The outcome of the 3Q war is still unsolved.

Summary: Same court, same opponent, but this time, Tencent and 360 exchanged the positions of plaintiffs and defendants in court. In April this year, 360 companies to Tencent abuse of market dominance as the basis of the claim to Tencent 150 million, September 18, Tencent v. 36

The same court, the same opponents, but this time, Tencent and 360 of the "enemy" swaps in court the plaintiff and defendant position. Following the 360 companies in April this year to Tencent abuse of market dominance as a claim to Tencent 150 million, September 18, Tencent v. 360 "buckle bodyguard" suspected unfair competition case in Guangdong High Court, Tencent to 360 claims economic losses of 125 million yuan. However, after nearly 6 hours of trial, the court did not make a verdict, so the victory of the 3Q war is still "unsolved".

Case has become a sign of internet events

"I believe we are acquaintances," he said. "The opening remarks of the presiding Judge Zhang Xuejun is both a joke and a fact. After this April's 360 v. Tencent abuse market dominance of the case to the current Tencent v. 360 "buckle bodyguard" suspected of unfair competition, 360 and Tencent legal dispute, has become the Chinese Internet domain has been a landmark event.

In court, the plaintiff's acting attorney of Tencent Company filed a lawsuit request: The defendant developed the buckle bodyguard slander ﹑ damaged and tampered with Tencent QQ software, not only damaged the integrity and security of Tencent products and services, but also seriously damaged the commercial reputation of Tencent, violating the recognized business ethics, constitute unfair competition. Tencent requested the Court Decree 360 compensation for the loss of 125 million yuan, and 3 consecutive months in the important site and the prominent position of the newspaper ads, to the Tencent apology, eliminate the impact.

Tencent in the assessment report submitted to the court, said, "360 buckle bodyguard" caused netizens worried about QQ clients and panic, within 3 days, there are more than 10 million users installed "360 buckle bodyguard" software.

Defense 360 company agent, Beijing Kindu law firm lawyer subsequently said, buckle security does not involve QQ core chat function, will not touch the user's QQ account password and chat records and other sensitive information, not modified QQ Any file, all of its actions are triggered by the user's active click, these actions have a clear hint, reversible, is not spread. Even if, as the plaintiffs say, the buckle guards affect the business model of QQ, "the business model is not protected by law, and in innovative industries the business model is used to challenge and break".

The trial revolves around the "four main points"

The Zhang Xuejun of the presiding judge, on the merits, the question of the two sides is summed up as four focal points: first, whether the defendant's software destroys the plaintiff's software integrity and security, affects the plaintiff's opportunity for value-added trading, undermines the plaintiff's business model and whether the defendant has vilified the plaintiff's business reputation; Third, whether the defendant in the software to promote their own software and services, and four, if the formation of unfair competition, what kind of compensation, punitive measures should be adopted. Lawyers for the two sides of the four focus on the fierce confrontation.

For the first focus, Tencent said the software copy of the right to modify the software copyright owner is the software company, so 360 has no right to "user autonomy" as the reason to modify the QQ software. And 360 argued that the owners of software replicas in the Computer Software Protection Ordinance included users, so users had the right to modify the software.

On the second focus, both sides debated the question of "scoring a physical examination". Tencent believes that the "360 buckle security" software with low scores to remind users QQ scan user files, peep privacy, the actual user to Tencent generated distrust, thereby undermining the business reputation of Tencent. In 360, it is said that scoring is a customary practice in the Internet industry, and only the evaluation of the operating state, there are objective standards exist, low scoring does not constitute a defamation of business reputation.

In the debate about the third focus, Qihoo 360 denied that the buckle bodyguard Hitch-Lift 360 security guards, said in their own software recommended their software, in line with common sense, Tencent pointed out, Qihoo 360 buckle bodyguard can only call security Guardian Antivirus, its own security features do not, never count security software, just a destructive tool.

What compensation should be used in the debate, punitive measures, Tencent produced evaluation company report, think Qihoo 360 buckle bodyguard to Tencent caused 734 million Yuan brand loss, and said "360 buckle bodyguard" caused netizens for QQ clients worry and panic, within a short period of 3 days, there are more than 10 million users installed " 360 buckle bodyguard "software. Qihoo 360 said that Tencent's evaluation report was paid for by someone to write, not credible.

Judgment or change of industry rules

Whether 360 v. Tencent's abuse of the market dominance of the case or Tencent v. 360 "buckle bodyguard" suspected of unfair competition cases, the focus of its most attention is undoubtedly the huge claims made by both sides, 360 of the 150 million yuan and Tencent's claim to 360 claimed 125 million yuan are currently rare high claims in the country, and the total amount of 275 million of the claimed amount is the industry laughed "to contribute to GDP."

Yu Guofu, an expert member of China Internet Association's Policy and Resources committee, said in an interview with the Nanfang Daily that China's internet industry needed a deterrent case. "According to a number of past cases, the current domestic internet industry, the cost of all kinds of illegal activities is too low." "Yu Guofu lawyer to 360 for example," Qihoo 360 has repeatedly in the Internet-related litigation, but the amount of compensation from the lowest only 5000 yuan, the highest to compensate 400,000 yuan. Low penalties are not good for China's internet industry. ”

According to the data, with the domestic Internet industry increasingly fierce competition, involving the Internet in the field of legal disputes or illegal activities are also beginning to increase, the Internet analyst Chuyicong that the internet companies are "not afraid to bear the results" is the Internet enterprises "dare to step on the Thunder" The main reason. "With the recent August electric business war as an example, the huge price war propaganda was ultimately classified as false propaganda and price fraud, but the punishment is only perfunctory fine, for the electricity business is cheaper than advertising." ”

"The spirit of the law is not only to punish crime, but more importantly to prevent crime, and the best way to prevent crime is to have sufficient deterrent effect." "Yu Guofu lawyer thinks only can let the illegal person" fear "the punishment, only then can better standardize the profession the development.

Event Playback

September 2010, Qihoo released 360 "Privacy Protector", in October 2011, Tencent sued 360 unfair competition in Beijing. Subsequently, Tencent and Jinshan, Baidu and other companies issued a joint statement boycott 360,360 launched "buckle buckle bodyguard."

November 3, 2010, Tencent released "to the vast number of QQ users of a letter", requiring users in the QQ software and 360 software can only choose between the use of either delete 360 software, or exit QQ software. This is the famous "difficult decision", a shock to the internet world "3Q" war is officially opened.

Subsequently, the Ministry of National demand for the two companies must immediately stop all damage to the legitimate rights and interests of the user, things have been temporarily subsided.

September 2011, for "360 Privacy protector" case, Beijing second Chinese court made final judgment, 360 for QQ software suspected "peeping user privacy" description of lack of legal basis, so the award for Tencent 400,000 Yuan.

In March 2012, 360 filed an antitrust lawsuit in the high Court of Guangdong province and sued Tencent for abusing its market dominance during the 3Q war, forcing users to uninstall 360 software installed and claim more than 150 million yuan. The High Court of Guangdong Province conducted a public hearing on the case on April 18.

September 18, 2012, Tencent v. 360 "buckle buckle bodyguard" unfair competition case again in the Guangdong Provincial High Court, Tencent to 360 claims economic loss of 125 million yuan.