Text / Li Junhui proofreading / Chen Li
Following Apple, Motorola became another overseas tycoon involved in monopoly disputes in the domestic market.
Recently, Motorola (China) Co., Ltd., Motorola Systems (China) Co., Ltd. Beijing Branch (hereafter referred to as Motorola) were accused of being monopolized by the special communications market of Motorola, The Company sued Beijing Intellectual Property Court and petitioned the court to order Motorola to stop the aforementioned abusive monopoly of market dominance and compensate for the loss of RMB60 million and reasonable expenses of RMB500,000.
Prior to this, Guangdong Pingsheng Electronics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'PISEN Company') engaged in the production of accessories such as Apple's mobile phones once sued Apple to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on August 25, 2017 for the reason that Apple was suspected of misusing the market Dominance.
However, Motorola sued the monopoly case is different, then, PISEN claim the amount of only 1 yuan.
This shows that Hisense Communications Inc. v. Motorola suspected of monopoly in order to break the monopoly of Motorola in a particular market position, and Pingsheng v. Apple Inc. monopoly case, it seems Pong name brand 'hype' means quite strong.
Claim 60 million yuan! Motorola was arrested on monopoly subway network was sued
Related information shows, in the TETRA system technology programs or services, previously mainly by Nokia, Motorola, Marconi and other companies to provide.
The view is that TETRA is an open digital trunking standards, air interface signaling is the same as the GSM standard, so the procurement of any terminal equipment manufacturers end products can meet all the benefits of standard features.
However, in a case of suspected monopoly by Motorola, Hytera Communications claimed that Motorola had a market dominance in the metro private network communications market and Motorola denied any other reason to the relevant market such as Hytera Communications Company without justifiable reasons. Operators should open up the interworking interface of the TETRA system of metro lines or provide other interconnection and interoperability schemes that can achieve the same effect and restrict the MTRC from dealing with its or its selected suppliers only and using its market dominance to be unfair Of the high price to the subway company to provide private network communications equipment and services to exclude and limit the competition in the metro private network communications market, belonging to the antitrust law Article 17 of the abuse of market dominance of the monopoly of the sea to reach the communications company The real damage, should bear the corresponding legal responsibility.
As a result, the company has sued Motorola to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, asking the court to order Motorola to stop the above abusive monopoly of market dominance and compensate for a loss of 60 million yuan at a reasonable cost of 500,000 yuan.
Whether the alleged monopoly, the key depends on whether Motorola has these characteristics
Article 17 of the Anti-monopoly Law stipulates that 'there is no justification to restrict the counterpart of the transaction to dealing with it only or to the operator with whom it is designated' and that it is a misuse of the market dominance of a business operator with a market dominance One of the acts.
According to the Anti-monopoly Law, the so-called 'dominant market position' refers to the market position in which the operator has the ability to control the price, quantity or other conditions of the commodity in the relevant market or hinder the ability of other operators to enter the relevant market '.
Therefore, Motorola suspected monopoly case, there are three key: First, Motorola in the metro private network communications market has the dominant position, and secondly, whether Motorola refuses to open its interoperability interface to similar product operators or provide other to achieve the same Effect of the interconnection scheme so that the MTRCL can only deal with it or its selected suppliers.
Similar to PISEN v. Apple, the verdict in the case will affect the possibility of domestic metro communication equipment manufacturers entering the corresponding service markets and the localization of corresponding products or parts in the market.
And PISEN v. Apple Inc. is different from Apple's iPhone, iPad and many other products have achieved localization of products, but not 'product wins' or 'product supply wins'.
In addition, it should be noted that, this time Motorola was monopolized by the complaint, all the products involved and suspected cell phone products, therefore, Lenovo may or may not be related.