Professor Huang Yong’s comment “2014One of the “Top Ten Civil Cases in the People’s Court”
"Qihoo Company v. Tencent Company Monopoly Dispute Case"
(People's Court Newspaper 2015Year1month7Day2Special edition)
Selected by the People’s Court News Editorial Department2014w88 casino of the People's Court of the year are launched today. These ten major cases were all reported by the People’s Court20149290_9335
w88 casino are: copyright and privacy disputes arising from the auction of Qian Zhongshu's manuscripts, the Shanghai Maritime Court's seizure of Mitsui Shipping Co., Ltd.'s ship in accordance with the law, the investment dispute between Singapore China Environmental Protection Company and Thumb Company, the Nantianyi Garden Owners Committee v. Shenzhen Urban Construction Company and other housing infringement disputes, the Wuxi deceased couple's frozen embryo ownership dispute case, Shanghai's first integrated circuit layout design dispute case,Qihoo Company v. Tencent Company Monopoly Dispute Case, China’s first delisted state-owned enterprise reorganization case, Peking University v. Zou Hengfu reputation infringement case, Taizhou1.6Environmental public interest litigation case with a sky-high price of 100 million yuan.
The selection of these top ten civil cases strives to correct2014The various types of cases heard by people's courts at all levels across the country in accordance with the law are carefully sorted out from a new perspective to show the efforts made by people's judges in the past year to promote economic and social stability and healthy development by hearing and executing civil cases in accordance with the law.
At the invitation of the People's Court Daily, Yang Lixin, director of the Civil and Commercial Legal Research Center of Renmin University of China, Si Yuzhuo, former president of Dalian Maritime University, Shen Sibao, dean of Shanghai University Law w88 casino, Wang Qian, professor of East China University of Political Science and Law,Huang Yong, Professor of Law w88 casino of w88 casino, Li Shuguang, professor of China University of Political Science and Law, and Wang Canfa, director of the Institute of Environmental Resources Law of China University of Political Science and Law, made wonderful comments on these top ten cases respectively, and profoundly explained the typical significance and significant impact of w88 casino.
Qihoo Company v. Tencent Company Monopoly Dispute Case
2014Year10month1614580_14639
Comment: Professor of Law w88 casino, w88 casino Huang Yong
Professor Huang Yong
The monopoly dispute case between Qihoo Company and Tencent Company is the first complex monopoly dispute case involving the abuse of market dominance since the implementation of my country’s Anti-Monopoly Law, involving an innovative industry, and requiring analysis using reasonable principles. During the trial of this case, international expert witnesses were introduced during the cross-examination process, including legal experts, economic experts, and industry experts. The judgment was fully argued and highly professional, reflecting the latest theories and industry characteristics. It has had a profound impact at home and abroad, and has been widely praised in the industry.
The Internet industry’s distinctive characteristics of innovation, high dynamics, and continuous development make the boundaries of its relevant markets blurred. Correspondingly, the accuracy of market share is greatly reduced, which undoubtedly increases the difficulty of identifying market dominance. In addition, the free goods and services in the Internet industry, and even subsidized consumption, have made traditionalSSNIPThe method no longer works. Internet platform competition has broken the traditional definition framework of relevant markets. Some products and services that do not seem to be in a relevant market have become substitutable, allowing companies to extend their market power to another market. In response to the challenges brought about by these industry-specific issues, the court returned to the essence of market dominance and examined whether Tencent had the ability to raise prices, reduce quality, hinder market entry, and delay innovation. It discussed the relevant market boundaries and clarified the definition of relevant markets and the determination of market share. Like other economic evidence, it is only one indicator among many factors to determine abuse issues.
The judgment in this case is in line with the Anti-Monopoly Law's regulatory thinking on abuse issues, and the abuse and competition impact are judged based on the analysis of relevant market definitions. At the same time, it fully considers the characteristics of the Internet industry, reflects the court's high professionalism, and provides a good example for the analysis of abuse of market dominance in innovative industries.
Report link: http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/html/2015-01/07/content_92463.htm?div=-1
Reprinted on the People’s Court website:http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2015/01/id/1529282.shtml
