To compete in accordance with the law rather than by usage: A cold reflection on JD's victory over Alibaba
芊芊551
发表于 2024-1-15 18:31:31
279
0
0
(Author Wu Jingfei, Associate Professor at the School of Economics, Shanghai University)
On December 29, 2023, Alibaba's claim of being fined 1 billion yuan from JD.com topped the Weibo hot search list, and its popularity continues to rise. According to information disclosed on JD's official website, on December 29th, the Beijing Higher People's Court made a first instance judgment on JD's lawsuit against Zhejiang Tmall Network Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Tmall Technology Co., Ltd., and Alibaba Group Holdings Co., Ltd., determining that their abuse of market support position and implementation of a "two choice" monopoly behavior were established, causing serious damage to JD, and ordered compensation of 1 billion yuan to JD.
Public information shows that the dispute between JD.com and Alibaba regarding the "one out of two" policy can be traced back to 2013. In 2013, JD.com publicly stated that merchants were forced to "choose one from two" by Alibaba; In 2015, JD.com reported Alibaba with its real name to the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce; In 2017, both parties went to court. In 2019, the Supreme People's Court made a final ruling rejecting Alibaba's request for "objection to jurisdiction" and determining that the Beijing Higher People's Court has jurisdiction over this case. Both parties will come and go until the end of 2023, which can be considered as a statement.
Many people cannot help but feel that justice will only be late and will never be absent. But wait a moment, how do you know that Alibaba's forcing merchants to choose between two is unjust? You should know that there was also a two choice lawsuit from Tencent and Qihoo 360 around the time, and the answer was exactly the opposite.
On November 3, 2010, Tencent announced that it would stop running QQ software on computers equipped with Qihoo 360 software. Users must uninstall 360 software to log in to QQ, forcing them to choose between two options. So, for their respective interests, from 2010 to 2014, the two companies staged a series of internet wars and embarked on the path of litigation. The final verdict of the two choice case between Tencent and Qihoo was that Tencent won, and forcing users to choose between the two does not constitute unfair competition.
Why are the verdicts completely opposite when they are all forced to choose between two? I don't have time to elaborate today. Interested friends can come to the court judgment to carefully study it. I believe it will definitely benefit you greatly. I just want to say that the legal judgment on whether a company's competitive behavior is fair is not simple.
Let's change the way we ask, does a company have the right to define its own qualified supplier standards?
If your answer is yes. So, when choosing a supplier, Alibaba has the right to determine whether it is a qualified supplier based on whether the supplier is supplying to other third parties (such as JD.com), is it also legal?
Okay, even if we believe that Alibaba's forcing suppliers to choose between two is unfair and illegal, Alibaba screens and eliminates qualified suppliers based on this standard. How can law enforcement officers observe this "illegal" behavior? Should judges constantly supervise every enterprise and supplier selection in society? I don't think anyone with a slightly normal mind would think that way.
In fact, it is simple to establish that certain behaviors are illegal in legal form, but if the cost of supervising these illegal behaviors is extremely high, the enforceability of this law in practice will be low. This law can only be a paper article and cannot bring value to the behavior norms of social subjects, and may even undermine the authority of the law.
JD competes with Alibaba, and it is understandable that JD chooses to retaliate through legal litigation. In modern rule of law commercial society, litigation is one of the important means used by enterprises in market competition, but it must be understood that no enterprise has ever won and become a great enterprise through litigation in market competition. For enterprises, the uncertain factors in litigation are high and the efficiency is low. Only by taking control of their own destiny, focusing on customer needs, and continuous innovation is the fundamental way to stand invincible.
