technology news February 24th afternoon news, according to Qihoo 360 v. Tencent ridge of a case, the Supreme People’s Court of final appeal today upheld the verdict: dismissed the appeal upheld the verdict of Qihoo 360. Last year, the Guangdong provincial high court judge of the 360 Tencent constitute unfair competition, and compensation for economic loss of 5 million yuan, 360 then appealed to the Supreme court.

case originated in 2010, "3Q wars". Tencent first filed a lawsuit against 360, the focus of the dispute between the two sides is whether the security of the buckle buckle damaged the security of the QQ, whether it belongs to commercial slander, whether the embedded QQ software interface and promote the 360 services, such as the top 5 issues.

last April, the first instance of the case has been concluded in Guangdong Province Higher People’s court, 360 Lost, and was sentenced to compensate the Tencent for $5 million. In this regard, 360 expressed dissatisfaction with the results of the first instance verdict that the facts are unclear, the application of the law, and the Supreme People’s court filed an appeal. Last December 4th, the trial of the case in the Supreme court.

in today’s final judgment, the Supreme People’s court made the following:

1, according to the relevant provisions of the anti unfair competition law, Tencent QQ to obtain relevant income, this free platform and advertising model, the Internet is the usual mode of operation. 360 also take this model. This model does not violate the provisions of the 360 interference in the normal operation of Tencent. Court of first instance found that there is no improper.

two, 360 claimed that the QQ bodyguard stopped QQ software to view privacy, there is no evidence to prove this point. Without the support of the relevant evidence, 360 this statement does not meet the objective facts. 360 buttoned bodyguards evaluation of QQ, it is difficult to identify objective results. This review has exceeded the normal review category, identified as constituting commercial slander is not inappropriate.

three, the 360 act is a step in a planned program, first guide users to install QQ derogatory buttoned bodyguards, and then guide the user to install security guards, and then replace the related services. 360 will be their products and services embedded in QQ, the fundamental purpose is to rely on the QQ user base, marketing promotion of the 360 security guards, this behavior is essentially unfair competition.

four, 360 think that behavior is the embodiment of innovation and competition, the Internet to encourage free competition and innovation, but it does not mean that you can do as you please. The healthy development of the Internet requires an orderly market environment and rules to protect. 360 in the name of technological innovation, QQ software depth intervention, it is difficult to identify such behavior in line with the spirit of innovation.

five, whether the first instance compensation is reasonable. 360 the fact that the Tencent has made it clear that the amount of compensation should be determined on the basis of statutory damages. 360 the impact of income caused by the Tencent, with a clear intention of the director, the court held that the court of first instance will be the amount of compensation for the case was set at 5 million yuan, not improper.

Finally, the court rejected

announced that the Qihoo.