(By You Yunting) Recently, Sohu vs Toutiao has attracted attention from the media. Sohu sued Toutiao for copyright infringement and unfair competition, whilst Toutiao filed lawsuits against Sohu for defamation. It is quite normal for two enterprises in competition to take legal proceedings against each other. However, what really surprised us was, in their dispute, that governmental officials attended Sohu’s press conference, in favor of Sohu. In today’s post, we will discuss the reason for theimproper governmental interference. Comments and suggestions are most welcome.
(By You Yunting) Recently, in the proceeding litigation alleging copyright infringement, Beijing China Youth Book Inc. vs Baidu Library, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court issued a judgment requiring that Baidu compensate Beijing China Youth Book Inc. 350,000 Yuan. When compared with the 20,000 Yuan compensation required for a pirated movie, the ordered compensation is much larger than expected. This simultaneously reflects the strengthening of legal sanctions against internet copyright infringement and suggests that the standard on which copyright infringement compensation is judged lacks rationality in China.
Abstract: Five Shanghai gold retailers fined for price manipulation because although they were supposed to be competing with each other, the retailers conspired to fix the price, which constitutes as a horizontal monopoly, a clear violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law. The reason behind the five gold retailers’ fines is that their practices of horizontal monopoly caused more severe harm to consumer’s legal interest and social orders than that of previous vertical monopoly on limitation of resale prices made by Mao Tai, Wu Liang Ye, and six milk powder manufacturers. However, what is puzzling about this fine is that the punishments for this horizontal monopoly violation made by the NDRC were inferior to that of vertical monopoly violation.