尊敬的审判长、审判员：

浙江利群律师事务所接受王某、台州甲信息技术有限公司（下称甲公司）的委托，指派我们作为其与上海乙科技有限公司（下称乙公司）著作权权属纠纷上诉一案的代理人，现结合庭审归纳的争议焦点及法庭调查所查明情况，根据《著作权法》等相关法律规定，发表如下代理意见：

一、一审对本案的审理完全符合《民诉法》的有关规定，其审理并未违反法定程序。

上诉人所称“一审法院在一审过程中调查发现对案件审理有关键性作用的证据材料”全系上诉人一方陈述，并无任何证据。被上诉人为证明涉案软件的开发完成时间确实向一审法院申请调取有关存放予台州丙公司有关移动客户使用涉案软件记录及被上诉人在台州丙公司工作期间的邮箱内容，但因台州丙公司未予提供，故不存在向上诉人出示的问题。若是上诉人认为需要向台州丙公司调取其他所谓关键性证据，则应由上诉人在举证期内向一审法院申请，然一审举证期内却未见未见上诉人有过相关申请。

二、一审认定事实正确，论证亦无不当，上诉人要求确认其为涉案软件的著作权人缺乏依据。

（一）被上诉人王某系涉案《企业短彩信接入平台软件》（下称软mas软件）的开发者，涉案软件的著作权属于王某所有。

根据《著作权法》及《计算机保护条例》的规定，除法律另有规定外，软件著作权属于软件开发者。对此，上诉人在先前的庭审中也已认可涉案软件系王某所开发完成，尽管上诉人称涉案软件的开发者除王某之外，还包括万勇波等人，但上诉人却未能提供任何相应证据，甚至也未见万勇波本人的任何说明。而我们向法庭所提供的软mas软件的源代码及相关证据恰恰证明王某系该软件的开发者。因此，除非上诉人能提供证据证明涉案软件存在符合《著作权法》第十六条第二款以及《计算机保护条例》第十三条规定情形，否则该软件的著作权则应推定为归王某所有。软mas软件的著作权主体之所以登记为甲公司，系经王某许可转让，甲公司对该软件著作权完全是合法持有。

（二）涉案的《企业短彩信接入平台软件》（下称软mas软件）并非为王某本职工作中明确指定的开发目标开发的软件。上诉人称涉案软件系其委派被上诉人王某至中国移动通信集团浙江有限公司金华分公司（下称金华丁公司）所开发并完成并非事实。

1、虽然上诉人提供的《劳动合同》和《岗位说明书》中提到被上诉人王某的工作内容为“设计、开发、维护符合功能、性能要求”的软件产品等，但这仅是对工作岗位的概括性职责要求，劳动合同中约定或岗位职责中提到被上诉人王某的工作内容之一为开发软件并不必然推断出其要求王某开发涉案的软mas软件，王斯平作为软件技术人员完全有权利在工作之余为自己开发用人单位未要求开发的软件。上诉人提交的王某《2011年工作小结》中虽涉及软mas软件的接入、企业二次开发等工作内容，也是基于被上诉人王某在与上诉人签订《金华软mas项目合作框架协议》及拟签订的《软mas项目合作协议》约定的王某负有远程开发及后台支持的义务，并非基于被上诉人王某的工作职责本身。

2、上诉人提供《劳动合同》仅显示被上诉人王某工作地点为浙江省地市移动公司，并非为上诉人处也未明确为金华丁公司，上诉人实际工作的地点位于何处，对此上诉人在庭审中也始终是闪烁其词未予明确。而上诉人提供的王某《2011年工作小结》中“其他”工作内容指向的服务对象天台县农村合作银行、临海市民卡项目集团短信开发、台州市名媛化妆品、三门广播电台、抽奖平台开发（椒江公司需求）等均为台州单位，若如上诉人所说被上诉人是被派驻于金华丁公司工作，按照移动公司的严格的地域限定，被上诉人王某工作服务企业对象均应位于金华，不可能有工作小结中的这些单位涉及，说明被上诉人王某派驻的地方为台州丙公司，而非金华丁公司。对此，被上诉人向法庭提交的2010年3月12日邮件及2010年4月19日（台州丙公司IDC客户手册）两份邮件以及证人的证言中也均证实了被上诉人王某的工作地点为台州丙公司。上诉人称涉案软件系其委派被上诉人王某至中国移动通信集团浙江有限公司金华丁公司（下称金华丁公司）所开发完全是上诉人一方凭空陈述，无任何依据。

