360 millet tort litigation, unfair competition under who? -MIUI, phone, Thunder and OS-IT information

Millet and 360 "spat" upgrade to "legal aspects".

On March 16, the Beijing daily published called 360 Mobile "provocative" millet huge claims were reported. The Beijing daily said, millet sues to 360 on grounds of unfair competition in Beijing Haidian District Court, claims 20 million Yuan. On March 15, Haidian District Court has formally accepted the case.

The same day, the interface also called millet 360 unfair competition claims 20 million Yuan to each other′s reports. Interface reported that millet after suing 360, 360 "millet blocked users with 360 software" case, on the grounds of unfair competition and the millet company to court, claims the same for 20 million Yuan, the Xicheng District Court accepted the case.

On March 16, the 21st century business Herald reporter was informed sole, back in November 2015, 360 filed for millet in the Xicheng District Court "unfair competition" of litigation. According to people familiar with the matter said, in January this year, 360 filed the lawsuit last year filed for withdrawal, because the Beijing intellectual property Court will be assigned to the Haidian District Court jurisdiction in the present case. On February 25, 2016, the 360 to drop lawsuits for millet, Xicheng District Court passed.

However, only after 20 days, 360 to millet found a new round of infringement on the grounds, new charges millet again. According to press reports, on March 17, the Xicheng District Court has accepted the case.

Jurisdiction dispute

Unfair competition to each other between 360 and millet, starting from November last year. According to the informed source, the November 2015, qihoo 360 to "unfair competition" from the millet in the Xicheng District Court filed a civil suit. 360 says that the defendant millet MIUI 360 software has implemented a series of acts of unfair competition, including when using the MIUI user login when 360 download 360 products, MIUI blocks, and so on.

360 view, millet, is to reduce the 360 software market share, and ultimately realize the purpose of exclusion of competitors in business. Accordingly, the 360 view of millet in violation of the unfair competition law and the relevant provisions of the code of civil procedure, millet the defendant apologize and make compensation for the economic losses of 20 million Yuan.

But millet during the defence of the accused within the jurisdiction of this case raised an objection. "Millet objections based on three points are: tort, and the defendant is not domiciled in Xicheng District; West should no longer be considered a 360 company′s domicile in accordance with law; case amount over 20 million Yuan by the Beijing intellectual property Court. ”

This person said to reporters, Xicheng District Court found, on December 3, 2015, objects to the three millet is not established, Xicheng District Court has jurisdiction over the case.

Unwilling millet once again on the question of jurisdiction filed an appeal to the Beijing intellectual property Court. Intellectual property rights the Court held that the Xicheng District Court based on the interpretation of the code of civil procedure governing law of the 25th article of the case reference is not appropriate. In addition, the Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction shall be determined mainly on the basis of "fix" (convenient for litigants, for people′s courts exercise judicial power independently according to law, fair and efficient) and prevent abuse of the right of the plaintiff′s "plaintiff defendant" principle.

On January 21, intellectual property published objection to the jurisdiction of the Court the Court of Final Appeal ruled that found jurisdiction in the case in the Court of domicile of the defendant, millet company, Beijing Haidian District Court.

However the verdict issued after 6 days, on January 27, 360 to the Xicheng District Court in a withdrawal request. On February 25 the court order granting plaintiff a nolle prosequi, Xicheng District. The withdrawal behaviors, 360 responses, "said after the Court accepted the case in the West, 360 qihoo also found millet MIUI operating systems implement a new round of infringement. "" New round of infringement "refers to the user when downloading software from 360 website, will be blocked by MIUI operating system," eventually abandoned their 360 ′s official website to download the software to users, to millet, purpose of the app store to download the software. ”

"In the face of this more severe violations, Powerline must resort to legal means to resolutely fight back. Therefore, qihoo company millet based on these new facts in the original complaint of infringement has added a new claim, and added a collection of relevant new evidence. "The 360 in to the 21st century business Herald reporter about qihoo v millet in unfair competition case that statement said," in order to more effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of the company, Powerline must be withdrawn, and then perfecting the new charges on the basis of new evidence. At present, the Xicheng District Court has accepted the odd Tiger company new indictments. ”

Sued for 360 again, reporters attempted to contact millet related staff to return, but as of press time had not received.

" An application for the withdrawal was the plaintiff′s rights. Both sides repeatedly on the jurisdiction of the Court ′ playing ′, is actually a litigation strategy. We all want to win more courts . "A legal practitioner, told reporters," the 360 modified after complaints and may be in the Xicheng District Court. Experiences of the last jurisdiction challenge, 360 may avoid some rules, so that the case could in the Xicheng District Court. ”

Commercial conflict of interest

Intensification of contradictions between millet and 360 public, from January this year millet announced that its app store under line 360 software. Millet believes that users can install phone 360-"lightning OS" lead to failed phone upgrades, system crashes and other problems.

