Jitterbug v. Tencent case accepted, attracting netizens
On February 7, the case of Jitterbug v. Tencent Monopoly was officially accepted by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. However, some netizens believe that central enterprises in the fields of oil and electricity are monopolies, and that the Chinese Communist Party taking private enterprises is not a real anti-monopoly
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court on the 7th officially accepted the case of Jitterbug v. Tencent monopoly dispute. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court said that the case of Beijing Weibao Vision Technology and Beijing Byte Jumping Technology v. Defendant Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co.
The case is the first anti-monopoly lawsuit between Internet platforms on the mainland since the publication of the “Anti-monopoly Guidelines on the Platform Economy (Draft for Public Comments)” by the Chinese Communist Party authorities in late 2020.
On February 2, three years after being blocked by Tencent, Jitterbug formally filed a petition with the court, suing Tencent for monopoly and asking the court to order Tencent to stop monopoly and pay 90 million RMB in compensation.
In response, Tencent responded that ByteDance was “maliciously framed” and believed that ByteDance and related companies also had many violations of the platform’s ecology and users’ rights, and Tencent would continue to file lawsuits.
In response to Tencent’s response, Jitterbug issued a statement in the middle of the night, saying that user data should not become the private property of Tencent, and that Tencent’s monopoly-related unfair competition regulations were not to be denied.
Mainland netizens, however, are in a watching mood: “Fight, fight. I’m looking forward to it!” “I don’t mind watching the fun! The more lively the better.” “Tear up, better to see …… finally someone can mess with Tencent. “”Two dogs make a strong bite.”
Some netizens also said that the CCP anti-monopoly should start with the central enterprises, oil, electricity and other fields are monopolies, the CCP only take the private enterprises, not the real anti-monopoly.
Meanwhile, on the 7th, the State Council of the Communist Party of China issued the “Anti-monopoly Guidelines of the Anti-monopoly Committee of the State Council on the Platform Economy”, which stated that for operators that are not prohibited, the anti-monopoly enforcement agency of the State Council may decide to attach the following types of restrictive conditions, including structural conditions such as divesting tangible assets, divesting intangible assets such as intellectual property, technology and data or divesting relevant interests.
Some commentators believe that this move shows that the Chinese Communist authorities are going to take action against the domestic technology giants. The anti-monopoly investigation of Alibaba and the halting of Ant Group’s IPO (initial public offering) are both preludes.
On February 8, Vipshop, a leading e-commerce company in mainland China, was fined another RMB 3 million for unfair competition, after being fined RMB 500,000 for “unfair pricing practices” on December 30, 2020.
Recent Comments