3、涉案软件在上诉人与金华丁公司签订合作协议之前即 2009年07月08日即已开发完成，并于2009年12月1日在台州丙公司正式商用。涉案软件著作权证登记的开发完成时间虽为2011年9月5日，该时间仅是为了将该软件的著作权人登记为甲公司而在申请著作权登记证书时随意填写（甲公司成立于2011年2月份，故登记时间只能在这之后，从上诉人提交的2011年9月7日邮件也可看出上诉人试图登记的开发完成时间却是2009年07月08日），并非软件的实际开发时间。我们提交的2010年3月12日邮件、2010年4月19日（台州丙公司IDC客户手册）邮件、情况说明、集团短/彩信业务使用协议、集团短信申请表、金华丁公司2011年软MAS维护合同等相关证据均能证明涉案软件的开发完成时间。

上诉人提交的王某《2011年工作小结》中虽提到其2011年从事的工作事项涉及软mas的接入、企业二次开发等内容，但企业的二次开发恰是以软mas软件的存在为前提的，这也恰说明软mas软件实际在2011年实际已经开发完成。

（三）答辩人从开始开发软mas软件到完成开发期间从未利用上诉人的任何物质技术条件。

根据《著作权法实施条例》第十一条第二款的规定，著作权法第十六条第二款关于职务作品的规定中的“物质技术条件”，是指该法人或者该组织为公民完成创作专门提供的资金、设备或者资料。本案中上诉人既未向被上诉人为开发软mas软件提供资金、设备，也未提供任何资料。尽管上诉人称其为被上诉人王某开发软mas软件支付了专门费用，并由被上诉人王某向上诉人出具了载明为短彩信接入平台（金华软mas）开发费的收条。但该费用实际仅是答辩人因与上诉人合作该获得的许可金华丁公司使用软mas软件后所得收益的分成，并非专门的开发资金。

1、上诉人与金华丁公司签订《金华丁公司2011年软mas维护合同》时软mas软件已经开发完成。我们已向法庭提供了充足的证据证明软mas软件的开发完成时间是2009年7月份，上诉人与金华丁公司签订《维护合同》的时间为2010年12月24日，且被上诉人王某收取所谓开发费的时间均为2011年之后，而这期间根本不存在为开发软mas软件支付专门资金或开发费的问题。

2、被上诉人王某与上诉人公司签订的《金华丁公司软mas项目合作框架协议》中已明确约定双方就上诉人与金华丁公司公司短彩信项目合作项目支付被上诉人王某费用分成为3:7，即上诉人公司与金华公司的合作项目中上诉人需支付被上诉人王某70%的收入分成，并由被上诉人王某向上诉人提供短、彩信接入服务（软mas平台）开发经费的收条。由此也可知，上诉人所谓的开发费实际也即为收益分成。

综上，我们认为，一审法院认定事实正确，王某是涉案软件该软件的开发者，该软件的著作权应推定为其所有，现该软件登记于甲公司名下，乃系王某的合法转让。上诉人称涉案软件系王某在上诉人处工作期间利用上诉人提供的物质条件，针对本质工作中明确指定的开发目标所开发的软件根本不存在，其主张涉案软件的权属为其所有亦不能成立。请依法驳回上诉人上诉诉请。

浙江利群律师事务所  

毛灵见、何美玲律师  

二O一三年四月二十三日

附相关法律依据1份

附 相关法律法规:

一、《著作权法》

第九条 著作权人包括：

（一）作者；

（二）其他依照本法享有著作权的公民、法人或者其他组织。

第十六条 公民为完成法人或者其他组织工作任务所创作的作品是职务作品，除本条第二款的规定以外，著作权由作者享有，但法人或者其他组织有权在其业务范围内优先使用。作品完成两年内，未经单位同意，作者不得许可第三人以与单位使用的相同方式使用该作品。

