technology news October 16th morning news, the Supreme People’s court today on the 360 Tencent abuse of market dominance case of second instance verdict, the court held that the judgment of the facts is inappropriate, but the applicable law is correct, appropriate judgment results, it dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdict.
360 v. Tencent has a dominant position in the market for instant messaging software and services. In November 3, 2010, Tencent Inc and Tencent computer company issued "of a letter to the majority of QQ users, 360 software banned its users express Qihoo, or stop QQ software services; 360 software to install the user refused to provide software services, forcing the user to delete 360 software; take technical means to prevent the installation of 360 the browser user access to the QQ space, during which a large number of users to delete the related software company Qihoo.
360 company believes that the above acts constitute a restricted transaction Tencent. In addition, Tencent Inc and Tencent computer company QQ software housekeeper and instant messaging software bundled with the name of the QQ software to upgrade the installation of QQ doctor, constitute bundling sales. Tencent Inc and Tencent computer company jointly implement the abuse of dominant market position, resulting in damage to the 360 companies should bear joint and several liability.
in 360, requesting an order: Tencent Inc and Tencent computer company to immediately stop the alleged monopolistic behavior; joint 360 compensation for economic losses of 150 million yuan; the company should apologize to 360; take Qihoo paid for the rights of the reasonable expenses 1 million yuan.
Tencent Inc reply said: 360 companies in the case of the relevant market definition error; the two defendants in the instant messaging service market does not have a dominant position in the market. Alleged monopolistic behavior does not constitute abuse of a dominant market position, also did not have the effect of restricting competition. To dismiss all claims of the Qihoo ltd..
The higher people’s Court of first instance that
in Guangdong Province: 360 companies on the mainland market for China integrated instant messaging services constitute an independent related commodity market and the relevant geographic market that could not be established. In this case, the commodity market is far beyond the comprehensive instant messaging service market.
first said that the Tencent has neither the ability to control the price, quantity or other trading conditions, and do not have to hinder or affect other operators to enter the relevant market, the relevant market does not have a dominant position. Because of the wrong definition of the 360 company of the case related to the commodity market, the evidence is insufficient to prove the Tencent Inc and the Tencent computer company has a monopoly in the commodity market, so the 360 company claims lack factual and legal basis, can not be established. The court dismissed all claims of the 360 companies.
A focus of the
in this case is about whether the case is suitable for the use of "hypothetical monopolist test" method for defining the relevant market and the court of first instance.