LED antitrust case 6 years to close the OLED should be vigilant

In January 4, 2013, the national development and Reform Commission disclosed that recently has been on the Samsung, LG, CMO, AUO, Taiwan China CPT and HannStar LCD panel and 6 large international manufacturers to open monopoly ticket prices, including ordered to return, confiscate the illegal income and fines totaling 353 million yuan.

This penalty, BOE vice president Zhang Yu said in an interview with this reporter: "the investigation of the secret do very well, as the panel production enterprises, we have never heard of such a survey, the results of the survey are suddenly saw. However, the domestic panel makers and domestic terminal manufacturers, the results of the anti-monopoly is clearly favorable. "

Over the past few years, with the United States, the European Union, South Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and other major LCD panel manufacturers antitrust investigation and price manipulation results have been released, the main panel are subject to heavy penalties. However, the introduction of Chinese "anti monopoly law", the anti-monopoly investigation panel has no sound.

This time, in addition to the panel suddenly announced the results of the antitrust investigation of the industry surprised, the amount of fines also sparked widespread controversy. The Commission for investigation according to the domestic enterprises in December 2006 a written report, which lasted 6 years, but the final result is a fine of $1 billion 215 million with the United States, the EU fined 648 million euros, a fine of 194 billion won from South korea.

Swallow insult and humiliation silently

According to reports, the NDRC launched an antitrust investigation against Samsung, LG and other 6 panel manufacturers, the main reason is that from 2001 to 2006 6 years, South Korea's Samsung and other 6 LCD panel production enterprise has held 53 "crystal negotiation conference", the LCD panel prices, the implementation of price monopoly behavior in mainland Chinese.

This is the same as the United States Department of justice, the European Union and South Korea antitrust authorities fined the same. The United States, the European Union and South Korea have already made a fine, companies have been fined, and even some of the sales manager of the Taiwan panel has served in the United states.

Under such circumstances, China's anti-monopoly investigation has not yet moved. Development and Reform Commission gives the explanation is that the extraction of relevant evidence is very difficult, need to be carefully prepared, the use of continuous antitrust investigation pressure and leniency policy, forcing companies to surrender". So it takes a lot of time.

In contrast, the United States Department of justice from 2006 to participate in the investigation, in November 2008 on the LG, SHARP, Hua Ying and other three companies to make a penalty, then

Samsung, AUO, CMO and other business decisions, altogether used 5 years of time. The European Union took more than 4 years.

In January 4th, Changhong multimedia industry company official said: "in early 2008 China Video Association internal meeting, the participants of the domestic color TV giants have flat-panel TV giants for Japan and South Korea in the Chinese market regardless of the cost of dumping, and the joint lift panel giant price discussions. At that time, each color TV companies decided to hire 500 thousand yuan to hire lawyers to collect evidence of foreign brands dumping and monopoly panel. "But it ended up in nothing.

At that time, Samsung and other panel makers and even artificially manufactured out of the situation, to ensure their own business needs, resulting in the cost of procurement of domestic enterprises than Samsung, LG electronics to be higher than 5%-10%. This makes the loss of the cost advantage of the local color TV companies in 2007 once the market share shrank to less than 40%.

Moreover, at that time the domestic color TV companies are facing greater than apple, PHILPS, HP and other companies unfair treatment. The president of a TV company introduction: "hundreds of billions of dollars in sales compared to DELL, HP and other giants, flat-panel TV panel purchases Chinese business two years ago, only hundreds of thousands of pieces, lack of scale procurement encounter unfair treatment more. "

In the face of all kinds of discrimination, domestic enterprises complain no door. Due to the "anti-monopoly law" in August 2008 began to implement, but still lack of implementation details, and the investigation of foreign giants panel is very difficult, so the domestic flat-panel TV giant has felt no complaints.

There are color TV companies, said: at that time, the local color TV companies want to get the first panel, it was forced to accept the high prices, but also for foreign panel makers do not dare to testify. This also hindered the NDRC's progress. "

Fine dispute

Although 353 million yuan to become the highest amount of a ticket in China, but a lot of color TV companies still feel too light sentence.

Development and Reform Commission official said, the United States, Europe is based on the country's anti-monopoly law for punishment, the penalty is related to the company's sales in the previous year's 1% to 10%, so the amount is larger. China's anti-monopoly law was officially implemented in 2008, the law can not be retroactive, it can only be punished according to the price law, which is based on the illegal income.

In this regard, the person in charge of color TV companies: 2007 to 2009 is the golden age of the panel industry, but also the largest number of local enterprises have been the biggest damage to monopoly. But because the anti-monopoly law can not be traced, and the lack of evidence can not be punished, it is obviously unfair to domestic enterprises. "

On the contrary, after the implementation of anti-monopoly law in 2009, the panel industry has begun to enter the trough. Liu Yaoping, general manager of SKYWORTH China Marketing Center, said: after 2009, the global LCD panel industry over investment led to cyclical recession. All panel companies have suffered losses, the panel