奇虎訴騰訊濫用市場支配地位糾紛上訴案二審判決的評析

Comment on the 2nd Instance Decision of Qihoo v. Tencent for Abuse of Market Dominance

自2008年《反壟斷法》生效以來，“奇虎訴騰訊濫用市場支配地位一案”是最高人民法院依據《反壟斷法》審理的第一起案件，該案的審理過程和判決結果都引發了理論界和實務界的廣泛探討。以二審判決書為主要分析對象，並結合《反壟斷法》的規定和反壟斷案件分析的一般思路，研究了最高人民法院對《反壟斷法》具體條文的理解和適用的基本立場，為解決將來反壟斷執法和私人訴訟中的一些原則性問題提供了參考。最高院在判決中對免費市場運用假定壟斷者測試、確定相關地域市場等問題上有精彩論證，同時也留下了一些值得探討的問題，例如，在市場份額對判定市場支配地位的作用、相關市場的界定是否屬於反壟斷案件的基本事實等重要問題上，法院存在模棱兩可甚至自相矛盾的結論。

Since China’s Anti-Monopoly Law(AML) came into force in 2008, the lawsuit for abuse of market dominance by Qihoo against Tencent is the first case heard and decided by the Supreme People’s Court(SPC) under AML, of which the hearing and the judgment has been intensively discussed among scholars and practitioners. The text of the 2nd instance decision was analyzed by combining with the provisions of AML and the general analysis method of anti-monopoly cases. The SPC’s understanding and application of the specific provisions of AML was studied to provide an example for solving the principal issues in AML enforcement and private litigations in the future. The SPC made some excellent arguments in the decision, such as the application of hypothetical monopolist test in free market and the decision of relevant geographic market. Meanwhile, the SPC’s decision left some issues for discussion. For example, for the issue of the function of market share in finding market dominance and whether deciding relevant market is a basic fact in antimonopoly cases, the SPC’s answers were vague, and even inconsistent.