“番茄花园案”，即洪磊等人侵犯计算机软件著作权案，是我国近年来影响最大的一起软件盗版案。该案刑事判决虽然已于2009年生效，但围绕该案所引起的争议并未停止。“间接营利目的”的认定、“复制发行”之间的关系、信息网络传播行为与复制发行之间的关系等问题仍不时引起学界的关注，并不断掀起新的论争。基于上述疑难、争议问题，本文分五个部分，着重研究以下问题： 第一部分是基本案情概述，具体包括案情简介、选案理由与争议焦点问题。本部分通过案情介绍与选案理由的陈述，从中选取值得讨论的几个焦点问题。第二部分是争议焦点问题之一，即通过信息网络向公众传播他人计算机软件行为是否属于刑法第二百一十七条中的“复制发行”。通过研究，本文得出以下结论：将未经许可通过信息网络向公众传播计算机软件的行为解释为刑法第二百一十七条中的“复制发行”具有法理依据。第三部分是争议焦点问题之二，即对他人的软件进行一定的修改后予以复制发行的传播行为是否属于刑法中的“复制发行”。通过研究，得出以下结论：对他人的软件进行非实质性的修改后予以复制发行的行为，属于刑法规定的“复制发行”。第四部分是争议焦点问题之三， 即间接营利目的的认定。通过研究，得出以下结论：对间接营利目的的认定，应该秉持整体、联系的分析方法，而不是部分、割裂的研究方法，在本案中，无论洪磊等人设立网站免费提供番茄花园版WINDOWS XP软件，从而通过提高网站点击率进而收取网站页面广告商的广告宣传费用，还是洪磊在免费提供的盗版软件中绑定强制用户安装的流氓软件以及部分需要推广的软件、插件，从而赚取流氓软件厂商等支付的推广费等方式，都可以认定为具有营利目的。第五部分是争议焦点问题之四， 即共同犯罪的认定。其中又有两个小问题，其一是明知他人实施侵犯著作权犯罪而为其赚取广告费进行商业运作并按约分成的行为能否认定为共同犯罪，其二是在共同犯罪中直接负责的主管人员以及其他直接责任人员如何认定。通过研究，得出以下结论：其一，明知他人实施侵犯著作权犯罪而为其赚取广告费进行商业运作并按约分成的行为可以认定为共同犯罪。其二，在认定其他直接责任人员时务必要贯彻宽严相济刑事政策中宽的一面，对于其中工作时间不长、参与程度不高、没有获得工资以外的额外报酬的工作人员，不宜认定为“其他直接责任人员”进而追究其刑事责任。

“Tomato Garden case", namely the computer software copyright infringement case of Hong Lei et al., was one of the most influential cases in recent years. Although the judgment of this case had come into force in 2009, the controversy caused by this case did not stop. The problems always attracted the academic circles’ attentions and continued to set off a new debate, such as how to identify the indirect commercial purpose, the relationship between “replication” and “publication" and the relationship between the information dissemination on the Internet and the behavior of replication. Based on the above complicated and controversial issues, the papers can be divided into five parts as the following:The first part is an overview of the basic facts, including the brief of the case, the grounds of case selection and several focuses of the controversy. This section describes the selected problems through the introductions to the brief of the case and the grounds of case selection. The second part is one of the focuses of the controversy, that is, whether that disseminating others’ computer softwares to the public on the Internet belongs to the behavior “replication” and “publication" regulated by the Article 217 of the Criminal Law or not. We draw the following conclusions through research: the unauthorized dissemination of computer softwares has a legal basis to be interpreted as the behavior “replication” and “publication" regulated by the Article 217. The third part is the second focal point of the dispute, that is, whether that the behavior of disseminating others’ softwares after modification belongs to the behavior “replication” and “publication" regulated by the Article 217. We draw the following conclusions through research: if the modification is not substantive, the behavior belongs to the behavior “replication” and “publication" regulated by the Article 217.The fourth part is the third focus of the controversial issues, i.e., the identification of the indirect commercial purpose. Through research, we draw the following conclusions: the identification of indirect commercial purposes should uphold the overall and linked analysis methods , not the partial and fragmented research methods. In this case, not only the behavior of setting up the website and providing free Tomato Garden version of WINDOWS XP software to improve the site click-rates and then charging the advertisers’ web page advertising costs, but also the behavior of bounding rogue software as a part of the WINDOWS XP software then earning fees of the rogue software vendors all can be identified as having commercial purposes. The fifth part is the forth focus of the controversy of the identification of common crimes, of which there are two branches of small problems, one is whether that knowing perfectly well about others’ behaviors of copyright infringement and assisting its commercial operation to earn advertising fees can be recognized as a common criminal acts or not. The other is how to identify the directly responsible staff and other direct staff in the common crimes. Through research, we can draw the following conclusions: First, knowing perfectly well about others’ behaviors of copyright infringement, assisting its commercial operation to earn advertising fees and obtaining the profits as contracts can be identified as a common criminal. Second, it is necessary to carry out the criminal policy of combining punishment with leniency in the identification of other direct staff. The staff who had a short working time, a low participation and no extra profits other than wages should not be identified as "other direct staff "and thus be held criminal responsibility.