The Origin and Development of the Principle of Technological Neutrality and Its Application in Our Country

The principle of technological neutrality originated from the "ordinary goods principle" in U.S. patent law. In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court first applied it to copyright law in the "Sony case," establishing the rule that as long as a technology has substantial non-infringing uses, developers can be exempt from liability. This rule is known as the "Sony rule" or the "principle of technological neutrality."

The 2005 Grokster case reshaped the boundaries of the application of the principle of technological neutrality and established the "active inducement rule." This case broke through the mechanical application of the Sony rule and introduced the "intent standard" into the defense of technological neutrality, providing a more nuanced judgment framework for the subsequent determination of liability for network service providers.

In the 1990s, with the development of technologies such as P2P file sharing and UGC platforms, the United States enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, proposing the "safe harbor principle" to provide copyright infringement liability exemptions for online service providers, in order to balance technological innovation and copyright protection.

In our country's legal system, the principle of technological neutrality runs through multiple areas such as internet regulation, intellectual property, and electronic evidence rules. The "Regulations on the Protection of the Right of Communication through Information Network," enacted in 2006, adopted the United States' "Safe Harbor Principle" and stipulated the "Notice and Takedown" principle. At the same time, it supplemented the "Safe Harbor Principle" with the introduction of the "Red Flag Principle."

In judicial practice, the court's attitude towards the application of the principle of technological neutrality has become increasingly cautious. For example, in the "iQIYI vs. Morgan Stanley Network Advertising Blocking Unfair Competition Case," the court ruled that ad-blocking software does not constitute technological neutrality and constitutes unfair competition. In contrast, in the "Pan-Asia Company vs. Baidu Music Box Infringement Case," the court distinguished and judged the technological neutrality of Baidu's different services.

The principle of technological neutrality is widely applicable in the field of intellectual property, but its applicability in the field of criminal justice still needs further exploration.