有下列情形之一的职务作品，作者享有署名权，著作权的其他权利由法人或者其他组织享有，法人或者其他组织可以给予作者奖励：

（一）主要是利用法人或者其他组织的物质技术条件创作，并由法人或者其他组织承担责任的工程设计图、产品设计图、地图、计算机软件等职务作品；

（二）法律、行政法规规定或者合同约定著作权由法人或者其他组织享有的职务作品。

二、《著作权法实施条例》

第十一条 十六条第二款关于职务作品的规定中的“物质技术条件”，是指该法人或者该组织为公民完成创作专门提供的资金、设备或者资料。

第十二条 职务作品完成两年内，经单位同意，作者许可第三人以与单位使用的相同方式使用作品所获报酬，由作者与单位按约定的比例分配。

作品完成两年的期限，自作者向单位交付作品之日起计算。

三、《计算机软件保护条例》

第三条 本条例下列用语的含义：

（三）软件开发者，是指实际组织开发、直接进行开发，并对开发完成的软件承担责任的法人或者其他组织；或者依靠自己具有的条件独立完成软件开发，并对软件承担责任的自然人。

第七条 软件著作权人可以向国务院著作权行政管理部门认定的软件登记机构办理登记。软件登记机构发放的登记证明文件是登记事项的初步证明。

第九条 软件著作权属于软件开发者，本条例另有规定的除外。

如无相反证明，在软件上署名的自然人、法人或者其他组织为开发者。

第十三条 自然人在法人或者其他组织中任职期间所开发的软件有下列情形之一的，该软件著作权由该法人或者其他组织享有，该法人或者其他组织可以对开发软件的自然人进行奖励：

（一）针对本职工作中明确指定的开发目标所开发的软件；

（二）开发的软件是从事本职工作活动所预见的结果或者自然的结果；

（三）主要使用了法人或者其他组织的资金、专用设备、未公开的专门信息等物质技术条件所开发并由法人或者其他组织承担责任的软件。

Dear Chief Justice and Judge

Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm has accepted the commission of Wang and Taizhou A Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Company A) to appoint us as their agent in the appeal case of copyright dispute with Shanghai Yi Technology Co., Ltd

1、 The trial of this case in the first instance fully complies with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, and the trial did not violate legal procedures.

The appellant's statement that "the court of first instance found evidence material that plays a key role in the trial of the case during the investigation of the first instance" is all the statement of the appellant, without any evidence. The appellant did apply to the first instance court to retrieve the records of mobile customers using the software in question and the email content of the appellant during their work at Taizhou Company C to prove the completion time of the software development. However, as Taizhou Company C did not provide such information, there was no issue of presenting it to the appellant. If the appellant believes that it is necessary to obtain other so-called critical evidence from Taizhou Company C, the appellant should apply to the first instance court within the proof period, but no relevant application has been made by the appellant during the first instance proof period.

2、 The first instance found that the facts were correct, and the argument was not inappropriate. The appellant's request to confirm that they were the copyright owner of the software involved lacked evidence.

（1） The appellant Wang is the developer of the "Enterprise Short and Multimedia Message Access Platform Software" (hereinafter referred to as the "Software MAS Software") involved in the case, and the copyright of the software in question belongs to Wang.

According to the Copyright Law and the Computer Protection Regulations, unless otherwise provided by law, software copyright belongs to software developers. In response, the appellant also acknowledged in the previous trial that the software in question was developed by Wang. Although the appellant claimed that the developers of the software in question not only included Wang, but also Wan Yongbo and others, the appellant failed to provide any corresponding evidence, and even did not see any explanation from Wan Yongbo himself. The source code and relevant evidence of the software MAS we provided to the court precisely prove that Wang is the developer of the software. Therefore, unless the appellant can provide evidence to prove that the software in question complies with the provisions of Article 16 (2) of the Copyright Law and Article 13 of the Computer Protection Regulations, the copyright of the software should be presumed to belong to Wang. The reason why the copyright subject of the software MAS is registered as Company A is due to the license transfer by Wang, and Company A holds the copyright of the software completely legally.

（2） The "Enterprise Short and Multimedia Message Access Platform Software" (hereinafter referred to as "Soft MAS Software") involved in the case was not developed for the specific development goals specified by Wang in his job. The appellant claims that the software involved in the case was developed and completed by the appellant Wang at Jinhua Branch of China Mobile Communications Group Zhejiang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinhua Ding Company), which is not a fact.