In this regard, the 360 says, "with MIUI than lightning OS volume is small, fast, natural win users. "" 360 as a distribution platform for users to recommend good products is its duty, as well as the obligation of the partners. ”

Although both sides to "unfair competition" as the reason prosecution, Hu Ling, an associate professor at Shanghai University of finance and law school believes in accordance with current legal acts on both sides are still somewhat vague. The existing unfair competition Act come into force on December 1, 1993, 23 years from now. "The existing unfair competition act is a general provision, there is no specific provisions for Internet businesses. Most of the cases refer to the article of the law. That is the principle, very abstract and ambiguous. ”

Article II of the anti-unfair competition law,"unfair competition" refers to the breach of the provisions of this law, damage the lawful rights and interests of other operators, disrupt social and economic order .

On February 25, 2016, the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council issued the People′s Republic of China against unfair competition law (Amendment draft draft). New clear has network enterprise of four species not due competition behavior, that (a) without user agreed, through technology means block user normal using other operators of network application service; (ii) without license or authorized, in other operators provides of network application service in the insert links, forced for target jump; (three) misleading, and cheat, and forced user modified, and close, and uninstall or cannot normal using others legal provides of network application service; (four) without license or authorized, Interfere with or disrupt the normal operation of other Web applications provided by the legal services.

"Despite the network enterprises draft pick typical acts of unfair competition listed, but still no logical order between these behaviors, and requires a combination of case can be found on these properties. "Hu Ling said," law should also respond to network or product questions. Like the app store, if defined as private property, shop developer the right to choose who settled in the store; if you are neutral property, the developer has no right to reject any application. Product providers and consumers is directly related to, third parties have no right to give consumers choice. ”

In the Internet industry analyst Liang Zhenpeng, millet and 360 ′s "struggle" is inevitable. "Because they provide Internet software services, also has mobile phone hardware products. We all know the importance of smart phone operating system, because the operating system to bundle the software so as to seize the mobile phone user interface. "Liang Zhen-Peng said," in fact, two of the so-called ′ operating system ′, is based on the Android framework. Both sue and attack, but is a commercial interest in the future of the field fighting. ”

360再诉小米侵权，不正当竞争谁下狠手？ - MIUI,小米手机,雷电OS - IT资讯

小米和360的“口水仗”升级到了“法律层面”。

3月16日，《北京日报》发表了名为《360手机“挑衅”小米遭巨额索赔》的报道。《北京日报》称，小米以不正当竞争为由把360诉至北京海淀区法院，索赔2000万元。3月15日海淀区法院已经正式受理此案。

同日，界面也发表了名为《小米360互诉不正当竞争索赔2000万元》的报道。界面报道称，在小米起诉360之后，360针对“小米阻截用户装360软件”一案，以不正当竞争为由，反将小米公司诉至法院，索赔金额同样为2000万元，受理此案的是北京西城区法院。

3月16日，21世纪经济报道记者独家获悉，早在2015年11月，360就在西城区法院提起了针对小米“不正当竞争”的诉讼。据知情人士透露，今年1月，360对去年提起的诉讼申请了撤诉，原因是北京知识产权法院将本案指定到海淀区法院管辖。2016年2月25日，360撤销了对小米的诉讼，北京西城区法院裁定通过。

但是，仅在20天之后，360以发现小米新一轮侵权行为为由，再次对小米进行重新起诉。据记者了解，3月17日当天，西城区法院已受理此案。

管辖权之争

360与小米之间互诉不正当竞争，从去年11月起。据上述知情人士介绍，2015年11月，奇虎360以“不正当竞争”为由，在西城区法院对小米提起了民事诉讼。360称，发现被告小米利用MIUI针对360软件实施了一系列不正当竞争行为，包括当使用MIUI的用户登陆360官方网站自行下载360产品时，MIUI会阻止等等。

360认为，小米此举是为了降低360软件市场占有率，最终实现排挤同业竞争者的目的。据此，360认为小米的行为违反了《反不正当竞争法》和《民事诉讼法》的有关规定，要求被告小米赔礼道歉并赔偿经济损失2000万元。

然而被告小米在答辩期内对上述案件的管辖权提出了异议。“小米异议有三点分别为：西城区并非侵权行为地和被告住所地；西城区依法不应再视为360公司的住所地；案件诉讼标的额高过2000万元，应由北京知识产权法院受理。”

