Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)qqpublished in(发表于) 2013/11/26 9:08:34 3Q final world war： 22 focus，
3Q final world war: 22 contention-360, qihoo 360, Tencent, 3Q vs-IT information 3Q final world war: 22 focus
Tencent qihoo 360 appeal case of abuse of a dominant position, at nine o'clock in the morning a first court hearing in the Supreme Court. In the course of the trial, the full Court hear both sides appeal and reply comments, Tencent and 360 dispute into five areas, a total of 22 specific questions.
As more evidence in this case, the complexity of the issues involved, to trial efficiency guaranteed by, on November 19, the Tribunal has organized parties to Exchange evidence and cross-examination on the submission of new evidence; seek the views of the parties on the basis of preliminary of this Court summarized the main bone of contention in the present case, and inviting the parties revolved around controversial focus to prepare for.
Therefore today directly into the courtroom phase of the hearing, when the 360 and Tencent has stated in reply, consolidated appeal and reply comments of parties as well as the relevant facts of the case, Plenum believes that in the present case, the case in the second trial during the controversial issues may be due to the following five aspects, involving 22 specific questions. This antibody has also been defending the approval by both sides.
(A) defining a relevant market in the present case? The bone of contention include the following nine questions:
First, the Court of first instance in the present case was not clearly defined the relevant product market is covered by the basic facts of the case clearly?
Second, is the appropriate method of applying the hypothetical monopolist test to define the relevant product market in the present case?
Thirdly, the integrated instant messaging services and text, audio and video, a single instant messaging services belong to the same relevant product market in the present case?
IV, mobile instant messaging service is covered by the relevant product market in the present case?
V, social networking, micro-blogging service is covered by the relevant product market in the present case?
VI, SMS, email is covered by the relevant product market in the present case?
Seven, the relevant product market in the present case should be identified as Internet application platform?
VIII, the case definition of the relevant geographical market for the mainland China market or the global market?
Ninth, or of the definition of the relevant market in the present case should be given to this case took place after the relevant market situation and technology trends?
(B) the present case is whether the appellant has a dominant position in the market? Four issues of this issue include the following:
First, whether any cases of abuse of a dominant position requires determining complained of monopoly in the relevant markets market share?
Second, the respondent's market share in the relevant market?
Third, whether the appellant has a dominant position in the market?
IV, the Court of first instance did not, in accordance with its redefined marketing organization recalculates the market share is in violation of legal procedures by both parties?
(C) the respondent constitutes abuse of a dominant position prohibited by antitrust law? The bone of contention include the following two questions:
First, the respondent's "incompatible" (that is, user can choose) constitutes antitrust law acts prohibited by the restriction of trading?
Second, appellee QQ instant messaging software QQ, QQ computer housekeeping software management bundle, such as whether they constitute acts prohibited by antitrust law tying?
(D) how to bear the civil liability in the present case? Four issues of this issue include the following:
First, assume that the respondent in violation of antitrust laws, it shall bear civil liability for stopping the infringement?
Second, assume that the respondent in violation of antitrust laws, which should be jointly and severally liable therefor qihoo corporations 150 million yuan of economic loss?
Third, assume that the respondent in violation of antitrust laws, which should bear civil liability for an apology and commitment?
IV, assuming that respondent in violation of antitrust laws, which should attract qihoo company for the rights to cover reasonable expenses (including investigation fees, notary fees, legal fees, etc) a total of 1 million dollars?
(E) whether the Court of first instance procedures illegal? The bone of contention include the following three questions:
First, the Court of first instance concludes that the appellant has a dominant position, contrary to the rules of evidence are introduced without cross-examination of the evidence?
Second, the Court of first instance is contrary to the principles of hearing and significant finds that without cross-examination of the evidence and the facts?
Third, the Court of first instance whether the failure to fulfil the evidentiary provisions of civil procedure article 35th of the information obligation?
3Q大战终审：22个争议焦点 - 360,奇虎360,腾讯,3Q大战 - IT资讯3Q大战终审：22个争议焦点
奇虎360上诉腾讯滥用市场支配地位一案，于今日上午九点在最高法院第一法庭公开审理。庭审过程中，合议庭在听取双方上诉和答辩意见后，将360和腾讯的争议归纳为五个方面，共计22个具体问题。
由于本案证据材料较多，所涉问题比较复杂，为保证庭审高效顺利进行，法庭在11月19号已经组织双方当事人交换证据并对对方提交的新证据进行了质证；在征求双方当事人意见的基础上，本庭初步归纳了本案的主要争议焦点，并请双方当事人围绕着争议焦点进行相应的准备。
所以今日庭审直接进入法庭调查阶段，在360和腾讯先后陈述答辩后，综合当事人的上诉请求和答辩意见以及本案相关事实，本案合议庭认为，本案在二审期间的争议焦点可以主要归结为如下五个方面，涉及22个具体问题。这种归纳也得到辩诉双方认可。
(一)如何界定本案相关市场？该争议焦点具体包括如下九个问题：
第一，一审法院对本案相关产品市场未作明确界定是否属于案件基本事实认定不清？
第二，是否适合运用假定垄断者测试方法界定本案相关产品市场？
第三，综合性即时通讯服务与文字、音频以及视频等单一即时通讯服务是否属于本案同一相关产品市场？
第四，移动端即时通讯服务是否属于本案相关产品市场？
第五，社交网站、微博服务是否属于本案相关产品市场？
第六，手机短信、电子邮箱是否属于本案相关产品市场？
第七，本案相关产品市场是否应确定为互联网应用平台？
第八，本案相关地域市场应界定为中国大陆地区市场还是全球市场？
第九，本案的相关市场界定是否可以或者应当考虑本案诉争行为发生之后的相关市场状况及技术发展趋势？
(二)本案被上诉人是否具有市场支配地位？该争议焦点具体包括如下四个问题：
第一，是否任何滥用市场支配地位案件均需要确定被诉垄断行为人在相关市场的市场份额？
第二，被上诉人在相关市场中的市场份额？
第三，被上诉人是否具有市场支配地位？
第四，一审法院未按照其重新界定的相关市场组织双方当事人重新计算市场份额是否违反法定程序？
(三)被上诉人是否构成反垄断法所禁止的滥用市场支配地位行为？该争议焦点具体包括如下两个问题：
第一，被上诉人实施的“产品不兼容”行为(即用户二选一)是否构成反垄断法所禁止的限制交易行为？
第二，被上诉人将QQ即时通讯软件与QQ软件管理、QQ电脑管家等进行捆绑的行为是否构成反垄断法所禁止的搭售行为？
(四)本案中的民事责任如何承担？该争议焦点具体包括如下四个问题：
第一，假定被上诉人的行为违反反垄断法，其是否应当承担停止侵害的民事责任？
第二，假定被上诉人的行为违反反垄断法，其应否连带赔偿奇虎公司经济损失1.5亿元？
第三，假定被上诉人的行为违反反垄断法，其应否承担赔礼道歉的民事责任以及承担方式？
第四，假定被上诉人的行为违反反垄断法，其应否承担奇虎公司为维权而支付的合理开支(包括调查费、公证费、律师费等)共计100万元？
(五)一审法院是否程序违法？该争议焦点具体包括如下三个问题：
第一，一审法院在认定被上诉人是否具有支配地位时，是否违背证据规则而引入未经质证的证据？
第二，一审法院是否违背听证原则而大量认定未经质证的证据与事实？
第三，一审法院是否怠于履行《民事诉讼证据规定》第35条规定的告知义务？
赞