technology news November 25th morning news, the Supreme People’s Court issued a notice on November 26th morning nine when the Supreme Court first open court hearing the appeal of Qihoo 360 Tencent in case of abuse of market dominance. This is the "anti-monopoly law" promulgated in 6 years, the Supreme Court hearing of the first Internet antitrust case, anti monopoly of the domestic Internet landmark decision.
360 Tencent monopoly case originally 3Q war in 2010 "". The 360 aspect, the reason is the imitation of Tencent Inc security guards launched 360 QQ doctor (later renamed QQ computer housekeeper). In February 12, 2012, that is, on the eve of the new year’s Eve, Tencent with its QQ upgrade default bundled approach, a comprehensive promotion QQ doctor this product, started the 3 Q war, the first shot.
subsequently, the 360 companies have launched a security tool called the "buckle of the 360 button". 360 said the tool to protect the security of QQ users, including QQ to prevent users from viewing the privacy documents, to prevent the Trojans to steal QQ as well as to accelerate the QQ, filtering ads and other functions.
Tencent Inc reacted strongly, in late November 3, 2010 6 released "to the majority of QQ users to a letter", announced to stop the operation of QQ software with 360 software on the computer, the user must uninstall 360 software can login QQ, forcing the user to "one of two", resulting in a large number of users are forced to delete the 360 software. Two, strong confrontation.
under the mediation of the Ministry of industry, Tencent Inc to restore compatible 360 software, the company apologized to the user to the two. Then the two battlefield by computer into law, Tencent Inc first against unfair competition in 360 registered in Guangdong, after the first half of 360 companies in Guangdong Tencent of abuse of market domination Status Filed an antitrust lawsuit.
Tencent believes that the Qihoo 360 to provide "360 privacy protection" the use of false propaganda to mislead and deceive the user, the user, the plaintiff and plaintiff slander products "peep" user privacy, causing great damage to the reputation of the Tencent. 360, the company believes that Tencent flagrant abuse of its dominant position in the market to force users to choose one of the behavior of the monopoly law is a typical restriction of trading behavior, should be borne in accordance with the law to stop infringement and compensate for the loss of civil liability in accordance with the law.
in March 28th this year, the Guangdong Provincial High Court of first instance judgment, instant messaging and social networking, micro-blog formed close substitutes, and the relevant geographic market for the global market, there is sufficient competition in the relevant market, therefore, the Tencent does not have a dominant market position.
although the court of first instance found the Tencent to force the user to "one of two" the practice of restricted transactions, but because the court also found the Tencent does not have a dominant market position, so that its behavior does not constitute abuse of dominant market position. Finally, the Guangdong provincial high court rejected the plaintiff’s claim all 360.