奇虎诉腾讯反垄断案最高院判决的要点
Key Rules of the Qihoo v. Tencent Judgment of China’s Supreme Court
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’s Court (hereafter “SPC”) announced the final judgment[1] on the case of abuse of dominant market position filed by Qihoo against Tencent, which dismissed Qihoo’s appeal and sustained the trial court judgment. As the first antitrust case heard by it, the SPC sets forth elements of analysis and analytical approaches to a series of issues such as market definition and determination of abuse of dominant market position, among others. The final judgment will be an important case to provide guidance for antitrust litigation, especially for cases of abuse of dominant market position.
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 aims to identify and summarize the key rules and reasoning of this final judgment and to provide our brief comments.
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 is not necessary to explicitly and clearly define a relevant market in any case of abuse of dominant market 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 definition is helpful to make clear the market scope of competitive behaviors and the competitive constraints faced by business operators. In a case of abuse of dominant position, a reasonably defined market is very important for assessing the market position of a business operator, analyzing the competitive effects of its conduct, and determining the legality of its conduct and other key issues. Therefore, market definition is usually an important analytical step in antitrust 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 would depend on specific situations of a case whether a relevant market could be clearly defined, especially availability of relevant evidence and data and complexity of competition. In a case of abuse of dominant position, market definition is not the purpose but a tool for evaluating the market power of the business operator being sued and the competitive effects of its conduct. Even if a market is not clearly defined, the market position of the business operator being sued and the potential competitive effects of its conduct could also be evaluated through the direct evidence of exclusion or restraint to competition.
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 this case, market definition is usually still necessary in antitrust lawsuits in the future. However, if clear definition of a relevant market is really not feasible (in very rare cases) due to unavailability of relevant evidence or data or complexity of competition, the related issues could be evaluated through the direct evidence of exclusion or restraint 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: If qualitative analysis is sufficient to clearly define a relevant market, complicated quantitative analysis 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 definition could be conducted in either a qualitative way or a quantitative way. Qualitative analysis is usually the starting point to define a relevant market. When qualitative analysis is sufficient for reaching a definite conclusion, it is not necessary to carry out complicated 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 analysis includes analysis of demand substitution and supply substitution based on factors such as product characteristics, use and price. Quantitative analysis involves applying the methods of mathematical economics or econometrics. Method is not a purpose but a tool. For market definition, qualitative analysis should be adopted first. If it is sufficient for definition, quantitative analysis is not necessary. Only if a relevant market could not be clearly defined qualitatively and quantitative analysis is feasible (e.g. relevant data is available), it is then necessary to consider 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: The hypothetical monopolist test (“HMT”) is generally applicable to define a relevant 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 the degree of substitutability among the target product and other products through a change of certain variable of the target product or service, assuming other conditions remain unchanged. As an analytical approach to market definition, the test can be generally applied[2].
- 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 to define both a relevant product market and a relevant geographic market. Under the HMT framework, the main consideration for defining a relevant geographic market is: whether the business operators in other geographies will constitute effective competitive constraint to the hypothetical monopolist in the target geography in case of any change to such competitive elements like price and quality; - 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 carried out not only through qualitative analysis, but also through quantitative analysis if conditions permit; - 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 carried out either through the method of SSNIP which involves imposing a small but significant and non-transitory increase in price, or through the method of SSNDQ which involves imposing a small but significant and non-transitory decrease 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 makes clear the HMT’s general applicability, especially stating that the test could be carried out qualitatively and through the method of SSNDQ that involves imposing a small but significant and non-transitory decrease in quality, which is quite an innovative idea.
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 rough and potentially misleading indicator for assessing existence of a dominant market position. For such assessment, multiple factors should be considered in a comprehensive way, including entry, a business operator’s market behavior, and competitive 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, the higher a market share is and the longer it continues, the more likely a dominant market position may exist. Article 19 of the Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”) states that if the market share of a business operator reaches 1/2 in the relevant market, it may be presumed to have a dominant position. But this presumption may be overturned. Where entry is relatively easy, or the high market share is due to that the business operator is more efficient or provides a better product, or the products outside the market constitute relatively strong competitive constraint to the business operator, a dominant market position cannot be inferred directly from a high market share. According to Article 18 of the AML, multiple factors need to be evaluated in determination of 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 the AML states that where a business operator with a presumed dominant position due to its market share can otherwise prove by evidence that it has no dominance, it shall not be determined as having a dominant position. This case lists the evidence that may overturn the presumption of a dominant position, including that entry is relatively easy, the high market share is due to that the business operator is more efficient or provides a better product, or the products outside the market constitute relatively strong competitive constraint to the business operator, etc. Meanwhile, according to this case, where there is a considerable market share (e.g., 40%), even if it fails to meet a standard of presumption in Article 19 of the AML (e.g., 1/2), but entry is very difficult, or the products outside the market constitute very weak competitive constraint to the business operator, it may also be deemed as having a dominant position.
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: After a business operator is determined to have a dominant market position, a comprehensive assessment of its adverse effects and potential favorable effects to consumers and competition is necessary to determine whether it constitutes abuse 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 business operator being sued has a dominant market position, a comprehensive assessment ofits conduct’s adverse effects and potential favorable effects to consumers and competition is necessary to determine whether it constitutes abuse of a dominant position and to 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 of abuse of dominant market position in the future, a court will not declare a business operator with a dominant position in violation of law simply for carrying out the relevant conduct. It is necessary to assess the conduct’s adverse effects and potential favorable effects to consumers and competition, which means courts will adopt a “rule of reason” approach. If the relevant behavior does not result in an obvious effect of exclusion or restriction to competition (for example, the court’s finding of Tencent’s conduct of “incompatibility of products” in this case), or the favorable effects to consumers and competition are far beyond its adverse effects, it may not constitute abuse of dominant position in violation of the AML. Otherwise, it may 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: Tying could have pro-competitive effects or anticompetitive effects. Only when it has anticompetitive effects, it may constitute a tying conduct prohibited by the AML.
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 to be deemed as in violation of the AML, the following conditions shall be met: the tying and tied products are separate, the seller has a dominant position in the market of the tying product, the seller imposes certain restriction upon the purchasers who would have to take the tied product, tying is not justifiable and does not comply with trade or consumption customs or disregards the product functions, and tying has anticompetitive effects. Tying itself may have favorable effects or adverse effects. The favorable effects of tying include improved product quality, lowered cost, increased sales, enhanced security and improved efficiency, under certain circumstances. Its adverse effect is that tying might enable a business operator to leverage its dominance in the tying product market to acquire an advantage 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 makes clear the specific pro-competitive effects or anticompetitive effects that tying could have. If tying causes no adverse effects, or the adverse effects are very limited and temporary but meanwhile there are significant favorable effects, it probably would not constitute the tying act prohibited by the AML. Otherwise, it may be deemed 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 the conduct involved in this case occurred on the Internet, the SPC’s judgment sets forth elements of analysis and analytical approaches to several general issues in antitrust cases, particularly in abuse of dominant market position cases, such as that it is not necessary to explicitly and clearly define a relevant market in any antitrust case, and that a comprehensive assessment of a conduct’s adverse effects and potential favorable effects to consumers and competition is necessary to determine whether it constitutes abuse of dominant position. This case will provide important guidance to antitrust litigation and probably will also be a significant reference for antitrust law enforcement.
[1] 最高人民法院民事判决书（2013）民三终字第4号。Civil Judgment (2013) Min San Zhong Zi No.4 of 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 to paragraph one of Article 10 of the Guidelines of the Anti-Monopoly Commission of the State Council for Definition of a Relevant Market.