Does 360’ s QQ Guard Constitute Unfair Competition against Tencent? Part II

(By Luo Yanjie) Today, we would give our opinions on 360’s unfair competition ruling


Lawyer’s Comments:


The case is a part of the 3Q battle, and has garnered wide attention in the society. From a legal standpoint, this case is not difficult.The ruling against 360 was proper for the following reasons:


1. The promotion of ads and charges are of the lawful items


It shall first be pointed out that despite the annoying functions in QQ, like the pop-up ads or value added service, these functions are of the legal profit model of Tencent. As known to all, QQ is a free software (despite the various charging items, the basic function of the software, namely the messaging is free). For Tencent has invested many resources in hardware and management cost, and should naturally be repaid through the ads or value added service. If other companies prevent the lawful advertising of Tencent, thereby reducing the chances of lawful transactionsfor Tencent and its clients, it would be of unfair competition.


2. The judgment of unfair competition of “QQ Guard is because it is not only aguard software


360 is a noted software security developer, and if its product of QQ Guard only ensures the security of the software as it claims (like destroying Trojan or preventing the account from being stolen), it is our belief that no court would find itliable for unfair competition. But QQ Guard’s function is not only limited to that, it could also filter the ads in QQ, add misleading words for software evaluation, and even replace the interface of the software. The above conducts are not for the security of the user’s software and computer, and objectively speaking, damages the commercial promotion and profits of QQ software. Basing on the aforementioned analysis, the court’sruling that 360 is guilty of unfair competition is proper.


In conclusion, the ruling that 360 is liablefor unfair competitionwas not complicated.QQ Guard disruptedmany functions of QQ, and suchdisruptions could not be reasonably argued that it was for the security of the user’s computer. With regards to the judgment in the case, 360 has appealed to the Supreme Court of China.Our website will keep a close look at the case, and will continue to provide our readers with the latest progress of the case.

We posted this article several months ago which might be too long to read it on. Our intern Mr. Le Duc helped us to abstract it again. You may click here for the detailed post, if you prefer to know more on the case.


Lawyer Contacts


You Yunting86-21-52134918


Disclaimer of Bridge IP Law Commentary


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *