奇虎诉腾讯反垄断案最高院判决的要点

投资分析 2016-02-09  星期二 魏瑛玲 万兴君合律师事务所 13773字 奇虎,腾讯,垄断

2014年10月16日,最高人民法院(以下简称“最高院”)对奇虎诉腾讯滥用市场支配地位案作出终审宣判[1],驳回奇虎的上诉,维持原判。作为最高院审理的第一例反垄断案件,本判决对如何界定相关市场、判断滥用市场支配地位等一系列问题明确了考量因素和分析方法,将成为对反垄断诉讼,尤其是滥用支配地位案件起指导性作用的重要案例。
On October 16,2014, the Supreme People’sCourt (hereafter “SPC”) announced the finaljudgment[1] on the case of abuse ofdominant market position filed by Qihooagainst Tencent, which dismissed Qihoo’sappeal and sustained the trial courtjudgment. As the first antitrust case heardby it, the SPC sets forth elementsof analysis and analytical approaches to aseries of issues such as marketdefinition and determination of abuse ofdominant market position, amongothers. The final judgment will be an importantcase to provide guidance forantitrust litigation, especially for cases of abuseof dominant marketposition.
本文旨在对该案例的裁判要点和理由进行整理归纳和简要解读。
This article aimsto identify and summarizethe key rules and reasoning of this final judgmentand to provide our briefcomments.
裁判要点一:并非在任何滥用市场支配地位的案件中均必须明确而清楚地界定相关市场
Key Rule I: It isnot necessary toexplicitly and clearly define a relevant market in any case ofabuse of dominantmarket position.
裁判理由:Reasoning:
界定相关市场有助于明确竞争行为的市场范围及经营者面对的竞争约束。在滥用支配地位案件中,合理地界定相关市场,对于认定经营者的市场地位、分析其行为对竞争的影响、判断其行为是否违法等关键问题具有重要意义。因此,在反垄断案件中,界定相关市场通常是重要的分析步骤。
Market definitionis helpful to make clearthe market scope of competitive behaviors and thecompetitive constraints facedby business operators. In a case of abuse ofdominant position, a reasonablydefined market is very important for assessingthe market position of a businessoperator, analyzing the competitive effectsof its conduct, and determining thelegality of its conduct and other keyissues. Therefore, market definition isusually an important analytical step inantitrust cases.
但是,是否能够明确界定相关市场取决于案件具体情况,尤其是案件证据、相关数据的可获得性、竞争的复杂性等。在滥用支配地位案件中,界定相关市场是评估被诉经营者的市场力量及其行为对竞争影响的工具,而非目的。即使不明确界定,也可通过排除或妨碍竞争的直接证据对被诉经营者的市场地位及其行为可能的竞争影响进行评估。
However, it woulddepend on specificsituations of a case whether a relevant market could beclearly defined,especially availability of relevant evidence and data andcomplexity ofcompetition. In a case of abuse of dominant position, marketdefinition is notthe purpose but a tool for evaluating the market power of thebusiness operatorbeing sued and the competitive effects of its conduct. Evenif a market is notclearly defined, the market position of the businessoperator being sued and thepotential competitive effects of its conduct couldalso be evaluated through thedirect evidence of exclusion or restraint tocompetition.
君合解读:Jun He’s comments:
根据本案例,在今后的反垄断诉讼中,通常仍需界定相关市场。但是,如果由于难以获得案件的相关证据、数据或竞争情况非常复杂等原因,确实不能明确界定相关市场的(这种情况非常少),可转而通过排除或妨碍竞争的直接证据对有关情况进行评估。
According to thiscase, market definition isusually still necessary in antitrust lawsuits in thefuture. However, if cleardefinition of a relevant market is really notfeasible (in very rare cases) dueto unavailability of relevant evidence ordata or complexity of competition, therelated issues could be evaluatedthrough the direct evidence of exclusion orrestraint to competition.
裁判要点二:如果定性分析足以明确界定相关市场,不必要进行复杂的定量分析
Key Rule II: Ifqualitative analysis issufficient to clearly define a relevant market,complicated quantitativeanalysis is not necessary.
