当的被告--REG.RU域名注册官有限公司替换为适当的被告--Kozlov A.A.和Pinksoft有限公司。

因此，A.A.Kozlov、Pinksoft LLC和OTOY新西兰有限公司直接参与了审判，当事各方积极利用了程序权利，提出了证据，提出了动议，并在法院作了解释。从上表可以看出，法院审查了三项专家意见，其中一项意见是根据法院的任务编写的。

同时，法院评估了OTOY新西兰有限公司对I.A.Yakovlev专家意见的反对意见，并指出，法院没有理由不相信专家的结论，因为这些结论是有动机的，有科学依据的。法庭指定考试。专家被警告要承担作出错误结论的刑事责任，他的结论是客观的，并且在专家专业的框架内，在科学和实践的基础上进行了全面的研究。Yakovlev I.A.专家在高技术领域和专门的专家研究领域工作了五年，拥有专门的法医计算机-技术专门知识。专家采用了解决专家问题的方法，并参考了相关文献。专家明确而明确地回答了法院向他提出的问题。

此外，新西兰高等法院的司法裁决未被上诉到高等法院，因为A.A.Kozlov被免职，原告对通过的有利于他的司法决定感到满意。OTOY新西兰有限公司对莫斯科市法院的司法裁决提出上诉，高等法院拒绝批准申请。

我们建议比较两种法律程序，每个人都可以自己决定他相信什么司法决定。因此，我们不会作出任何结论，也不会对法庭结论的正确性或可错性作出我们自己的评估。让每一个读过这篇文章的人都做出自己的选择，使用哪一个程序。

我想用古希腊剧作家、哲学家欧里皮季斯的话来结束这篇文章：“据说，在双方的争端中，法院必须听取双方的意见”。

提交人

罗曼·拉辛
知识产权保护



Otoy vs Kozlov
The state is best judged by how it judges
S.E. Lets

More than a year legal disputes between OTOY New Zealand Limited (New Zealand) and Pinksoft LLC (Russian Federation) has concluded. It was considered the question regarding of who is the copyright holder of the FStormRender computer program and whether Pinksoft LLC and Kozlov A.A. violate New Zealand Company’s copyrights to the OctaneRender program.

At the same time, many users of these plugins who want to use licensed software and do not want to contact counterfeit still cannot understand who is right. OTOY New Zealand Limited says that PinkSoft LLC and its CEO Andrei Kozlov are plagiarists and violate copyrights, and Pinksoft says that its company is the correct copyright holder of the FStormRender software, developed by Andrei Kozlov.

Herewith, both parties, at first glance, present quite convincing arguments, referring to Russian and New Zealand judicial decision of the protection of copyrights to these software products.

OTOY New Zealand Limited justifies its position with the judicial decision of the High Court of New Zealand dated September 22, 2017, which was adopted in its favor (Case OTOY New Zealand Limited v. Andrey Kozlov). In this judicial decision, the court established that Kozlov A.A. copied the computer program «OctaneRender», belonged by OTOY New Zealand Limited. Therefore, the court acknowledged that the actions of the defendant (bringing to the public and distributing the computer program «FStormRender») violated the OTOY New Zealand Limited’s copyright.
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/c8/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/07187d66-d156-44dc-9ce7-4feb335a0a5c/07187d66-d156-44dc-9ce7-4feb335a0a5c.pdf

Besides, the Moscow City Court established that the plaintiff did not prove that the FStormRender program product, hosted on the site https://fstormrender.ru, was identical to the OctaneRender software program in case No. 3-0292/2017 dated December 5, 2017. In this connection, OTOY New Zealand Limited’s lawsuit of prohibition to create technical conditions that ensure the placement, distribution, and other use of the computer program «Octane Render» under the name «FStormRender» on the site https://fstormrender.ru to A.A. Kozlov and Pinksoft LLC was denied. Therefore, the judicial decision of the Moscow City Court was in favor of Kozlov A.A. and Pinksoft LLC.
https://www.mos-gorsud.ru/mgs/cases/docs/content/99970eef-c4e0-4341-bfba-7ccc6959389e
https://www.mos-gorsud.ru/mgs/services/cases/first-civil/details/9824ceaf-435e-4e9e-9362-b3c050de2437
https://www.mos-gorsud.ru/mgs/services/cases/board-civil/details/0493a152-bb7f-4c68-80d8-115a528e097c
https://www.mos-gorsud.ru/mgs/services/cases/cassation-civil/details/abe81aca-a424-4b5e-a4d8-ee82577c6340

Thus, two judicial decisions are opposite in meaning and essence, and users of these software products are misunderstanding this fact.