上述知情人士对记者说，北京西城区法院于2015年12月3日审理认定，小米的三点异议不成立，西城区法院对该案具有管辖权。

不甘心的小米再次就管辖权问题向北京市知识产权法院提起了上诉。知识产权法院认为，西城区法院依据《民诉法解释》第二十五条确定了本案的管辖法律引用不恰当。此外，上诉法院认为管辖权的确定应主要依据“两便原则”（便于当事人诉讼，便于人民法院依法独立、公正和高效行使审判权）和防止原告滥用诉权而规定的“原告就被告”原则。

1月21日，知识产权法院发布管辖异议终审裁定，认定此案的管辖权在被告小米公司住所地法院，即北京海淀区法院。

然而上述裁定发出6天后，即1月27日，360向北京西城区法院提出了撤诉申请。西城区法院于2月25日裁定准许原告撤回起诉。对于此次撤诉行为，360回应称，“在西城法院受理该案后，奇虎又发现小米利用MIUI操作系统对360实施了新一轮的侵权行为。”“新一轮的侵权行为”指的是用户从360官网下载软件时，会遭到MIUI操作系统的各种阻止，“最终达到使用户放弃从360官网下载软件，转而前往小米应用商店下载软件的目的。”

“面对这种更加恶劣的侵权行为，奇虎必须诉诸法律手段坚决回击。因此，奇虎公司就小米这些新的侵权事实在原先起诉状的基础上增加了新的诉讼请求，并补充收集了相关的新证据。”360在发给21世纪经济报道记者《关于奇虎诉小米不正当竞争案的情况说明声明》中称，“为了更加全面有效地维护公司的合法权益，奇虎需要先行撤诉，然后在完善新证据的基础上重新起诉。目前，西城区法院已经受理奇虎公司新的起诉。”

对于360的再次起诉，记者尝试联系小米相关工作人员给予回复，但截至发稿时并未收到。

“申请撤诉是原告的权利。双方反复就法院管辖权‘交手’，实际上是诉讼策略。大家都希望在胜算更大的法院打官司。”一名法律从业者对记者说，“360在修改诉由后，可以重新在西城区法院提起诉讼。有了上次管辖权异议的经验，360可能会避开一些规定，以便案件能在西城区法院审理。”

商业利益之争

小米与360的矛盾公开激化，源于今年1月小米宣布其应用商店全线下架360软件。小米认为，360提供小米手机用户安装的“雷电OS”导致小米手机出现无法正常升级、系统崩溃等问题。

对此，360则表示，“与MIUI相比，雷电OS体积小、运行快，自然赢得用户喜爱。”“360作为应用分发平台，为用户推荐好产品是它的职责所在，也是对合作伙伴应尽的义务。”

尽管双方都以“不正当竞争”为理由提起诉讼，上海财经大学法学院副教授胡凌认为依照目前的法律对双方行为界定依旧有些模糊。现行的《反不正当竞争法》自1993年12月1日开始施行，距今已经23年。“现有的《反不正当竞争法》都是一般性规定，并没有针对互联网企业的具体规定。现有案件审理大多引用该法的第二条。那是原则性规定，非常抽象模糊。”

《反不正当竞争法》第二条规定，“不正当竞争”即指经营者违反本法规定，损害其他经营者合法权益，扰乱社会经济秩序的行为。

2016年2月25日，国务院法制办公布了《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法（修订草案送审稿）》。新法明确了网络企业的四种不正当竞争行为，即（一）未经用户同意，通过技术手段阻止用户正常使用其他经营者的网络应用服务；（二）未经许可或者授权，在其他经营者提供的网络应用服务中插入链接，强制进行目标跳转；（三）误导、欺骗、强迫用户修改、关闭、卸载或者不能正常使用他人合法提供的网络应用服务；（四）未经许可或者授权，干扰或者破坏他人合法提供的网络应用服务的正常运行。

“尽管草案挑选了网络企业不正当竞争的典型行为进行列举，但这些行为之间依旧没有必然的逻辑顺序，需要结合个案才能对这些行为性质进行认定。”胡凌对记者说，“法律还应该回应网络平台或产品的属性问题。比如软件商店，如果定义为私有属性，商店开发者就有权选择谁来入驻商店；如果是中立属性，开发者就无权拒绝任何人。但产品提供者与消费者是直接关系，第三方无权替消费者选择。”

在互联网行业分析师梁振鹏看来，小米与360的“斗争”在所难免。“因为它们都提供互联网软件服务，也都有手机硬件产品。大家都清楚智能手机操作系统的重要性，因为操作系统能捆绑软件从而抢占手机用户的界面。”梁振鹏说，“其实两家所谓的‘操作系统’，也都基于安卓系统架构。双方的起诉与攻击，不过是一场涉及未来利益分割的商业斗争。”