Analysis on the Anti-monopoly Dispute Filed by Qihoo against Tencent, III

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) In our previous two posts, we introduced the reader to the facts involved in the monopoly dispute between Qihoo and Tencent, as well as the Court’s decision. Today, we continue that discussion of the case and would like to share our opinions on it.

Lawyer’s comments and analysis

It is not difficult to find from the above judgment that Qihoo lost the lawsuit mainly because the court in the first instance denied its allegation that Tencent held a dominant position in the market; in addition, it’s evidence that the court’s decision was primarily based on a broad definition of “relevant market” in regard to Tencent’s QQ instant messaging software. The following is our analysis on the issue:

READ MORE

Analysis on the Anti-monopoly Dispute Filed by Qihoo against Tencent, II

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Today we will continue our introduction of the opinions of the Guangdong High People’s Court, the first instance court in the anti-monopoly dispute, concerning the facts in the case as well as its judgment.

II. About the dominant position of the defendant in the relevant market

As held by the court in the first instance, the plaintiff had a much narrower definition of the relevant product market and regional market, and the plaintiff calculated the market share based on the relevant product and regional market as it advocated, and that could not truly reflect the share and position of the defendant in the relevant market objectively. Especially taking into account that the product scope shown was the plaintiff’s most important evidence; more importantly, that the report from the Ai Rui research institution presented data contrasting with the scope determined by the court.

READ MORE

Analysis on the Anti-monopoly Dispute Filed by Qihoo against Tencent, I

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Starting today, we will have three posts introducing the decision in China’s most closely followed anti-monopoly case. Today’s post will first introduce the facts of the case. Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd. (NYSE: QIHU) (“Qihoo”) is a company whose primary business is security software. In October of 2010, Qihoo released software named “360 Privacy Protector,” which was claimed to prevent QQ, the instant messenger of Tencent Holdings Limited (SEHK: 700) (“Tencent”), from uploading the user’s personal information. Tencent was very dissatisfied with this claim, and believed that Qihoo actually intended to steal QQ users’ information and then replace QQ with its own product. For this reason, Tencent issued a notice to its users, demanding that users who installed QQ not install any of Qihoo’s software. At the same time it took technical steps to check the computers of its users to see whether they had installed Qihoo’s software. If any Qihoo software was found, the user was not allowed to sign in to QQ. This led to a large dispute on the internet in China. After the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (the “MIIT”) intervened, Qihoo recalled its 360 Privacy Protector, and Tencent revoked its regulation prohibiting QQ users from using Qihoo.

READ MORE

How Does the Federal Trade Commission Decide Whether Intellectual Property Licenses Violate Anti-trust Laws?

Posted on by

Day Five of the US Visit II

In late March, the author had the opportunity to make a journey to the United States at the invitation of the U.S. government in order to better understand how the US intellectual system operates. On the fifth day of the visit, the author went to the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), and the following is a brief record of his visit there.

The FTC is the administration in charge of investigating and taking action against unfair competition and anti trust in the US. During the visit, FTC officials showed us a map showing that as of 1900, only the US and Canada had enacted competition laws, including unfair competition law and the anti trust law. Later by 1960, Sweden, France, and Japan passed legislation on competition. By 1980, many countries in Europe and South America passed competition laws, as well as Australia, India, Thailand, and South Africa. By 2012, almost all states of the world had laws in that field, except for a few African countries.

READ MORE

US Industrial Representative’s Interpretation on the Impossibility of Charges in China’s Music Industry

Posted on by

Record IV of Day Four of our U.S. Visit

(By You Yunting) In late March, the author had the opportunity to take a journey to the United States at the invitation of the U.S. government in order to better understand how the U.S. IPR system operates. On the fourth day of the journey, the author and his associate visited the International Intellectual Property Association (the “IIPA”). The following is the brief record of our visit there.

The IIPA is a copyright protection organization consisting of the Association of American Publishers (the “APP”), Business Software Alliance (the “BSA”), Entertainment Software Association (the “ESA”), Independent Film & Television Alliance (the “IFTA”), International Visual Art Association (the “INTVAA”), Motion Picture Association of America (the “MPAA”), National Music Publishers’ Association (the “NMPA”), and the Recording Industry Association of America (the “RIAA”).

READ MORE

Why did the US Rule that iPhone Jailbreaking is Legal, but iPad Jailbreaking is Illegal?

Posted on by

Record III of Day Four of Our Visit to the United States

(By You Yunting) At the end of this past March, on the invitation of the US government, the author visited America with other Chinese legal experts with the goal of better understanding its IPR system. On the fourth day of the journey, the author visited the Copyright Office of the US Library of Congress (the “US Copyright Office”). The following is the brief record of the visit on that day.

READ MORE

China’s Latest Laws and Regulations in March 2013

Posted on by

I. The Ministry of Commerce Issued Opinions Concerning the 2013 Guide on Attracting Foreign Investment Jobs 

On March 19, 2013, the Ministry of Commerce issued Opinions Concerning the 2013 Guide on Attracting Foreign Investment Work (“Opinions”), which emphasizes attracting foreign investment in the high value-added manufacturing industry, enhancing openness of the service industry to the outside world, and strengthening the important role of foreign investment in the introduction of technology and knowhow. The Opinions also promote advancement of foreign investment in eastern areas and bringing change to central western areas, as well as further improving the investment environment to protect the legal rights and interests of foreign invested enterprises and improving protection of intellectual property rights. The Ministry of Commerce concurrently released a report on the situation of foreign investment attraction in 2012.

