25 April afternoon message, tencent sued qihoo 360 a case of unfair competition in guangdong province higher people’s court sentenced this afternoon. The court of first instance ruled qihoo 360 constitutes unfair competition from tencent compensation of 5 million yuan, and carry on the apology and the media of the home page. Qihoo 360 lawyers said it would appeal in court.
guangdong province higher people’s court of first instance today, the accused qihoo 360 of tencent constitutes unfair competition, and need for 15 days in the prominently displayed on the website homepage, and other media published an apology.
the court held that qihoo 360 of damage in the process of promoting “QQ bodyguards” tencent QQ product business model and improper wording in the product promotion, discount the QQ software, thus constitutes unfair competition.
the court considered at the same time, tencent demanded compensation of 125 million yuan of economic losses lacks enough basis, but still decide to tencent qihoo 360 compensation of 5 million yuan.
court rejected tencent other claims, and require both parties to share the costs, including 166800 yuan in tencent’s burden, the burden of $360 to $500000.
qihoo 360 representative lawyer said in court, will appeal. Tencent has the lawyer said need back to the company before we decide to follow-up issues.
tencent sued qihoo 360 a case of unfair competition caused by 3 q war qihoo launched “QQ bodyguards. In September 18, in the open court, tencent asked the court to judge qihoo to stop the development, dissemination and issued 360 qq bodyguards software and related behavior, and put in a claim to qihoo 125 million yuan.
when the trial of four focus is: whether QQ bodyguards break QQ software integrity, delete the component inserter shielding advertising is not destroy the business model, whether negative reputation vilified, QQ bodyguards whether QQ software lift. Tencent and qihoo lawyer at the scene of fierce debate, but the court did not.
just last month, related to the case of “sued qihoo 360 tencent monopoly” sentence case, all the claims of guangdong province higher people’s court qihoo, think tencent company does not constitute a monopoly. While qihoo 360 later said, the company has appealed to the supreme people’s court.
this sentence as a result, from 360 to the sina science and technology said in a statement, the guangdong provincial high court in the trial of 360 antitrust case and QQ bodyguards, have error for ascertaining the facts is not clear, the application of law, there is an obvious place to protectionist tendencies. 360 has decided to appeal to the supreme people’s court.
360 statement is as follows:
first, tencent QQ bodyguards case abuse of dominant market position, by copying, forced bound to contain and suppress the result of the Internet start-ups. We believe that the guangdong provincial high court in the trial of 360 antitrust case and QQ bodyguards, have error for ascertaining the facts is not clear, the application of law, there is an obvious place protectionist tendencies. 360 has decided to appeal to the supreme people’s court.
2, 3 q war, tencent flagrantly forcing users to “choose” delete 360 software, which is strongly opposed to users and industry, and caused a huge loss to 360. To prevent things get worse, 360 starting from the overall situation, obey the ministry requires reconciliation between the two sides decided. More than two years time, as China’s largest Internet company, tencent company did not timely according to requirements of the ministry of controversies, instead of several times to pick up the lawsuit, the continuation of the dispute. “A choice” to 360 brings the enormous harm, but tencent has never assume responsibility. In view of this, 360 is going to give up the story of promise, of tencent a choice behavior to prosecution of 360 caused huge losses of the company.
third, QQ bodyguards as an innovative tool software, does not involve the use of QQ core functions, all the behavior of the QQ bodyguards are users to click on the trigger, aimed at improving the user experience, tools software, legislation is intended to encourage innovation, the Internet and business model itself does not constitute any legal protection by the object. So in China, and so does the law of nations, tencent lawsuit on the grounds that the business model is damaged, in and of itself has no legal basis. In fact, the development of market economy is continuously use efficient business model instead of the low efficiency of the process of business model. Break others business model is not only the competition of market subject, but also the inevitable result of market competition.
we to the society from all walks of life call, give full consideration to the open nature of the Internet, allowing the existence of free competition, the giant to stop abuse of dominant market position, only then can maintain the Internet industry sustained and healthy development and the long-term rights and interests of Internet users.
source: sina science and technology