裁判理由:Reasoning:
界定相关市场既可以采取定性分析的方法,又可采取定量分析方法。定性分析通常是进行界定的起点。在定性分析足以得出明确结论时,不必进行复杂的定量分析。
Market definitioncould be conducted ineither a qualitative way or a quantitative way.Qualitative analysis is usuallythe starting point to define a relevant market.When qualitative analysis issufficient for reaching a definite conclusion, itis not necessary to carry outcomplicated quantitative analysis.
君合解读:Jun He’s comments:
定性分析包括基于商品的特征、用途、价格等因素分析需求替代和供给替代的情况。定量分析包括运用数理经济学、计量经济学等方法进行的分析。方法只是工具,而非目的。在界定相关市场时,需先采取定性分析。如果足以界定,则不必再进行定量分析。只有在定性分析不能明确界定相关市场,同时定量分析可行的情况下(如相关数据可获得),才需考虑定量分析。
Qualitative analysisincludes analysis ofdemand substitution and supply substitution based onfactors such as productcharacteristics, use and price. Quantitative analysisinvolves applying themethods of mathematical economics or econometrics. Methodis not a purpose but atool. For market definition, qualitative analysis shouldbe adopted first. If itis sufficient for definition, quantitative analysis isnot necessary. Only if arelevant market could not be clearly definedqualitatively and quantitativeanalysis is feasible (e.g. relevant data isavailable), it is then necessary toconsider quantitative analysis.
裁判要点三:假定垄断者测试(HMT)可普遍适用于界定相关市场
Key Rule III: Thehypothetical monopolisttest (“HMT”) is generally applicable to define arelevant market.
裁判理由:Reasoning:
假定垄断者测试的基本思路是,在假设其他条件不变的前提下,通过目标商品或者服务某个变量的变化来测试目标商品与其他商品之间的可替代程度。作为界定相关市场的一种分析思路,该测试具有普遍适用性[2]。The basic approach of the HMT is to test thedegree ofsubstitutability among the target product and other products througha change ofcertain variable of the target product or service, assuming otherconditionsremain unchanged. As an analytical approach to market definition,the test canbe generally applied[2].
1. 既可用于界定相关商品市场,又可用于界定相关地域市场。在假定垄断者测试的框架下,相关地域市场界定考虑的主要因素是:在价格、质量等竞争因素发生变化的情况下,其他地区经营者对目标区域的假定垄断者是否会构成有效的竞争约束;
It can be used todefine both a relevantproduct market and a relevant geographic market. Underthe HMT framework, themain consideration for defining a relevant geographicmarket is: whether thebusiness operators in other geographies will constituteeffective competitiveconstraint to the hypothetical monopolist in the targetgeography in case of anychange to such competitive elements like price andquality;
2. 既可通过定性分析的方法进行,又可在条件允许情况下通过定量分析方法进行;
It can be carriedout not only throughqualitative analysis, but also through quantitativeanalysis if conditionspermit;
3. 既可通过数量不大但有意义且并非短暂的价格上涨(SSNIP)的方法进行,又可通过数量不大但有意义且并非短暂的质量下降(SSNDQ)的方法进行。
It can be carriedout either through themethod of SSNIP which involves imposing a small butsignificant andnon-transitory increase in price, or through the method ofSSNDQ which involvesimposing a small but significant and non-transitorydecrease in quality.
君合解读:Jun He’s comments:
本案例明确了假定垄断者测试的普遍适用性,尤其明确了该测试可以通过定性方法和数量不大但有意义且并非短暂的质量下降(SSNDQ)的方法进行,具有相当的新意。
This case makesclear the HMT’s generalapplicability, especially stating that the test couldbe carried outqualitatively and through the method of SSNDQ that involvesimposing a small butsignificant and non-transitory decrease in quality, whichis quite an innovativeidea.
裁判要点四:市场份额只是判断市场支配地位的一项粗糙且可能具有误导性的指标。判断市场支配地位还应考虑市场进入、经营者的市场行为、对竞争的影响等综合因素
Key Rule IV:Market share is only a roughand potentially misleading indicator for assessingexistence of a dominantmarket position. For such assessment, multiple factorsshould be considered in acomprehensive way, including entry, a businessoperator’s market behavior, andcompetitive effects, etc.
