The second case of 3Q was the presiding judge of the Supreme Law Vice President today

December 4 Morning News, the Supreme People's Court issued a notice, on December 4 9 o'clock in the morning in the first court in the public trial of 360 of Tencent unfair competition dispute case. This is the second case in the 3Q War series.

It is reported that the morning of December 4, the Supreme Court will hold a public open day activities, invited 80 netizens, media representatives to listen to the case, and Deputy Dean Xi personally as presiding judge.

Xi is currently a member of the Supreme People's Court party group, deputy Dean, trial committee members, level two justices. He is experienced in civil and commercial trial practice, and has participated in the drafting of many important legal and judicial interpretations, such as contract law, guarantee law, bankruptcy law, company law and so on, and has deeply studied the theoretical and practical problems in the field of civil and commercial law and economic law.

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, 2010, 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 "3Q War" the first shot.

360 companies then launched a security tool called "Buckle Guard". 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.

However, both cases were defeated in the first instance of 360, followed by 360 to the Supreme People's Court. November 26, the Supreme Court of abuse of market dominance case trial, tomorrow's Supreme Court will be 360 to appeal to Tencent unfair competition dispute case ("Buckle bodyguard" case) trial.

Dispute of First Instance

April 2011, Tencent in Guangdong High Court sued 360 "buckle buckle bodyguard" unfair competition, claim 125 million. Tencent sued that 360 "buckle bodyguard" damaged and tampered with Tencent QQ software functions, while shielding customer ads, undermining the Tencent business model.

360, the introduction of "Buckle Bodyguard" is to 360 of the survival and development, but also respect for the user's choice. "Buckle Bodyguard" is an innovative anti-bundle tool software, does not involve QQ core chat function, will not touch the user's QQ account password and chat records, etc., on the contrary, "buckle bodyguard" will greatly improve QQ account, password, chat record security level, the tool itself is not guilty.

April 25, 2013, the Guangdong provincial High Court of Tencent v. 360 "buckle buckle bodyguard" case to make the first trial verdict, sentenced to 360 lost, compensation Tencent 5 million yuan.

360 in respect of this verdict, that in the "buckle bodyguard" case first trial, the Guangdong court has a lot of wrong judgments, and the case appealed to the Supreme People's Court.

360 General Counsel Fu previously explained that "buckle bodyguard" did not destroy the security and integrity of QQ software and its services, did not make the appellant lost trading opportunities and advertising revenue, does not constitute unfair competition, the first instance court found that the facts are unclear, the application of the law seriously wrong:

First, the Guangdong High Court decided that users in the enjoyment of QQ free services must endure the ads, plug-ins, obviously improper;

Second, the first instance of the court that Tencent's business model should be protected, the identification error. The business model itself does not constitute the object protected by any law, and any technological innovation or breakthrough will destroy the old business model.

Again, "buckle buckle bodyguard" shielding QQ software ads, Plug-ins function is completely legitimate, software selection, installation and use of the user fully informed and free choice of the circumstances, the instrument itself is not guilty, and does not violate the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics.

At the same time, the Guangdong High Court has ignored several facts: Tencent QQ in the user did not know the circumstances of the mandatory scan user computer files, and forced to bomb windows, encounter users criticized; Tencent naked copy of the 360 security guard function and interface, and with its huge QQ user base, forcibly bundled, through brand confusion to seize the market; Tencent official release "To the vast number of QQ users of a letter", to stop the installation of 360 software users to provide related software services, coerce users "two select one", which is a typical abuse of the dominant position of the market behavior.

"In addition, the Guangdong High Court sentenced up to 5 million yuan compensation, this is in the absence of recognition of Tencent's loss of evidence, the judge discretionary results." The amount of this decision is unprecedented in the Internet dispute and reputation rights. The Guangdong High Court exceeded the limits of the discretion of the courts and violated the principle of fairness, impartiality and openness. "Fu said.