Data Type Differentiation and Ownership Analysis in Case Studies(30)

Weibo v. iDataAPI: About data storage behavior

With regard to data storage, the defendant appealed and asserted:

• The evidence submitted by the plaintiff showed that iData API dynamically obtained the latest data of Weibo in real time according to customer needs, but because it could not predict the data required by customers, it was impossible and unnecessary for the defendant to obtain Weibo data in advance and store it in its own server.
• The defendant only used technical means to establish a data channel, but did not carry out data storage.

1) In order to prove its claim, the defendant also submitted the following evidence when appealing: the online articles "Introduction to API Interface (1): Understanding API Interface Documents", "What is API Interface? Give You Examples", Baidu Encyclopedia introduces the "API Interface" web page, and the relevant development documents of "Weibo API" displayed on the Weibo Open Platform, and the journal paper "Distributed Scraping Technology Based on Weibo API" (2013), "Design and Implementation of Crawler System Based on Chrome Extension" (2016);Trusted timestamp: The open-source code that collects Weibo data is publicly available on the GitHub website certified on September 23, 2022.

2) The court did not accept the fact that the purpose of the evidence proved that "the API interface only has the function of real-time transmission". The court of second instance held that Exhibit 10 was an online article whose identity was unknown and that it was difficult to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the content; Exhibits 11 and 12 were academic papers, which only represented the defendant's recognition of the author's academic views; and Exhibit 13 belonged to program code published on the Internet by program enthusiasts claiming to be able to obtain Weibo data, and the meaning and operation effect of the relevant code were unclear. Such materials are not admissible.

The court of second instance did not accept the defendant's appeal opinion based on the following analysis:

• Normally, each piece of information displayed on a web page has a unique web address URL, and the server that points to it is the source from which the information content is provided. The domain name addresses of the 11 alleged API interfaces are idataapi.cn, which indicates that the Weibo data provided by the defendant actually comes from its own server;
• iDataAPI users can directly use the browser to download data files in json, csv, and xml formats from the iDataAPI website, and the download address and domain name are the same.
• The defendant advertised that it deployed servers in multiple places to provide API interfaces, and suggested that users choose to deploy servers close to their own regions, so it can be seen that the speed and stability of the data provided by the defendant were closely related to the location of its servers and users, which proved that Weibo data was not directly transmitted from the Weibo server to iDataAPI users.
• Judging from the specific data provided by the defendant, five new field data that do not belong to the original Weibo data appear at the beginning and end, namely "appCode (the name of the API for this query)", "pageToken (page turning value)", "hasNext (whether there is a next page)", "dataType (the api type of this query)", and "recode (the status returned)". Without storing data, it is technically difficult to insert new fields.

The court of second instance also emphasized that even if it is not stored in advance, there is at least a high possibility of "storage (at least cache)", and whether or not "the corresponding data is deleted upon delivery" does not affect the determination of storage behavior. The Court held that:

• Even if, due to cost and technical necessity considerations, the defendant did not obtain the Weibo data in advance and store it, the evidence in the case is sufficient to prove the high probability that it obtains the Weibo data according to the customer's needs and stores it on the iData API server (at least cached), otherwise it is difficult to provide users with downloading Weibo data in different file formats through the API interface set up on its own server, and it is difficult to add custom fields to the data, and it is also difficult to provide customized Weibo data capture services. (Here we can see the Antfang Weibo case, but the qualitative problems of caching and storage behavior under the API mode are still more common in disputes over information network rights.) ）
• Whether or not the defendant deleted the data after delivering the data to the user does not affect the above determination.
• Taking a step back, even if the defendant cached the Weibo data by some technical means, it could not be exempted from liability according to the circumstances of this case, and it did not provide any evidence to prove its arguments or give a reasonable explanation of the technology. Therefore, the grounds of appeal cannot be sustained and are not supported.

Weibo v. iDataAPI: Regarding the sale of data

The defendant appealed and claimed that it charged service fees according to the number of times users called the API interface, and did not charge fees according to the specific content of different Weibo data, that is, it only provided API interface technical services instead of selling Weibo data. The court of second instance rejected the case on the following grounds:

• The following conduct shows that the defendant itself is selling Weibo data as a commodity, rather than just providing technical services:

1) The business links of the 11 API interfaces sued are located under the "Data Mall" section of the iDataAPI website, and users are also reminded of "data that they often purchase together";

2) The defendant clearly stated in the iDataAPI Service Agreement that registered users can use all data resources published by iDataAPI;

3) The defendant also used the "Weibo API" as a keyword in Baidu's search ranking rankings, and used the "Sina Weibo" graphic logo on the website to promote the iData API.