READ MORE

A Case Showing the Legal Effectiveness of Property Transfer Signed on the Behalf of a Spouse

Posted on by

Case Summary:

(By Zhang Fan) A and B are married. After being married, the couple established a real estate company through joint investment, by which A holds eighty percent of the shares and the owns the remaining twenty percent. C and D wish to purchase all of the company’s shares, to which both A and B agree. Additionally, both participate in the preliminary negotiation with C. Afterwards, however, negotiation was only carried out between A and C, and A signed on behalf of B on the concluded Share Transfer Contract, Shareholders Decision, and the documents prepared for the change of administration. As provided in the Share Transfer Contract, A’s eighty percent share option would be transferred to C, and B’s twenty percent share option would be transferred to D. B did not sign her name on the contract. After the payment by C to A for the share transfer, both parties went to the Administration for Industry and Commerce to register the change. Now the share holding of the company is eighty percent for C and twenty for B (B never took care of the registration transferring ownership to D).

READ MORE

The Prospect and Challenge of China’s Share Transfer System for Medium and Small Sized Companies (the New Three Board)

Posted on by

(Yu Zhiyuan) In September 2012, the China Securities Regulatory Commission promulgated the Supervision & Management Measures for Non-Listed Public Companies (the “Measures”), and the Measures came into effect January 1 2013. The Measures could be adopted as a fundamental regulatory rule of the OTC market of the security market in China. On January 31 2013, the overall regulatory rules for the three new boards, the Interim Management Measures for Liability Limited Companies for the Share Option Transfer of Medium and Small Sized Companies in China (the “Interim Measures”) was also published. The system construction of the OTC market has stepped into a substantial phase. Considering the large scale of the OTC market has the ability to exert great influence on the OTC market among multiple countries; it deserves people’s attention concerning its prospects and challenges in the future.

READ MORE

Is a Notarization Made under False Pretenses for the Purpose of Evidence Collecting Valid in China?

Posted on by

(By  Luo Yanjie) In a civil lawsuit, the collecting of evidence for the purpose of notarization is quite common. However, during the process of collecting evidence that concerns the selling of infringing goods, the rights holders or their attorneys typically utilize a system of collection in which they set up a “customer” to purchase the infringing product as evidence of infringement. So the question is, should evidence collected in this manner be considered legally effective for the purposes of a lawsuit for infringement or unfair trade practice? For our understanding on the issue, and our experience in this decidedly complicated process, we would like to share with our readers today’s post concerning our opinions on the issue:

READ MORE

Has Apple Protected Its APP through the BSA？

Posted on by

The Second Record of the Day Four of the US Visit

(By You Yunting) In late March, the author had the opportunity to make a journey to the United States at the invitation of the U.S. government in order to better understand how the U.S. IPR system operates. On the morning of the fourth day of the journey, the writer visited the Business Software Association (BSA), which originally was not on the list of places to visit; it was later added on the recommendation of the writer. Despite this, the BSA received us with a chief inspection officer. The following is a record of our discussion carried out on that day. The topic of this post only concerns part of the discussion, and the reader may skip to the last part of this article if it interests you.

READ MORE

Does Running Game Cheating Programs Violate the Criminal Law in the United States?

Posted on by

—Day four of the visit to the United States

(By You Yunting) Beginning at the end of this March, on the invitation of the US government, the writer visited America with other Chinese legal experts with the goal of understanding its IPR system. On the fourth day, the writer visited the US Justice Department’s Bureau of Computer Crimes and IPR, the Department of Homeland Security’s IPR Coordination Center, and the American Chamber of Commerce. The following is the brief record of the writer’s experiences that day:

READ MORE

What Chinese Intellectual Property Legal Issues Are American Companies Dissatisfied With?

Posted on by

Day three of the visit to the United States

(By You Yunting) Beginning at the end of this March, on the invitation of the US government, I visited America with the goal of understanding its IPR system. On my third day in the US, I visited the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”), the United States-China Business Council (“USCBC”), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and the East Asia Bureau of the US Department of State. The following is the brief record of my meetings on that day.

READ MORE

Why China Should Revoke the Regulations Which May Put All the Piracy Selling Vendors into Jail?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) You could find the vendors selling the pirated films, TV dramas, music or software in almost each single street in the cities of China. And according to the current regulation that the amount of the sales totaled 500 discs could be prosecuted for the criminal law violation, any vendors who has been selling the pirated discs for at least one month could constitute the crime of copyright infringement, and to be sent in to jail. Despite what the vendor has done may damage the IPR of the copyright holder, it is fair to combat them under the laws and regulations. But it seems that the existing judicial interpretation has a too wide governing scope, and could have damaged the purpose of the Criminal law. And in the practices, the vendors who have been prosecuted for their piracy selling could be less than 1% of all. Thus it has made the vendors do not care the punishment regulated in the criminal law, and that on the other hand has broken the principle “any violation against the criminal law shall be prosecuted and punished”, and thereafter it may promote the law enforcement upon the selection or the law enforcement in the political campaign or the rule of man. And the at the same time, it could harm the IPR protection.

READ MORE

How does the U.S. Government Guide Companies Registering IPR in China?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) This March, at the invitation of the U.S. government, Mr. You Yunting, the founder of Bridge IP Commentary began his journey to the United States. The main purpose of this visit was to better understand the system of intellectual property rights in the United States. Mr. You would like to share with our readers his experiences there in several posts here on our website. Of course, the content of the posts may not be truly comprehensive or strictly accurate; that being said, if you find any mistakes or comments that can be corrected or improved upon, please let us know. We encourage more dialogue with the IPR community and welcome all constructive commentary. The following is the first post in a series of Mr. You’s visit to the United States: 

READ MORE