Court rules in favor of Tencent against Qihoo

Updated: 2013-03-29 07:35

By Zheng Caixiong in Guangzhou (China Daily)

  Comments() Print Mail Large Medium  Small 分享按钮 0

Court rules in favor of Tencent against Qihoo

A representative from Qihoo 360 answers reporters' questions on Thursday after a Guangdong court rejected all charges brought by the company against Tencent Holdings in a high-profile online monopoly dispute. Ke Xiaojun / China News Service

A court in Guangzhou, the capital of Guangdong province, on Thursday turned down all the charges from Qihoo 360 against Tencent Holdings in a high-profile online monopoly dispute.

Guangdong High People's Court ruled that 790,000 yuan ($125,800) in legal costs would have to be paid by Qihoo 360.

Tencent, China's largest instant messaging service provider, was accused of abusing its dominant market position in the case filed by Qihoo 360, an anti-virus software company.

Qihoo 360 accused Tencent of violating the country's anti-monopoly laws by taking steps such as introducing bundled sales to prevent its users from installing Qihoo 360's software.

The defendant had damaged the principle of fair competition, said Qihoo 360, which asked for 150 million yuan in compensation .

But the court ruled in favor of the defendant on Thursday.

Zhang Xuejun, the presiding judge, said the defendant did not break the country's anti-monopoly laws or related rules and regulations.

"The anti-monopoly law aims to protect competitors and consumers, instead of the monopoly itself," Zhang told reporters.

"Those who gain a dominant market position through technological innovation, better operation and management, and price advantages are not the targets of the country's anti-monopoly law," she said.

"The anti-monopoly law only disallows any companies to abuse their dominant market position to wipe out competition and damage consumers' interests," she added.

Zhao Ye, an attorney for Qihoo 360, expressed regret at the court's verdict.

"Qihoo 360 has yet to decide whether or not to appeal to a higher court," he said.

Previous Page 1 2 Next Page