裁判理由:Reasoning:
一般而言,市场份额越高,持续的时间越长,就越可能预示市场支配地位的存在。反垄断法第十九条规定经营者在相关市场的市场份额达到二分之一的,可推定其有支配地位,但这一推定可以被推翻。在市场进入比较容易,或者高市场份额源于经营者更高的市场效率或者提供了更优异的产品,或者市场外产品对经营者形成较强的竞争约束等情况下,高的市场份额并不能直接推断出市场支配地位的存在。根据反垄断法第十八条的规定,认定市场支配地位需要综合评估多项因素。
In general, thehigher a market share is andthe longer it continues, the more likely adominant market position may exist.Article 19 of the Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”)states that if the market share of abusiness operator reaches 1/2 in therelevant market, it may be presumed to havea dominant position. But thispresumption may be overturned. Where entry isrelatively easy, or the highmarket share is due to that the business operatoris more efficient or providesa better product, or the products outside themarket constitute relativelystrong competitive constraint to the businessoperator, a dominant marketposition cannot be inferred directly from a highmarket share. According toArticle 18 of the AML, multiple factors need to beevaluated in determinationof a dominant market position.
君合解读:Jun He’s comments:
《反垄断法》第19条规定:因市场份额被推定具有市场支配地位的经营者,有证据证明不具有支配地位的,不应当认定其具有支配地位。本案例列举了对支配地位的推定可能起推翻作用的证据,即:市场进入比较容易,或者高市场份额源于经营者更高的市场效率或者提供了更优异的产品,或者市场外产品对经营者形成较强的竞争约束等情况。同时,根据本案例,如果具有相当的市场份额(如40%),即使未达到《反垄断法》第19条的推定标准(如二分之一),但市场进入很难,或者市场外产品对经营者形成的竞争约束很弱,亦有可能被认定为具有支配地位。
Article 19 of theAML states that where abusiness operator with a presumed dominant position dueto its market share canotherwise prove by evidence that it has no dominance,it shall not be determinedas having a dominant position. This case lists theevidence that may overturnthe presumption of a dominant position, includingthat entry is relatively easy,the high market share is due to that thebusiness operator is more efficient orprovides a better product, or theproducts outside the market constitute relativelystrong competitive constraintto the business operator, etc. Meanwhile,according to this case, where thereis a considerable market share (e.g., 40%),even if it fails to meet a standardof presumption in Article 19 of the AML(e.g., 1/2), but entry is verydifficult, or the products outside the marketconstitute very weak competitiveconstraint to the business operator, it mayalso be deemed as having a dominantposition.
裁判要点五:在认定经营者具有市场支配地位后,判断其是否构成滥用支配地位行为,需要综合评估对消费者和竞争造成的消极效果和可能的积极效果
Key Rule V: Aftera business operator isdetermined to have a dominant market position, acomprehensive assessment of itsadverse effects and potential favorable effectsto consumers and competition isnecessary to determine whether it constitutesabuse of dominant position.
裁判理由:Reasoning:
即使被诉经营者具有市场支配地位,判断其是否构成滥用支配地位,也需要综合评估其行为对消费者和竞争造成的消极效果和可能具有的积极效果,进而对行为的合法性与否作出判断。
Even if a businessoperator being sued has adominant market position, a comprehensive assessmentofits conduct’s adverseeffects and potential favorable effects to consumersand competition isnecessary to determine whether it constitutes abuse of adominant position andto further determine the conduct’s legitimacy.
君合解读:Jun He’s comments:
在今后的滥用市场支配地位案件中,法院将不会因经营者具有支配地位且实施了有关行为即判定其违法,需要评估行为对消费者和竞争造成的消极效果和可能具有的积极效果,即采取“合理”原则(rule of reason)。如果有关行为并未导致排除或限制竞争的明显效果(如本案例中法院对腾讯“产品不兼容”行为的认定),或对消费者和竞争产生的积极效果远远大于其消极效果,则可能不构成违反反垄断法的滥用支配地位行为。反之,则可能构成违法
For a case ofabuse of dominant marketposition in the future, a court will not declare abusiness operator with adominant position in violation of law simply forcarrying out the relevantconduct. It is necessary to assess the conduct’sadverse effects and potentialfavorable effects to consumers and competition,which means courts will adopt a“rule of reason” approach. If the relevantbehavior does not result in anobvious effect of exclusion or restriction tocompetition (for example, thecourt’s finding of Tencent’s conduct of“incompatibility of products” in thiscase), or the favorable effects toconsumers and competition are far beyond itsadverse effects, it may notconstitute abuse of dominant position in violationof the AML. Otherwise, itmay be deemed in violation of law.
