The Application and Evolution of the Principle of Technological Neutrality in Legal Cases

In recent years, multiple cases involving programmers or technical teams being held criminally accountable for providing services have attracted attention. These cases span various fields, including software development, NFT platforms, Web3 information, exchanges, and more. A key question in these cases is: can one argue for leniency or even innocence for the parties involved on the grounds of "technological neutrality"?

To deeply understand the application of the principle of technological neutrality in judicial practice, it is necessary to start from a more macro perspective of institutional evolution and analyze its functional positioning in different periods. This article will begin with typical domestic and foreign cases, systematically sort out the development history of the principle of technological neutrality, explore its applicable standards under the Chinese legal system, and discuss the defense ideas for criminal cases involving technology.

The Origin and Development of the Principle of Technological Neutrality

The principle of technological neutrality originated from the "ordinary goods principle" in U.S. patent law. This principle holds that if a product has a wide range of legitimate uses, the producer cannot be presumed to have intent to infringe simply because users use it for infringement.

In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court first applied this principle to copyright law in the "Sony case." The court determined that the Sony VCR had substantial non-infringing uses, thus Sony did not contribute to the infringement. This ruling established the protective boundaries for technological innovation, known as the "Sony rule" or "technology neutrality principle."

The 2005 Grokster case reshaped the boundaries of the application of the principle of technological neutrality. The court established the "active inducement rule," stating that when there is evidence that the product provider has the intent to induce infringement, they should still bear liability for aiding infringement. This ruling broke through the mechanical application of the Sony rule and established the "intent standard" as a core element in the defense of technological neutrality.

With the development of internet technology, the United States enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, which includes the "safe harbor principle" that provides a liability exemption mechanism for copyright infringement for online service providers. This principle requires online service providers to meet conditions such as not being aware of and not actively participating in the infringement, designating a copyright agent, promptly removing infringing content, and not inducing infringing behavior.

The Development and Application of the Principle of Technological Neutrality in China

In the Chinese legal system, the principle of technological neutrality involves multiple areas such as internet regulation, intellectual property, and electronic evidence.

In terms of internet content regulation, the regulations issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China in 2017 require platforms not to evade their responsibility for managing user-published content by citing "technical neutrality." In the field of electronic evidence, electronic data provided by neutral third-party platforms can be presumed to be authentic.

In the field of intellectual property, the "Regulations on the Protection of the Right of Communication through Information Network" formulated in 2006 absorbed the U.S. "Safe Harbor Principle" and established a "Notice and Takedown" mechanism. At the same time, it introduced the "Red Flag Principle", which states that when the infringing content is obvious or the platform induces dissemination, the defense of technological neutrality is invalid.

Typical cases in China include the iQIYI vs. Morgan Stanley case regarding the improper competition of blocking online advertisements, as well as the Pan-Asia Company vs. Baidu Music Box infringement case. These cases reflect the wide applicability of the principle of technological neutrality in the field of intellectual property.

However, the applicability of the principle of technological neutrality in the field of criminal justice still needs to be explored. As technology continues to evolve, finding a balance between protecting innovation and regulating behavior will be an important issue that future judicial practices will face.