The court will inevitably be visited frequently in the future. However, the first time I went to the court in my life was to hear a trial. This is consistent with my status as a beginner, and it also shows that I have to learn everything from scratch.

It was my first time to hear a court hearing. I encountered such a new antitrust case and was allowed to take notes. I was really lucky. After listening for four and a half hours, although I couldn’t wait for a verdict and it was a bit regretful that it ended without results, I was also relieved that I learned a lot from it.

The key is to be able to identify problems, analyze them, and learn from them. Both procedurally and substantively.

This case is very complicated. I will only make a brief introduction based on the facts I learned after listening to it for an afternoon:

Two plaintiffs, and4-8The defendant is also a Beijing locksmith company.1-3The relationship between the defendants is:1(telecom company) and2、3There is a contractual relationship;2、3Also with4-8There is a contractual relationship.4-8at2、3The platform provided (i.e.114Directory Inquiry Desk) accepts users’ service requirements and at the same time communicates with2、3Promise, fight wherever114If you are looking for lock repair and unlocking without specifying a unit, please go to2、3On the platform. (114provide its number)

Two plaintiffs and the first4The defendant also opened a hotline of similar nature. But since in and1’s contract stipulates qualifications, etc. that are inconsistent with the facts,1Then the two parties unilaterally terminated the contract.4Also join2、3’s platform, but the two plaintiffs did not meet the qualifications4—8was refused to join due to the internal agreement.

The plaintiff thought1—8Defendant formed a monopoly, petition:1, The monopoly clauses in the contract for cessation of monopoly operation shall be abolished.2, Liability for compensation (but the amount of compensation has not yet been determined)3, the defendant shall bear the litigation costs jointly.

The defendant believes that its behavior does not constitute a monopoly, and the claim is:1, reject the plaintiff’s petition.2, the litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

I think the novelty of this case is:1, The locksmith industry is an emerging and special industry, which has high requirements for the quality of employees and lacks industry standards.2, Among the defendants in this case, the information service platform of a telecommunications company became an antitrust defendant.3, The plaintiff believes that the defendant constitutes a monopoly, but my country has not yet enacted an Anti-Monopoly Law, so it can only cite the General Principles of Civil Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Because of this, the case attracted four television stations to film it.

The focus of the debate between the two sides is as follows:1AND2、39780_98124-8Whether the defendant’s internal agreement is exclusive or the plaintiff’s qualifications are insufficient;114Whether Taiwan has a de facto monopoly status? (The defendant argued that China Netcom, China Railcom, etc. provided directory inquiry services of the same nature)

I think:

1, The locksmith industry is different from the general service industry in that it has high professional, technical and ethical requirements for its employees. Without industry standards, it is difficult to regulate and manage. Internal regulations alone are not enough. In view of the development of our country's economy, it is necessary to introduce relevant regulations to regulate.

2、114Although Taiwan has competitors, the past planned economy was a state monopoly, which was a shortcoming of the old system. So I think there is indeed an administrative monopoly. I think this phenomenon is very common, such as two-way charging, but in fact, even citing the consumer law is not enough to determine the violation of the law. Even if there is a suspicion of violation, there are no examples of prosecution. In fact, more and more similar services are appearing now, which is the introduction of a market competition mechanism, but this requires a quite long process.

3. Even if there is a de facto monopoly, the court must accept the case and determine the facts in accordance with the law. If we only rely on the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Rights Protection Law, it cannot be applied well, and it will be very difficult for the court to handle this. I think this is one of the reasons why our country is stepping up its efforts to formulate anti-monopoly laws. As for who should bear the responsibility for administrative monopoly if it is determined to be a monopoly, it is also a thorny issue. If the statement is not retroactive, then no one will be responsible for it? However, it is inappropriate to attribute responsibility to certain units.

The above is some preliminary analysis of mine. Because my knowledge is still shallow, there are still big deficiencies in the analysis, and I cannot propose some specific solutions. However, "good analysis is powerful", the key lies in analysis. If you learn the analysis method, you can solve any problem.

In addition, when watching the cross-examination and court debate between both parties, I have three insights:1, Speak clearly;2, The answer must be accurate;3, Think carefully and speak slowly but clearly.

Some parties do not hire lawyers, and their defense is not as good as that of lawyers, and the quality is not even the same. Also, there is an old saying: "Procedural fairness must first exist before there can be substantive equality."

With the current level, we can only go so far.

Thinking more is beneficial!

(Reprinted from "Economic and w88 Law", exclusively authorized by the author Shen Cheng＾－＾)