从不构成侵权的侵权到中国第一反垄断案——对思科诉华为一案的评论

From a Pirate Case Which doesn't Pirate to China's First Anti-monopoly Case——Review on Cisco vs.Huawei Case

思科诉华为一案,思科起诉华为侵犯了其知识产权,但思科实质上是为了打击竞争对手,保护自己的既得利益。此案的关键是思科公司所拥有的私有协议是一个受到法律保护的知识产权,还是被思科公司用来进行不正当竞争的手段。在此案中,思科并没有拿出其私有协议已在美国注册为专利的证据,相反却限定他人购买其指定的商品,排挤其他经营者的公平竞争,由此,可以认定思科在我国市场中的行为具有垄断特征和倾销性质。因此,我们认为华为应当据此在国内反诉思科的垄断与倾销。这样一方面可以使思科撤销在美国的官司,另一方面作为国内反垄断第一案,可以促进中国反垄断法的出台和市场制度的完善。

In Cisco vs.Huawei case,Cisco indicts Huawei for pirate of his intel- ligent property rights,but the actual purpose of Cisco is to beat his competitor and to enhance his vested interest.The crux of this case is whether the private con- tract,which Cisco protests,is protected by patent law,or becomes the means of unfair competition.In this case,Cisco is incapable of providing evidence that his private contract has been registered as patent right in US.On the contrary,Cisco restricts his customers to his products exclusively and repulses other competitors. Thus Cisco's behavior in Chinese market can be regarded as monopoly and dump. We suggest that Huawei should countercharge Cisco with monopoly and dump.The countercharge,as the first one in China,can not only force Cisco to abandon his charge,but also foster China's anti-monopoly legislation.