Upon hearing, the Court of the second instance verified that: the facts ascertained during the first instance are confirmed.

　　The Court of the second instance hold that:

　　(1)　 Whether the acts of Company B constitute malicious avoidance of technical measures.

　　According to Article 24, Para 1, Item 3 of Regulations for the Protection of Computer Software, acts of intentionally avoiding or breaching the technical measures adopted by the copyright owner to protect his software copyright are infringing acts to copyright. The above regulation embodies the restricts on malicious avoidance of technical measures and the protection on computer software copyright. Copyright owner can take technical measures to protect its software copyright according to laws and regulations so as to safeguard its legal interests. That actors intentionally avoid and destroy the said technical measures constitutes the infringement to software copyright and shall bear relevant liabilities according to laws and regulations. However, the said regulation on “malicious avoidance of technical measures” cannot be blindly used. The above regulation mainly restricts the acts of malicious avoidance of technical measures conducted in connection with protectable software copyright. That the copyright owner sets unique file format for the outputted data, takes encryption measure on such file format and restricts machines of other brand reading data saved by such file format in order to ensure the dominant status in the market of the machine which is bundled with its software, which did not belong to the acts that the copyright owner take technical measures to protect its software copyright referred in the above regulation. That others who develops software which can read the specific file format set by the copyright owner does not constitutes the infringement to the software copyright.

　　(2)　 Whether Company B infringed the right of publication of JDP Software of Company A