Drops bid and China constitute a monopoly, who's the boss? -Drop, step, monopoly-IT information
Drops bid and China, triggering a heated discussion on the net about the car market in the industry. Investigations showed that 2015 4th quarter drops of divine car travel, Uber and respectively 84.2%, 17.4%, 14.9% active user coverage ranked top three domestic car market. According to this projection, drops announced the acquisition of China business, the business will cover about 90% car market. Whether merger constitutes a monopoly should not just wait and see, wait to apply for and take the initiative to start investigations in the delicate, test the decision-making capacities of the relevant administrative departments.
Authorities have launched investigations right
So far, the spokesman for China's Ministry of Commerce's official response is: "China's Commerce Ministry has yet to receive drops and concentration step China trade declarations. In accordance with the regulations, in accordance with the provisions of the antitrust laws to declare conditions and the provisions on the operators of China's State Council on Declaration of concentration standard reporting, operators shall declare to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce in advance, undeclared concentration shall not be implemented. ”
Drops have also told the media that: drop and China at present were not profitable and high turnover in China in the last fiscal year did not meet reporting standards.
According to the anti-monopoly law on concentration, and the State Council, China's regulations on reporting, request antitrust review is one of the threshold: at least two operators in the last fiscal year the turnover of more than 400 million yuan in China. In other words, as long as there is a no reached 400 million Yuan, and eliminates the need to declare .
How to calculate turnover of platforms has been controversial. Industry calls for "driver account flow" for the turnover criterion. But according to the legal daily, drop view, flow of passengers and driver settlements, the income of drivers and taxi companies, and platform or not.
On August 3 the Internet lab with the Watson Institute seminar, jointly organized by the Ministry, Beijing lawyers association competition and antitrust law Professional Committee Director Wei Shilin found that Internet companies are special, separate standards should be developed according to its characteristics, or targeted reporting, such as social audiences into deals, as well as factors such as impact on public life.
"So high combined case for concern, although poor turnover count, but deals could reach, it's a great influence on the whole, China's Ministry of Commerce should be involved in the investigation. "Wei Shilin said.
Relevant Administrative Department has not received applications for case law gives authorities the right to initiate investigations ex officio.
Under the Chinese State Council provisions concerning concentration standards for declaration of 4th, the concentration does not meet the reporting criteria, but according to appropriate procedures to collect facts and evidence show that the concentration has or may have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition, China's State Council departments in charge of Commerce shall be investigated according to law.
As to how "in accordance with the procedure provided for collection of facts and evidence", Yu Chengxing Shanghai haihua yongtai law firm lawyers believe that it is just a technical problem-anyone (including competition, consumer) can provide evidence, and Government departments can also take the initiative to collect.
However, industry analysts also expressed the opposite view, net about policy establishes "Government platform, platform control vehicle" regulatory principles for departments, market centralized or decentralized, the difficulty of monitoring is different.
The end result, authorities could start to drop and antitrust questions in China, but eventually rejected the deal.
But access regulation
Number of interviewed people in the industry believe that the "relevant market" definition of fuzzy is difficult to determine its monopoly.
Drops back to 21st century business Herald said the China mobile market is still just at the beginning, the current mobile penetration rate is only around 1% in China, there is a huge space for development.
NET about new deal will net about positioning for the taxi, "relevant market" needs expansion? Respond to the last drop, drops on the platform there are millions of car drivers, there are millions of taxi drivers.
University Professor of international economy and trade cueifan believes that net about got involved in the so-called two-sided markets, the market cross, network externalities, competition with the General market in many ways. "Antitrust disputes on this market is very large, you can say that there is no final conclusion, so I tend to hope the Government will release. "He said.
NET about provisions of the new deal network is about to implement market adjusted pricing, does this mean that drops bid and China will control the pricing of voice, to the detriment of the interests of consumers?
Seminar on August 3, Yi Fang, Beijing technology and business University Department of Economics and trade Director says: "if monopolies really occurred, drops will be another taxi company, we may return to our taxi looks like. ”
"Even if the merger ultimately, also to comply with strict conditions, such as drop and promise not to divide in the world market, commitment to operators and consumers to agree on prices themselves. "Beijing lawyer Dong zhengwei, GAO said.
Also on August 3 on a seminar hosted by the National School of development at Peking University, State Court said Zhou qiren, a professor at Peking University, from the technical characteristics and the history of the Internet, "no matter how big a company's share, there are always new entrants, which could not be terminated, all rushed in, who no one has a monopoly. ”
"So it was always going to be reform ideas, access to open, during and after the regulation has to be strengthened, not because you can violate the interests of consumers, violate the interests of competitors, it to do better. "Zhou qiren said.
