In modern society, trade secrets play an increasingly important role in the survival and development of a company. In cases of infringement of trade secrets, the concepts of "secret point" and "secret point separation" continue to emerge. This article examines relevant provisions in legislative documents, starting from cases of trade secret infringement litigation to explore the concept of secret point, clarify the scope of secret point, and then analyze its application in judicial practice, mainly to help rights holders clarify the scope of trade secret protection to support their litigation claims, and consider the factor of secret point separation when determining the amount of damages.

What is a trade secret? According to Article 9 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, trade secrets refer to technical information, business information, and other commercial information that is not known to the public, has commercial value, and has been subject to corresponding confidentiality measures by the rights holder. In the commercial society, intellectual property has become one of the core elements of enterprise competitiveness. However, the protection of intellectual property, especially trade secrets, still faces many challenges.

Although film and television music and songs account for a relatively small proportion of film and television drama creation, and the expenses are relatively low compared to the total cost, it cannot be denied that film and television music and songs play a huge role in setting the atmosphere, promoting the story plot, portraying character images, and mobilizing audience emotions. Excellent film and television music works, such as "Frozen Eyebrow" in "Dream of the Red Chamber", "City of the Sky" in "City of the Sky", "Big Fish" in "Big Fish and Begonia", "Cage" in "Disappearing She", etc., can not only summarize the plot, establish the emotional tone of film and television dramas, make them more infectious, but also leave a deep impression on people and leave a lasting aftertaste.

Time sharing rental of video membership accounts is not uncommon in practice, and companies such as iQiyi, Tencent, and Youku have long suffered from infringement. However, not only online video network platforms, but also some film and television terminal equipment companies have been targeted, resulting in serious losses. Recently, Zhou Xueteng's legal team from Gaopeng Law Firm successfully represented Beijing Xiaomi Electronic Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiaomi Electronics), a subsidiary of Weiquan Xiaomi Group, in a case of unfair competition in renting and selling VIP member accounts.

The above three cases are typical cases of wool harvesting. Harvesting wool refers to a group of online earners using various online financial products or red envelope activities to promote offline profits, and also refers to collecting preferential information from various banks, financial institutions, and businesses in order to achieve profitability. At present, wool collection is not only limited to the field of Internet finance, but also has penetrated into various fields of society. Many activities, such as taking out coupons, discounts, phone calls, and traffic, can be called wool collection.

The basis for determining infringement of computer software copyright is similar to that of traditional copyright infringement. In addition to proof of rights, it mainly includes two aspects: "possibility of contact" and "substantial similarity". In the case of source code comparison, it is relatively simple to compare the source code through text. However, in reality, it is often difficult to obtain the source code of the accused infringing software, and other methods need to be used to determine substantive similarity. This paper discusses how to determine the substantive similarity of software by analyzing the software disassembly code without source code in the case of (2021) Jingminchu No. 4 case of American Photography Company v. Tiktok Company.

On June 24, 2022, China's Anti Monopoly Law completed its first revision fifteen years after its promulgation and came into effect on August 1, 2022. The new Anti Monopoly Law significantly increases the legal responsibility for illegal implementation of concentration of business operators. "If the anti-monopoly enforcement agency of the State Council orders to stop the implementation of concentration, dispose of shares or assets within a specified period, transfer business within a specified period, and take other necessary measures to return to the state before concentration, a fine of no more than 500000 yuan may be imposed." It is revised to "If it has or may have the effect of excluding or restricting competition, the anti-monopoly enforcement agency of the State Council orders to stop the implementation of concentration, dispose of shares or assets within a specified period, transfer business within a specified period, and take other necessary measures to return to the state before concentration, a fine of no more than 10% of the sales revenue of the previous year may be imposed. If it does not have the effect of excluding or restricting competition, a fine of no more than 5 million yuan. However, in the past two years, the State Administration for Market Regulation has not released any cases of illegal implementation of business concentration that are subject to penalties under the new Anti Monopoly Law. On June 7, 2024, the State Administration for Market Regulation issued a decision on the administrative penalty for Zhengzhou Haili Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., a joint venture established by Shanghai Haili (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Haili) and Qingdao Haier Air Conditioning Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Haier Air Conditioning), which failed to declare the illegal implementation of concentration of operators in accordance with the law. This "boot" has finally landed, and the case is of great demonstration significance and deserves high attention from enterprises.

Bribery is a power money transaction, and the person who provides the bribe usually constitutes the crime of bribery. However, due to the complexity and diversity of social life, bribery behavior unfolds in multiple chains. The person who provides bribery funds may not necessarily be the requester of the bribery behavior, nor may they know the true purpose of the funds. Therefore, although bribery funds are provided in specific circumstances, they may not necessarily constitute the crime of bribery.

In today's digital era, as the core of software and Internet enterprise operations, software security is increasingly concerned. Software code leakage (broadly defined as leaks, including cracking and leaking executable programs) may lead to the loss of intellectual property and the leakage of trade secrets, posing a huge threat to the company. This paper aims to delve into the issue of software code leakage and focus on how software companies can protect themselves at the legal level.