Antitrust Law Implementation

The 14-year-old China's "Anti-Monopoly Law" has been formally implemented since August 1. The use of market monopoly to manipulate prices will be regarded as illegal. Transnational giants are preparing for war. The tech blog speculated that Microsoft will become the first defendant. A week ago, Microsoft’s public relations personnel learned about people's reactions everywhere. Microsoft has repeatedly stressed its contribution to the Chinese information industry. “We have been working hard to ensure that we comply with fair competition. "The legal system." However, Microsoft did not forget to hint in the material that given that the "Anti-Monopoly Law" supporting measures have not yet been introduced, it is too early to speculate on its implementation effect. People seem to be too worried to pull Microsoft into it. (Beijing Morning Post) August 1)

When the anti-monopoly law was introduced, Microsoft was very nervous. Microsoft's tension came from an unforgettable painful experience. In October of last year, Microsoft took a softball in a lawsuit that lasted for nine years, accepting the European Union’s anti-monopoly punishment decision on it. Up to 777 million euros in fines. Even in the United States, Microsoft is subject to monopolistic accusations, such as being split. As early as the 1990s, Microsoft was sued by the US Department of Justice for its monopoly in the market. Although it was struggling, The lawsuit is still losing. The "snake" bite several times, taking into account the fact that China, which has a huge market, has implemented anti-monopoly law, and Microsoft is naturally uneasy.

Actually, not only Microsoft, but some multinational giants have a certain fear for the implementation of the anti-monopoly law. The only difference lies in the degree. This scene is similar to the situation after the current draft of the Labor Contract Law was promulgated. It is because of its efforts to change resources. In the legislative spirit of the strong and weak situation, as soon as the draft was announced, it was opposed by some foreign-funded enterprises, who threatened to withdraw their capital, or referred to the transfer of enterprises to other countries for retaliation, and later used interest groups to lobby. The intention is to continue the labor contract law to employers.

Now it seems that, to a certain extent, the tension of foreign capital is somewhat puzzling and the facts prove that they are a false alarm. For example, in order to establish a trade union for a foreign company, according to local laws, both domestic and foreign companies should establish a trade union organization, but Foreign companies have been reluctant, they have either pushed or remained indifferent. This is really puzzling. These foreign companies are all honestly setting up trade unions in their countries. Why did they change their face when they arrived in China?

The reason is very simple. In other countries, trade unions have a strong sense of challenge. In order to defend the interests of employees, they dare to challenge power and dare to challenge the company's leadership. Enterprises are therefore miserable. Under such a long-term environment, corporate executives naturally fear it. Like tigers, investing in China, once you have heard of the need to establish a trade union, you will have the fear of reflexes. Naturally, you reject it because of your instincts. In fact, this is an “illusion.” In China, you have met several companies. What is the union talking to the company?

From this point of view, foreign capital does not understand China's national conditions. Compared with Microsoft's adversary, some domestic monopolies have few fears. Not to mention actively responding to them. They may well not think of antitrust laws at all. The board will hit their ass. The reason is also very simple. The long-term reality experience makes them aware that the anti-monopoly law will not hurt their hair, let alone hurt their bones. They have long since taken care of the pills. The object of the anti-monopoly law is monopolistic behavior, not a monopoly. Moreover, as early as a few years ago, a senior person in a functional department insisted that China did not have a monopoly, and state-owned enterprises did not have a monopoly—oil, telecommunications, Electric power and other industries have already formed a basic competitive structure. There is hardly any monopoly. There is power to back up and the monopolistic companies with deep-rooted problems are naturally at ease and enjoy the benefits of monopoly.

Equality before the law. The law can neither be extra-legal to domestic companies nor allow foreign companies to enjoy super-national treatment. As an expert in the review of the anti-monopoly law review panel, director of the Competition Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, Shi Jianzhong “If we only focus on foreign companies and indulge in domestic companies, it is actually a harm to the national economic development rather than protection.” If there are differences between inside and outside, the legal dignity of the anti-monopoly law and the original intention of legislation will inevitably be hurt.