The purpose of this article is to provide the public with an objective picture of this situation. It will let each user of plugins designed for Autodesk's product (a program for 3DS MAX) choose the program regarding its functionality and also its legal purity.

We propose to analyze two legal processes and compare their legal procedures because both parties focus on judicial decisions, which contain conflicting conclusions regarding the establishment of circumstances. This fact leads to legal uncertainty in the relations of the disputing parties. It will let each person determine for himself what judicial decision he trusts.

I propose to start the analysis with the rules of law that regulate the legal relations connected with the protection of the copyrights to computer programs.

According to Article 5 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Russian Federation and New Zealand are parties of this Convention) adopted on September 09, 1886 authors of the works created in New Zealand shall enjoy the rights which respective Russian laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals.

According to Article 4 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty dated December 20, 1996 (Russian Federation is parties of this Treaty), computer programs are protected as literary works in the sense of Article 2 of the Berne Convention. Such protection extends to computer programs regardless of the method or form of their expression.

It is known that copyright is only the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. Therefore, the same restrictions apply to computer programs. An analysis of judicial practice related to the protection of computer software copyrights shows that the courts think that the very idea about functions of the program is not protected, because the object of copyright can only be an expression of this idea in the program code. The only creative expression of the author’s idea is protected because technical, uncreative work does not create an object of copyright. This situation assumes that there are several ways to express the same idea in the source code.

In accordance with the principles of the Berne Convention, the program will be protected if it is original and is the result of the creative activity of the author. No other criteria for its protectability are established.

If we consider a dispute regarding the protection of the author’s copyrights of a program code and its violation, in particular, when elements of the main program code are included in another software product, it should be borne in mind that processing of the work is the creation of a new (derivative) work based on an existing work, and copyright to processing of the work is one way of using the work.

In order to establish the fact of violation of the copyright to a computer program, it is necessary to solve the issue of the ratio of opposed software products regarding scope, the principle of operation, as well as the availability of borrowings in their source codes. In connection with the courts appoint a computer-technical examination for this category of disputes.

We suggest you to read the table below, which contains the evidence examined by the courts to understand how the courts came to their conclusions.

The New Zealand High Court Case

• The sworn evidence of the director of OTOY New Zealand Limited corporation, Jules Urbach, that the computer program «Oktay Render» is a unique product in the market of rendering technologies, as well as that more than 70% of intellectual property and general form of the FStormRender software violates Otoy's copyrights to OctaneRender software.

• Screenshots and corresponding parts of the source code of the Octane and FStormRender software.

• The court took into account that Kozlov A.A. had access to the OctaneRender program during his work at OTOY New Zealand Limited, and was hired specifically to assist the development of the OctaneRender program.

The Moscow City Court Case

• The expert opinion dated March 16, 2017, prepared by an expert of ZAO Federal Institute for the Certification and Valuation of Intellectual Property and Business (CJSC SOIS) Leontyev B. B.;

• Review (motivated opinion) of the expert opinion dated March 16, 2017, compiled by the software engineer of NITA Firm LLC, Gavrilov V.G.;

• Expert opinion № 8014 dated June 30, 2017, compiled by an expert of the Independent Expertise Research, Certification and Technical Testing Center ANO Borovkov D.A.;

• The court of the first instance appointed a forensic computer-technical examination, which was conducted by an expert of the «Digital Information Research Center of MSTU named N.E. Bauman», LLC I.A. Yakovlev. He concluded that the source code/program code for the FStormRender program is not a reproduction (copy) of the source text/code of the computer program «Octane Render», in this connection the FStormRender computer program is an independent work;