裁判要点六:搭售对竞争既可能有积极效果,又可能有消极效果。只有对竞争具有消极效果,才可能构成反垄断法禁止的搭售行为
Key Rule VI: Tyingcould have pro-competitiveeffects or anticompetitive effects. Only when it hasanticompetitive effects, itmay constitute a tying conduct prohibited by theAML.
裁判理由:Reasoning:
构成反垄断法禁止的搭售行为,应当符合如下条件:搭售产品和被搭售产品是各自独立的产品;搭售者在搭售产品市场上具有支配地位;搭售者对购买者实施了某种强制,使其不得不接受被搭售产品;搭售不具有正当性,不符合交易惯例、消费习惯等或者无视商品的功能;搭售对竞争具有消极效果。搭售行为本身既可能产生积极效果,也可能造成消极效果。搭售的积极效果是在特定情况下可以提高产品质量、降低成本、促进销售、确保安全,从而提高效率,其消极效果是可能使得在搭售产品上市场具有支配地位的经营者将其竞争优势延伸到被搭售产品市场上。
For a conduct tobe deemed as in violationof the AML, the following conditions shall be met:the tying and tied productsare separate, the seller has a dominant position inthe market of the tyingproduct, the seller imposes certain restriction uponthe purchasers who wouldhave to take the tied product, tying is notjustifiable and does not comply withtrade or consumption customs or disregardsthe product functions, and tying hasanticompetitive effects. Tying itself mayhave favorable effects or adverseeffects. The favorable effects of tyinginclude improved product quality,lowered cost, increased sales, enhancedsecurity and improved efficiency, undercertain circumstances. Its adverseeffect is that tying might enable a businessoperator to leverage its dominancein the tying product market to acquire anadvantage in the tied product market.
君合解读:Jun He’s comments:
本案例明确了搭售可能对竞争产生的具体的积极效果和消极效果。如果搭售未产生消极效果,或者消极效果非常有限、短暂但同时具有显著的积极效果,则可能不构成反垄断法禁止的搭售行为。反之,则可能构成违法。
This case makesclear the specificpro-competitive effects or anticompetitive effects thattying could have. Iftying causes no adverse effects, or the adverse effectsare very limited andtemporary but meanwhile there are significant favorableeffects, it probablywould not constitute the tying act prohibited by the AML.Otherwise, it may bedeemed in violation of law.
结语Conclusion
虽然本案例的被诉行为发生在互联网领域,最高院的判决对反垄断案件,尤其是滥用市场支配地位案件的若干普遍性问题明确了考量因素和分析方法,包括并非在任何反垄断案件中都必须明确而清楚地界定相关市场、判断是否构成滥用支配地位行为需要综合评估对消费者和竞争的消极效果和可能具有的积极效果等。本案例对今后的反垄断诉讼将具有重要的指导作用,并可能对反垄断行政执法产生重大影响。
Although theconduct involved in this caseoccurred on the Internet, the SPC’s judgment setsforth elements of analysis andanalytical approaches to several general issuesin antitrust cases, particularlyin abuse of dominant market position cases,such as that it is not necessary toexplicitly and clearly define a relevantmarket in any antitrust case, and thata comprehensive assessment of aconduct’s adverse effects and potentialfavorable effects to consumers andcompetition is necessary to determine whetherit constitutes abuse of dominantposition. This case will provide importantguidance to antitrust litigation andprobably will also be a significantreference for antitrust law enforcement.
---------------------------------------------
[1] 最高人民法院民事判决书(2013)民三终字第4号。CivilJudgment (2013) Min San Zhong Zi No.4of the Supreme People’s Court.
[2] 参见《国务院反垄断委员会关于相关市场界定的指南》第10条第一款。Please refer toparagraph one of Article 10 of the Guidelines of theAnti-Monopoly Commissionof the State Council for Definition of a RelevantMarket.