2 individuals' Violation

Case:

Key Words:

obviously unfair, trading information, application programs

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of August 1, 2012 (at the 1082nd Commissioners' Meeting), Disposition Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 101094

Industry:

Other Information Supply Services Not Elsewhere Classified (6399)

Relevant Laws:

Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. The FTC was informed by Global Net Technology Inc. that a large amount of the movie time information on the @Movies website the company had set up to provide movie and TV show information and reviews had been reproduced and posted on iPhone App Store of US-based Apple Inc. as the content of the "moovy"application program for the public to browse and download. The informer had investigated and discovered that the 'moovy"application program had been developed by Mr. Huang Qunxiang (transliteration). The informer then put in some wrong movie time information for certain movie theaters on purpose and found that the movie time information displayed on 'moovy"was exactly the same. The informer tested it several times and the result was the same every time. Therefore, the informer found a third party, a public notary, to testify that its information was being plagiarized and used as the content of the 'moovy"application program in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law.
2. Findings of the FTC after investigation:
   After an investigation, the FTC found out that Mr. B had developed the "moovy"application program and contacted Apple Inc, while Mr. A represented the company and signed a contract with Fullerton Digital Technology to cooperate on the development of a online movie ticket booking system. Both people agreed to split the work and undertake related tasks. The situation complied with the description of "any other person or organization engaging in transactions through the provision of goods or services"set forth in Subparagraph 4, Article 2 of the Fair Trade Law. The informer operated the @Movies website and authorized other businesses to use the movie time information as a business. The said information it collected and compiled had certain economic value. Other businesses intending to obtain the said information for commercial purposes would have to purchase it.
3. Grounds for disposition:
   1. To collect the evidence of the illegal activities of Mr. A and Mr. B, the informer put in some wrong movie time information for some movie theaters on purpose and found that the movie time information displayed on 'moovy"was exactly the same. The informer tested it several times and the result was the same every time. Therefore, the informer found a public notary to serve as the witness. Meanwhile, Mr. A and Mr. B also admitted that they had indeed made reference to the information on the informer's @Movies website. They put their "moovy"application program on iPhone App Store of Apple Inc and used the movie time information from the @Movies website without paying any fee to the informer or acquiring the informer's consent. During the period of about five months that the application program was put online, two hundred and thirty thousand downloads were made. Apparently, the cost they invested and the competition edges they acquired were incommensurable. The conduct was use of the results of others' efforts to promote one's own products or services.
   2. Mr. A and Mr. B used the website information of another business without acquiring its consent in advance. They took advantage of the results of the informer's efforts that had involved certain investment risk and offered the said information as the content of their own application program to create business opportunities for themselves. The conduct jeopardized trading order that should center around performance competition on prices, quality or services. It was an inexcusable violation of commercial competition ethics and an obviously unfair act that could affect trading order.
   3. After assessment, the FTC decided that the conduct of Mr. A and Mr. B to use the movie time information of another business without acquiring its consent in advance and offer such information as the content of the application program they had developed to promote their own products or services was an obviously unfair act able to affect trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law. Acting according to Paragraph 1, Article 41 of the same law, the FTC ordered both people to immediately cease the unlawful act and also imposed on them an administrative fine of NT$50,000 each.

Summarized by Hsu, Hsiu-Feng; Supervised by Chiou, Shwu-Fen