The decision of anti-monopoly in domestic Internet is of great significance

According to the Supreme People's Court issued a notice, Qihoo 360 appeal to Tencent abuse of market dominance of the case will be held in the Supreme Court nine o'clock in the morning today at the opening hearing. This is the "Anti-Monopoly Law" issued 6 years ago, the Supreme Court of the first trial of the first Internet antitrust case, the domestic Internet anti-monopoly decision has a symbolic significance.

It is reported that the Supreme People's Court will publish the case through Sina official Weibo and other ways. CCTV, Hunan Satellite TV and other media will be broadcast on the situation, including Hunan satellite TV will be broadcast at 8:50 the whole process of trial proceedings.

Four core issues to be solved

Famous it and intellectual property lawyer Zhao occupation in the interview with Sina Science and technology, said that the case of the trial has four core issues most noteworthy:

The anti-monopoly Law stipulates that the abuse of market dominance means that the operator has the market position in the relevant market which can control the price, quantity or other trading conditions of the commodity, or can hinder and influence the other operators ' ability to enter the relevant market.

And the related market, refers to the operator in a certain period of time for specific goods or services to compete in the scope of goods and geographical range.

Therefore, the first major issue of the case is how the Supreme Court defines the relevant regional market of Internet companies. In the first trial of Guangdong High Court, that Tencent QQ related regional market for the global market, in the global market, Tencent QQ does not have a market monopoly position. This method of identification has sparked widespread controversy in the judiciary and the Internet industry.

The second core issue is how to define the relevant commodity markets. Before the Guangdong High Court defined comprehensive instant communication and text, audio and video, such as a single real-time communication between the same market, the same product set, and QQ and social networking sites, microblogging services are identified as belonging to the same related market collection of goods. This method of demarcation is also controversial.

The third core question is whether Tencent has a dominant market position in the relevant market. 3,601 parties contend that, regardless of the market definition, Tencent's market share in the relevant market is more than one-second, it should be presumed to have a dominant market position. Whether the Supreme Court will adopt worthy attention.

The fourth core question is whether Tencent forced the user to "choose one of two" as an abuse of market dominance. In the first instance, Guangdong High Court found that whether the user dismounted 360 software is the user's inherent right, Tencent can not replace the user to make choices, forcing users "two choose one" behavior beyond the necessary limits.

Zhao occupation Forecast, the second trial result may be consistent with first instance, will only correct first individual deviation, for example, the relevant geographical market may be defined as the Chinese market rather than the global market, but the relevant commodity market definition may be the same as the first instance, the identification of instant messaging and microblogging, social networks are alternative; for "two election one", may change the first instance view , which is considered as the independent relief to avoid the infringement of commercial interests and users ' information security. (Nan)

Related information:

The origin of the case

360 v. Tencent Monopoly Case originally originated from the 2010-year "3Q war". 360, the cause is Tencent company to imitate 360 security guards launched the "QQ Doctor" (renamed as QQ Computer Butler). On February 12, 2012, that is, the New Year's Eve, Tencent's QQ upgrade by default bundled way, the overall promotion of "QQ doctor" This product, launched the "3 Q War" the first shot.

Subsequently, 360 companies launched a "360 Buckle bodyguard" security tool. 360 said the tool comprehensively protects the security of QQ users, including preventing QQ from viewing user's privacy files, preventing Trojans from stealing QQ and speeding up the QQ, filtering advertising and other functions.

Tencent reacted strongly, November 3, 2010 6 o'clock in the evening issued "to the vast number of QQ users of a letter", announced in the computer installed 360 software to stop running QQ software, users must uninstall 360 software can be landed QQ, forcing users "two choose one", resulting in a large number of users forced to delete 360 of the software, The two companies are fiercely confrontational.

In the Ministry of Mediation, Tencent Recovery compatible with 360 software, the two companies to the user apologized respectively. Then two of the battlefield from the computer into law, Tencent first sued in the register of Guangdong 360 unfair competition, 360 companies also in Guangdong counterclaim Tencent use serious abuse of market dominance.

Tencent believes that Qihoo 360 to provide users with "360 privacy Protector" to use false propaganda means, mislead and deceive users, slander the plaintiff and plaintiff's products "peek" user's privacy, the reputation of Tencent caused great damage. 360 companies believe that Tencent's behavior limits users and 360 transactions, constitutes abuse of market dominance, should be legally responsible for the cessation of infringement and compensation for loss of civil liability.

March 28 this year, Guangdong Province, the first trial of the High Court, instant messaging and micro-bo, social networks, such as the formation of a close replacement relationship, but also the relevant regional market for the global market, the relevant market there is full competition, therefore, Tencent does not have the market dominance.

Although the Guangdong High Court found that Tencent forced users to "two election one" approach is restricted trading behavior, but because the court also found that Tencent does not have a dominant market position, so that its behavior does not constitute abuse of market dominance. In the end, the Guangdong Provincial High Court dismissed the plaintiff's 360 claim.

360 company to the Supreme People's Court to submit the above, the Supreme Court decided on November 26 nine o'clock in the morning in the Supreme Court open trial.

360 demand Tencent compensation 150 million

In the Guangdong High Court after the announcement of the first trial, 360 general Counsel Fu Media interview has said that, in addition to the relevant market definition error, Guangdong High Court there are many errors. For example, the commodity market is defined incorrectly. The Guangdong High Court incorrectly defined comprehensive instant communication and text, audio and video, such as a single real-time communication between the same relevant market of goods collection, and mistakenly the QQ and social networking sites, microblogging services identified as belonging to the same relevant market collection of goods.

Secondly, it is wrong to assume that Tencent has no dominant position in the relevant market. Tencent's absolute dominance in the relevant market is a very obvious objective fact. Regardless of the market definition, Tencent has more than One-second market share in the relevant market and should be presumed to have a dominant market position.

Third, the abuse of market dominance has not been recognized. Tencent's "two election one" restricted transaction behavior and tying behavior obviously constituted abuse of market dominance, and should bear legal responsibility according to law.

It is reported that 360 of the lawsuit claim is that the court ordered Tencent to stop the abuse of market dominance of the behavior, the demand for Tencent compensation for economic losses of 150 million yuan, and public apology.

"Tencent's two election behavior, resulting in a large number of users forced to uninstall 360 of the software, resulting in 360 in the product, brand image and other aspects of the loss of huge, according to the subsequent statistical loss, including brand loss and unloading volume, in the lawsuit claims compensation for 150 million yuan, is a minimum litigation request. "Fu said.

Fu said that Tencent's monopolistic behavior restricts the fair competition of our market economy and hinders the sustained and healthy development of China's internet industry. China's Internet industry in the context of the monopoly of desertification. "Oligopoly has seriously undermined the survival and growth of small and medium Internet enterprises in China." ”