• Expert Yakovlev I.A. gave the testimony at the hearing and confirmed his conclusion. Moreover, he provided detailed written explanations on the plaintiff's comments to the expert’s opinion, which he confirmed at the hearing;

• The court assessed the fact that the defendant Kozlov A.A. was an employee in OTOY New Zealand Limited and concluded that this fact alone cannot testify to an inappropriate performance by A. A. Kozlov his labor obligations and confidentiality conditions, including those software products created by him. The author of the computer program «FStormRender» is A. A. Kozlov, according to certificate № 2016662237 of the state registration of a computer program provided by the Federal Service for Intellectual Property.

If we analyze the evidence that was checked by New Zealand and Russian courts, it can be seen that the High Court of New Zealand came to its conclusions, guided by the sworn evidence of the director of OTOY New Zealand Limited corporation, Jules Urbach and the visual comparing the source codes of opposed software products without involving specialists in the field of computer technology. In our opinion, it seems rather strange, because the source code of the «FStormRender» program consists of at least 1000 A4 format paper and it is impossible to establish the fact of borrowing source code without special skills in programming and to use special software.

Besides, the New Zealand court could not explore the source code of the FStormRender program because of A. A. Kozlov was removed from the defense during the considering of the case in the High Court of New Zealand. Therefore he was not able to implement his rights and protect himself. The court did not examine the arguments and evidence presented by A.A. Kozlov.

According to the circumstances of the case examined by the Russian court, the company «OTOY New Zealand Limited» initially also wanted the dispute to be considered in the absence of A. A. Kozlov and PinkSoft LLC. Herewith, the company made requirements to the hosting provider of the site https://fstormrender.ru – Domain Name Registrar REG.RU, LLC, where the FStormRender program was hosted.

However, the Moscow City Court attracted to participate in the case as third parties without independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute A. A. Kozlov and Pinksoft LLC, believing that the judicial decision may affect the rights and obligations of them.

Subsequently, OTOY New Zealand Limited file an application of replacement of the inappropriate defendant – REG.RU Domain Name Registrar LLC with the appropriate one – Kozlov A.A. and Pinksoft LLC.

Thus, A.A. Kozlov, Pinksoft LLC, and OTOY New Zealand Limited took a direct part in the trial, the parties actively used the procedural rights, presented evidence, filed motions, gave explanations in the court. As can be seen from the table above, the court examined three expert opinions, one of which was prepared by the task of the court.

At the same time, the court evaluated the objections of the OTOY New Zealand Limited company regarding of the I. A. Yakovlev’s expert opinion and noted that there were no grounds for the court not to trust the expert’s conclusions, because they were motivated, scientifically substantiated. The court appointed the examination. The expert was warned of criminal liability for giving a false conclusion, his conclusions are objective, and the research has been carried out comprehensively on a scientific and practical basis, within the framework of expert specialty. Expert Yakovlev I.A. works in the field of high technology and specialized expert research for five years, has a specialization «Forensic Computer-Technical Expertise». The expert applied the methodology for solving expert problems and referred to the relevant literature. The expert answered the questions posed to him by the court clearly and unequivocally.

Moreover, the judicial decision of the High Court of New Zealand was not appealed to a higher court because A.A. Kozlov was removed from the defense, and the plaintiff was satisfied with the judicial decision adopted in his favor. The judicial decision of the Moscow City Court was appealed by OTOY New Zealand Limited, and the higher courts denied granting the application.

We propose to compare two legal processes, and each person can determine for himself what judicial decision he trusts. Therefore, we will not make any conclusions and give our own assessment of the correctness or fallibility of the court conclusions. Let everybody who reads this article will make his personal choice, which program to use.

I would like to end the article with the words of the ancient Greek playwright, philosopher Euripides: «It is well said that in a dispute between the two parties, the court must listen to both parties».

The author

Roman Larshin
Intellectual Property Protection