1. Although the Labor Contract and Job Description provided by the appellant mention that the respondent Wang's job responsibilities include "designing, developing, and maintaining software products that meet functional and performance requirements", this is only a general responsibility requirement for the job position, As stipulated in the labor contract or mentioned in the job responsibilities, one of the job responsibilities of the appellant Wang is to develop software, which does not necessarily infer that he requires Wang to develop the software involved in the case. As a software technician, Wang Siping has the full right to develop software for himself that the employer does not require in his spare time. The appellant's "2011 Work Summary" submitted by Wang, although it involves the integration of software and enterprise secondary development, is also based on the respondent Wang's obligations for remote development and backend support as stipulated in the "Jinhua Software MAS Project Cooperation Framework Agreement" and the proposed "Software MAS Project Cooperation Agreement" signed with the appellant, not based on the respondent Wang's job responsibilities.

2. The appellant's provision of the "Labor Contract" only shows that the respondent Wang's workplace is a mobile company in Zhejiang Province, and it is not the appellant's location nor is it clearly designated as Jinhua Ding Company. The appellant's actual workplace is located, and the appellant has always been vague and unclear during the trial. However, the service objects of Tiantai County Rural Cooperative Bank, Linhai Citizen Card Project Group SMS Development, Taizhou Mingyuan Cosmetics, Sanmen Radio Station, lottery platform development (required by Jiaojiang Company), which are pointed out in the "other" work content of Wang's 2011 Work Summary provided by the appellant, are all Taizhou units, According to the strict geographical restrictions of the mobile company, the appellant Wang's work and service enterprises should all be located in Jinhua, and it is impossible for these units mentioned in the work summary to be involved. This indicates that the location where the appellant Wang is stationed is Taizhou C Company, not Jinhua Ding Company. In response, the two emails submitted by the appellant to the court on March 12, 2010 and April 19, 2010 (IDC customer manual of Taizhou Company C), as well as the testimony of witnesses, also confirmed that the appellant Wang's workplace is Taizhou Company C. The appellant claims that the software involved in the case was developed by the appellant Wang, who was appointed by him to China Mobile Zhejiang Co., Ltd. Jinhua Ding Company (hereinafter referred to as Jinhua Ding Company). The appellant's statement is completely unfounded and has no basis.

3. The software involved in the case was developed on July 8, 2009, before the appellant signed a cooperation agreement with Jinhua Ding Company, and was officially put into commercial use at Company C in Taizhou on December 1, 2009. Although the development completion time for the registration of the copyright certificate of the software involved was September 5, 2011, it was only for the purpose of registering the copyright owner of the software as Company A and filling in the copyright registration certificate at will (Company A was established in February 2011, so the registration time can only be after that. From the email submitted by the appellant on September 7, 2011, it can be seen that the development completion time that the appellant attempted to register was July 8, 2009), It is not the actual development time of the software. The emails we submitted on March 12, 2010, April 19, 2010 (IDC customer manual for Taizhou Company C), situation description, group SMS/MMS service usage agreement, group SMS application form, Jinhua Ding Company's 2011 soft MAS maintenance contract, and other relevant evidence can all prove the completion time of the development of the software involved.

Although Wang's "2011 Work Summary" submitted by the appellant mentioned that his work in 2011 involved the integration of software mas and enterprise secondary development, the enterprise's secondary development was based on the existence of software mas software, which also indicates that the software mas software was actually developed in 2011.

（3） The respondent has never utilized any material and technical conditions of the appellant from the beginning of developing the software MAS to the completion of the development.

According to the provisions of Article 11 (2) of the Implementation Regulations of the Copyright Law, the "material and technical conditions" in Article 16 (2) of the Copyright Law regarding work created for work refer to the funds, equipment, or materials specifically provided by the legal person or organization for citizens to complete their creations. In this case, the appellant did not provide funds, equipment, or any information to the respondent for the development of software mas. Although the appellant claimed that he paid a special fee for the development of the software MAS for the appellant Wang, and the appellant Wang provided the appellant with a receipt stating that it was the development fee for the Short Multimedia Message Access Platform (Jinhua Soft MAS). However, this fee is actually only a share of the profits obtained by the respondent from the license obtained by Jinhua Ding Company through cooperation with the appellant, and is not a dedicated development fund.

