Date of
Judgment: December 19, 2011
Issuing
Authority: Supreme Court
Level of
the Issuing Authority: Final Instance
Type of
Procedure: Judicial
(Criminan( �b>
Subject
Matter:
Patent (Inventions)
Summary
of the judgment (decision):
In the
case where the accused was prosecuted for accessoryship to violation of the
Copyright Act on the grounds that he released a file-sharing software program
called Winny, which can be used both for legitimate purposes and for the
purpose of infringing copyrights, and provided it to many and unspecified
persons via the Internet, thereby aiding the principals in infringing the
authors' right to effect public transmission of their works, with the use of
said software program, given the facts of the case (as described in the text of
the decision), namely, (i) it is obvious that the accused did not release and
provide Winny while perceiving or accepting a specific and immediate risk of
copyright infringement to be committed with the use of it, and (ii) upon
releasing and providing Winny, the accused always warned users not to use Winny
for the purpose of infringing copyrights, it is difficult to go so far as to
find that the accused perceived or accepted a high probability that a wide
range of persons would use Winny for the purpose of infringing copyrights to a
level where their use cannot be tolerated as exceptional, so the accused lacked
the intent of accessoryship to the crime of violation of the Copyright Act.
(There is
a dissenting opinion.)