By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Yin Ranran
The QQ / 360 battle broken out towards the end of 2010 (see our article entitled "The QQ / 360 Disputes – Who, What, Where, When and Preliminary Antitrust Analysis") has stirred lasting and heated discussions about anti-monopoly issues in the emerging Internet industry in China. 

About one month ago, Renmin University of China organized the thirteenth Anti-Monopoly Law Summit Forum, which was focused on discussion of fair competition in the Internet industry of China and protection of netizens’ interests.  Officials from various government agencies, such as the Law Committee of the National People’s Congress, Legislative Affairs of the State Council, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology ("MIIT"), the State of Administration for Industry and Commerce ("SAIC’), the Ministry of Commerce, and the National Development and Reform Commission, as well as judges from the Supreme People’s Court participated in the forum..Continue Reading Potential Monopoly In China’s Internet Industry Caught Attention of Chinese Competition Authorities

By: Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Yin Ranran

Recently, the Jiangsu Administration for Industry & Commerce ("Jiangsu AIC") issued sanctions against the Concrete Committee of the Construction Materials and Construction Machinery Industry Association of Lianyungang City ("Association") and 16 concrete manufacturers for breach of the Anti-Monopoly Law, by way of having entered into a monopoly agreement.  

This is the first publicly released enforcement decision by the SAIC (which delegated power onto the AIC) in respect of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), since the enactment of the AML in August 20081

The State Administration for Industry & Commerce ("SAIC") possesses the jurisdiction to govern and enforce non-price prohibitions in respect of the AML. And, according to the Article 10 of the AML and the Article 2 of the Procedural Rules by Administration of Industry and Commerce regarding Investigation and Handling of Cases relating to Monopoly Agreement and Abuse of Dominant Market Position, where necessary, SAIC may delegate to relevant AIC of a province, an autonomous region, or a municipality ("Provincial AIC") the authority of anti-monopoly law enforcement with regard to monopoly agreement and abuse of dominant market position.

 Continue Reading First Public Enforcement Decision by SAIC against concrete manufacturers

At first glance, the goals of intellectual property law and competition law might appear to conflict. IPR owners are granted statutory rights to control access and charge monopoly rents to others for use of their rights. IPR owners may also use terms of IPR licences to regulate downstream activities of their distributors, such as imposing exclusivity, territorial restraints and price restraints. Competition law, on the other hand, is directed at curtailing such market power which may prove harmful to economic welfare.
Continue Reading Intersect Between Intellectual Property Law And Competition Law