滴滴收购优步中国是否构成垄断，谁说了算？ - 滴滴,优步,垄断 - IT资讯
滴滴出行收购优步中国，引发了业界对网约车市场垄断的激烈讨论。有关调查显示，2015年第4季度，滴滴出行、Uber和神州专车分别以84.2%、17.4%、14.9%的活跃用户覆盖率排名国内专车市场前三。照此推算，滴滴宣布收购优步中国业务后，业务将覆盖全国约90%的专车市场。合并是否构成垄断，不应只是市场的观望，被动等待申请与主动启动调查之间的微妙，考验有关行政部门的决策能力。
主管部门有发起调查权利
目前为止，中国商务部发言人的官方回应是：“中国商务部目前尚未收到有关滴滴和优步中国相关交易的经营者集中申报。按规定，凡符合《反垄断法》规定申报条件和《中国国务院关于经营者集中申报标准的规定》中申报标准的，经营者均应事先向中国商务部申报，未申报的不得实施集中。”
滴滴出行也曾对媒体表示：目前滴滴和优步中国均未实现盈利，且优步中国在上一个会计年度营业额没有达到申报标准。
根据反垄断法和中国国务院《关于经营者集中申报标准的规定》，主动申请反垄断审查的门槛之一是：至少两个经营者上一会计年度在中国境内的营业额均超过4亿元人民币。也就是说，只要有一家没达到4亿元，就无需申报。
如何计算出行平台的营业额一直存在争议。曾有业内企业呼吁以“司机账户流水”为营业额的计算标准。但《法制日报》报道称，滴滴出行认为，乘客和司机结算的流水，是司机和出租车公司的收入，和平台没有关系。
在8月3日互联网实验室与工信部华信研究院联合举办的研讨会上，北京市律协竞争与反垄断法律专业委员会主任魏士廪认为，互联网企业具有特殊性，应根据其特性制定单独标准，或有针对性地申报，比如纳入交易规模、社会受众度以及对大众生活的影响等因素。
“对于关注度如此高的合并案子，虽然营业额不好算，但是交易规模可能达到，它的整个影响很大，中国商务部应该介入调查。”魏士廪表示。
有关行政部门在未接到申请情况下，相关法律法规赋予了政府主管部门依职权发起调查的权利。
根据《中国国务院关于经营者集中申报标准的规定》第4条，经营者集中未达到申报标准，但按照规定程序收集的事实和证据表明该经营者集中具有或者可能具有排除、限制竞争效果的，中国国务院商务主管部门应当依法进行调查。
至于如何“按照规定的程序收集事实和证据”，上海海华永泰律师事务所律师余盛兴认为，这只不过是技术方面的问题——任何人(包括竞争对手、消费者)都可以提供证据，而政府主管部门也可以主动收集。
不过，也有行业分析人士表示相反观点，网约车政策确立了“政府管平台，平台管车辆”的监管原则，对于主管部门来讲，市场主体集中还是分散，监管的难度是不同的。
最终的结果，有关部门可能启动对滴滴和优步中国的反垄断质询，但最终不会否决这次交易。
准入放开但监管加强
多位受访的业内人士认为，“相关市场”界定的模糊是对其垄断行为进行判定的难点。
滴滴出行回复21世纪经济报道称，中国移动出行市场还刚刚起步，目前移动出行在中国的渗透率仅在1%左右，还有巨大的发展空间。
而网约车新政将网约车定位为出租车，“相关市场”是否需要相应扩容？滴滴出行回复记者称，滴滴平台上有上千万专车司机，还有上百万出租车司机。
对外经济贸易大学国际经济贸易学院教授崔凡认为，网约车涉及所谓双边市场，这种市场存在交叉性、网络外部性问题，其竞争行为跟一般的市场有很多不同。“对这种市场的反垄断争议很大，可以说完全没有定论，因此我倾向于希望政府放行。”他说。
网约车新政规定网约车以实行市场调节定价为主，这是否意味着滴滴收购优步中国后将控制定价话语权，从而损害消费者权益？
在8月3日的研讨会上，北京工商大学贸易经济系主任易芳认为：“如果垄断真的发生，滴滴将会成为另外一大出租车公司，我们又可能回到当初我们打出租车的样子。”
“即便合并最终通过，也要符合严格的条件，比如滴滴和优步相互承诺不在世界范围内划分市场，承诺经营人和消费者自行商定价格。”北京两高律师事务所律师董正伟说。
同样在8月3日由北京大学国家发展研究院主办的一场研讨会上，北大国发院教授周其仁说，从互联网的技术特性和历史来看，“不管一家公司占有的份额有多大，永远会有新的进入者，这是终止不了的，所有人都可以冲进去，谁也垄断不了谁。”
“所以还是要回到改革的思路，准入要放开，事中、事后的监管要加强，不能因为你大就可以侵犯消费者的利益，侵犯其他竞争者的利益，这件事情要做得好一点。”周其仁说。