Research On The Legal Problems About Defining Abuse Of Market Dominant Position In The Internet Area

Defining the abuse of dominant market position plays an important role in antitrust litigation. The Internet as an emerging industry, defines its relevant market there has been controversy and did not form a unified standard. In the case of Qihoo 360 v. Tencent, the Court first adopted the "Small but Significant Not-transitory Increase in Price ", and thus ruling Tencent does not constitute a monopoly. Significance of this judgment can be described as major, on the one hand, it is recognized in the field of instant messaging of monopoly or not to act for the first time, creating a Chinese Internet industry antitrust lawsuit new path, pushing the antitrust laws in the Internet industry professional practice and Providing experience for subsequent similar cases; on the other hand, it clarifies the Internet industry for "technological innovation, free competition and unfair competition boundaries" has an important role in helping to promote the Internet towards health, innovation, open direction, maintaining a good network market competition order. However, due to the internet area differs from traditional industries with new features, and present anti-monopoly law and provisions of the relevant laws and regulations are lack of specific operational standards, leading to the court in defining the relevant market in terms of Tencent QQ faces many challenges and difficulties, leaving many debatable and scrutiny place. Therefore, except of continuing to strengthen antitrust litigation, we should also further improve the existing antitrust rules of the network economy, strengthen the guiding role of relevant cases, to change the traditional way of thinking, exploring new definition mode, which made its relevant market an accurate definition of science, the real break monopoly to the Internet to create a competitive, innovative, open environment. This paper tightly around the case of Qihoo360 v Tencent, will be divided into three parts: the first part includes the review of cases. This part describes the merits of the case and the thrust of the court’s judgment, and thus the focus of controversy in this case leads to the judgment. The second part of the paper analyzes the dispute in this case the focus of legal comment. The focus of the dispute in this case will be analyzed from the perspective of antitrust law. And the paper will discuss if Tencent abusing dominant market position so that it constitutes a monopoly, including the definition of relevant market, the influence of the role of market share plays in the process of defining dominant market position. Besides, this part will analyze the influence to defining restrict trade and tie-in sale of the “alternative” behavior and bundling. Finally, the article put forward legal countermeasures against the problems, advising perfecting anti-monopoly law, forming a complete set of special legislation, introducing new definition model and case should play the role of instructional mode, in order to achieve the orderly development of the Internet.