• The defendant did not provide a general data acquisition tool, but captured Weibo data independently, directly, and in a targeted manner, and its users never instructed it to use deceptive technical means such as changing IP addresses and Weibo user uids, and did not even need to know the specific technical methods of the defendant's data capture, and only needed to fill in some parameters to obtain Weibo data;
• In the special audit report submitted by the defendant in the second instance, the contract transaction between the defendant and the customer was based on "delivery of data" and "transfer of control of goods" as the performance conditions and the conditions for calculating the realization of income, that is, in essence, data was used as the subject matter of the transaction; (In the second-instance evidence submitted by the defendant, the Special Audit Report on Income, 14 service contracts for collecting Weibo data signed by the defendant and the customer were clearly listed, and the court found that this evidence could also prove that the defendant had customized and captured Weibo data according to different customer needs.) ）
• For example, the defendant charges a higher fee (2 yuan/100 times) for calling an API interface that mainly provides Weibo content and a large amount of data at a time, and if it calls an API interface that mainly provides short information and has a small amount of data at a time, the fee is lower (1 yuan/100 times), which shows that the key factor affecting its differentiated pricing is the amount of data obtained at a time rather than a certain technical service;
• From the perspective of national standards and industry time, providing data through API interfaces is a typical data trading behavior, and data products listed on big data exchanges often deliver data through API interfaces, and it is also common to charge according to the number of API interface calls.

In summary, the court of second instance held that:

• Whether the data is delivered directly according to the customer's customized needs, or transmitted through an API interface or other means, the data itself is the object of the defendant's transaction with its customers.
• The defendant did not only provide API interface technical services, but also the 11 API data interfaces sued were a technical way for it to sell Weibo data, and its so-called "technology neutrality" defense lacked grounds, and the relevant grounds of appeal were untenable.

Weibo v. iDataAPI: Characterization of the alleged conduct

The court of first instance finally ruled that the five alleged acts asserted by the plaintiff constituted unfair competition, and the latter two were relatively easy to understand, focusing on the first three disputes:

• Does the defendant's provision of 11-way Weibo API data interface on the iDataAPI website constitute unfair competition?
• Does the defendant's circumvention of technical protection measures to capture, store, and sell articles paid to read by Weibo V+ members constitute unfair competition?
• Is it established that the defendant used malicious technical means to capture, store, and sell Weibo data?

Based on the following analysis, the court of first instance ruled that the accused act constituted unfair competition:

• Based on the relevant discussions of the first to third alleged acts, it has become the consensus of the industry and market transaction rules to protect the rights and interests of enterprise data property and prohibit unauthorized illegal invasion, capture, storage, and sale of data in which others enjoy legitimate rights and interests, in accordance with the self-discipline convention on enterprise data protection, the rules for data market transactions, and the service agreements signed between Internet enterprises and users.

The documents cited here include the July 1, 2016 Self-Discipline Convention for the Data Circulation Industry Version 2.0 submitted by the plaintiff, the Data Interconnection Rules issued by the Shanghai Data Exchange Center in April 2017, the China Online Copyright and Data Information Use Rules and Competition Norms in July 2017, and the software and service use agreements signed between some Internet companies and users (the rules of other platforms obtained by the plaintiff in June 2021, the Weixin Software License and Service Agreement, and the Youku User Service Agreement) Clause 2.1 (3) of the iDataAPI Service Agreement published on the iDataAPI website states that "if the user makes a malicious request (iDataAPI has the right to make its own judgment)", iDataAPI has the right to stop the service and protect its rights.

• Based on the ascertained facts, it can be determined that Jian Yixun Company provided Weibo data scraping, storage, and sales services to network users without permission;
• Such acts caused damage to WeDream: first, they increased the burden of WeDream's operating costs, and second, they undermined the normal operation of the Weibo service, reduced WeDream's operating income, and caused damage to WeDream's property rights and interests in Weibo data. Among them, "operating cost burden" means that according to the Weibo Service Use Agreement, Weimeng Company shall bear the responsibility of maintaining data security and normal operation while enjoying property rights and interests in Weibo data, and must pay a lot of operating costs for this.
• Jian Yixun's behavior also undermined the fair and honest market competition order.

The defendant was dissatisfied with the original judgment, and when appealing, in addition to putting forward the opinion that he only provided API technical services and did not use malicious technical means, he also proposed that the first instance had erroneously identified business ethics in a specific field, and the specific situation will be seen tomorrow.

Reference:

On January 19, 2024, the WeChat official account of Intellectual Property Treasure released "Competition Case|The First Case Involving Weibo Data Capture Transaction, Guangdong High Court Final Judgment!" (Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province (2020) Yue 03 Min Chu No. 4626)