1. When the appellant signed the "Jinhua Ding Company 2011 Software MAS Maintenance Contract" with Jinhua Ding Company, the software MAS had already been developed. We have provided sufficient evidence to the court to prove that the development of the software MAS was completed in July 2009, and the appellant signed the "Maintenance Contract" with Jinhua Ding Company on December 24, 2010. The appellant Wang collected the so-called development fees after 2011, and there was no issue of paying special funds or development fees for the development of the software MAS during this period.

2. The "Cooperation Framework Agreement for Jinhua Ding Company Soft MAS Project" signed by the appellant Wang and the appellant company has clearly stipulated that both parties shall pay the appellant Wang a 3:7 fee share for the short and multimedia message project cooperation project between the appellant and Jinhua Ding company, which means that in the cooperation project between the appellant company and Jinhua company, the appellant shall pay 70% of the income share of the appellant Wang, and the appellant Wang shall provide the appellant with the short and multimedia message project Receipt of development funds for multimedia messaging access service (soft mas platform). From this, it can also be seen that the appellant's so-called development fees are actually income sharing.

In summary, we believe that the first instance court found that the facts were correct. Wang was the developer of the software involved in the case, and the copyright of the software should be presumed to belong to him. The software is now registered under the name of Company A and is a legitimate transfer by Wang. The appellant claimed that the software involved in the case was developed by Wang during his work with the appellant, using the material conditions provided by the appellant. The software developed specifically for the development goals specified in the essential work did not exist at all, and his claim that the ownership of the software involved belonged to him cannot be established. Please dismiss the appellant's appeal in accordance with the law.

Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm

Lawyers Mao Lingjian and He Meiling

April 23, 2013

1 copy of relevant legal basis attached

Attached are relevant laws and regulations:

1、 Copyright Law

Article 9 Copyright owners include:

（1） Author;

（2） Other citizens, legal persons, or other organizations who enjoy copyright in accordance with this Law.

Article 16: A work created by a citizen to complete the work tasks of a legal person or other organization is a work of employment. Except as provided in the second paragraph of this Article, the copyright shall be enjoyed by the author, but the legal person or other organization shall have the right to priority use within its business scope. Within two years after the completion of the work, without the consent of the unit, the author shall not permit a third party to use the work in the same way as the unit.

In any of the following situations, the author enjoys the right of authorship in a work created for the purpose of employment, while the other rights of the copyright are enjoyed by the legal person or other organization. The legal person or other organization may reward the author:

（1） Engineering design drawings, product design drawings, maps, computer software, and other professional works created mainly by utilizing the material and technical conditions of legal persons or other organizations, and undertaken by legal persons or other organizations;

（2） A work created for the benefit of a legal person or other organization as stipulated by laws, administrative regulations, or contractual agreements.

2、 Regulations on the Implementation of the Copyright Law

The "material and technical conditions" mentioned in Article 11, Article 16, Paragraph 2 of the regulations on work related to employment refer to the funds, equipment, or materials specifically provided by the legal person or organization for citizens to complete their creations.

Article 12: Within two years after the completion of a work for employment, with the consent of the unit, the author shall authorize a third party to use the work in the same manner as the unit, and the remuneration obtained shall be distributed between the author and the unit in accordance with the agreed proportion.

The two-year deadline for the completion of the work shall be calculated from the date on which the author delivers the work to the unit.

3、 Regulations on the Protection of Computer Software

Article 3: The meanings of the following terms in these Regulations:

（3） Software developer refers to a legal person or other organization that actually organizes the development, directly develops, and assumes responsibility for the completed software; Or a natural person who independently completes software development and assumes responsibility for the software depending on his own Conditional independence.

Article 7: Software copyright owners may register with the software registration agency recognized by the copyright administrative department of the State Council. The registration certificate issued by the software registration authority is the Prima facie of the registered items.

Article 9: Software copyright belongs to software developers, except as otherwise provided in these Regulations.

If there is no evidence to the contrary, the natural person, legal person, or other organization who signs on the software is the developer.

Article 13: If a natural person develops software during their tenure in a legal person or other organization under any of the following circumstances, the copyright of the software shall be enjoyed by the legal person or other organization, and the legal person or other organization may reward the natural person who develops the software:

（1） Software developed specifically for the development goals specified in the job;

（2） The software developed is a foreseeable or natural result of engaging in one's own work activities;

（3） Software developed primarily using material and technical conditions such as funds, specialized equipment, and unpublished specialized information from legal persons or other organizations, and held responsible by legal persons or other organizations.