Today, looking back, Alibaba's "one out of two" strategy for merchants ten years ago not only did not have any substantial impact on JD.com, but more importantly, it did not have any impact on China's e-commerce competition landscape. In 2013, when Jingdong and Ali began to fight, Pinduoduo, which was based on the vast rural market, was still on the way to build, not to mention the later Tiktok and Dongfang Selection, the rising stars in today's e-commerce industry. In the past decade, while two e-commerce giants are still fighting fiercely over whether the "two choices" policy is legal, the spark of China's new e-commerce forces has ignited, and to this day, it has become magnificent. The market value of the former two giants has continued to decline, and their fatigue has now emerged.
A market economy is a rule of law economy, where the law sets a bottom line for the behavior of market entities and clarifies what cannot be done. In fierce market competition, enterprises will inevitably adopt a variety of competitive behaviors, as long as these behaviors do not touch the legal bottom line, there is no need to regulate them. It has been proven that the best way to combat monopolistic behavior by enterprises is not to make such behavior illegal, but to allow other enterprises to enter the market at any time, compete fully, and have a variety of opportunities. The law determines the lower limit of corporate behavior, while market competition determines the upper limit of corporate behavior.
Competition by law rather than by usage is the secret to the prosperity of modern market economy!
(The author Wu Jingfei is an associate professor at the School of Economics, Shanghai University)
This article only represents the author's viewpoint.
CandyLake.com 系信息发布平台,仅提供信息存储空间服务。
声明:该文观点仅代表作者本人,本文不代表CandyLake.com立场,且不构成建议,请谨慎对待。
声明:该文观点仅代表作者本人,本文不代表CandyLake.com立场,且不构成建议,请谨慎对待。
猜你喜欢
- Alibaba announces sale of Intime for 7.4 billion yuan! Yagor's response from the receiving party
- Alibaba sells equity in Intime for 7.4 billion yuan, with Youngor Group and Intime management taking over
- Alibaba sold Yintai for 7.4 billion yuan, resulting in a loss of approximately 9.3 billion yuan
- Alibaba sells Intime Department Store to Yagor for 7.4 billion yuan
- Yintai Department Store changes ownership! Alibaba sells at a loss of 9.3 billion yuan
- Expected loss of 9.3 billion yuan, Alibaba exits non core assets and bid farewell to Yintai
- A new round of 'slimming'? Alibaba sells Intime Department Store for 7.4 billion yuan, with frequent capital operations in the fourth quarter
- 7.4 billion yuan! Alibaba sells Intime Department Store!
- Alibaba slimming and cutting again! Yintai's' experimental field 'has been fluctuating for ten years: who will be the next to be sold
- Alibaba clears Yintai Department Store and changes ownership to Yagor for 7.4 billion yuan
-
隔夜株式市場 世界の主要指数は金曜日に多くが下落し、最新のインフレデータが減速の兆しを示したおかげで、米株3大指数は大幅に回復し、いずれも1%超上昇した。 金曜日に発表されたデータによると、米国の11月のPC ...
- SNT
- 3 天前
- 支持
- 反对
- 回复
- 收藏
-
長年にわたって、昔の消金大手の捷信消金の再編がようやく地に着いた。 天津銀行の発表によると、同行は京東傘下の2社、対外貿易信託などと捷信消金再編に参加する。再編が完了すると、京東の持ち株比率は65%に達し ...
- SNT
- 3 天前
- 支持
- 反对
- 回复
- 收藏
-
【GPT-5屋台で大きな問題:数億ドルを燃やした後、OpenAIは牛が吹くのが早いことを発見した】OpenAIのGPT-5プロジェクト(Orion)はすでに18カ月を超える準備をしており、関係者によると、このプロジェクトは現在進 ...
- SNT
- 昨天 13:11
- 支持
- 反对
- 回复
- 收藏
-
【英偉達はExBody 2システムを発売して2足ロボットのバランスと適応能力を強化】12月18日、英偉達、MIT、カリフォルニア大学は共同で最新の研究を発表し、ロボットが「固定シナリオ」による運動限界を打破し、ロボ ...
- smile929
- 昨天 19:00
- 支持
- 反对
- 回复
- 收藏