The whole network has been opened to protect rights and carry plagiarism reports
"Even if you win the lawsuit, you can't make me lose too ugly." This sentence vividly depicts Apple's recent move to amend a Chinese court decision. Apple won the lawsuit, but it was still not satisfied with the written statement, which undoubtedly seemed a bit "carried away" to the outside world.
The cause of the incident is actually quite simple. In May, a Shanghai court ruled in a consumer lawsuit against Apple's monopolistic practices, finding that Apple had a dominant position in China's software market, but had not abused it. Therefore, the consumer's claim was dismissed.
It stands to reason that Apple should be content as a winner. However, it asked the court to delete the reference to its "dominant position" in the judgement on the grounds that it was "grossly inaccurate".
Why is Apple making such a request? Those who support this view argue that the court's statement of Apple's dominance is indeed inaccurate. The Apple App Store competes with the Android market, and its position is not completely monopolized.
The verdict's suggestion that Apple may be unfair in pricing to the detriment of consumers is also too arbitrary. If these inaccuracies are kept in the official verdict, it is tantamount to portraying a false image of Apple in the eyes of the law.
Opponents, however, point out that Apple's request is itself unreasonable. The court's decision has upheld its rights and interests, but it is still unable to be satisfied, and wants to get rid of all remarks that are unfavorable to it, which is obviously a "gain in the inch".
Moreover, from an objective point of view, Apple does have a dominant position in China's software market, and its app store rules do harm the interests of consumers, and the court's statement is not completely untrue.
Both of these arguments seem to have merit, and the essence of the issue seems to go beyond simple legal judgments to involve a broader battle of values.
In fact, this is a collision of Chinese and Western judicial concepts in specific cases. In Western countries, the judiciary and academia are relatively separated, and courts usually make simple judgments based on the letter of the law, and rarely involve academic discussions or value judgments. This is mainly due to the "legal neutrality" pursued by Western justice, where judges only enforce the law and do not judge according to personal preferences.
In traditional Chinese judicial culture, there is a certain color of "education". When Chinese courts make judgments, they often add certain personal opinions, in order to have a certain positive educational effect on society. This philosophy is also reflected in the language style of judgments, which in China tend to use a more cautionary, critical and exhortatory tone.
The verdict's description of Apple's market position and price issues is likely to have this "edifying tendency" of the Chinese judiciary. While affirming Apple's victory, it also sought to warn Apple against excessive abuse of its dominant position in the Chinese market. This is in line with the values of China's judiciary, but it is too subjective and arbitrary in Apple's eyes.
Therefore, the essence of this case is the collision of values caused by the differences in judicial concepts between China and the West. Apple wants its verdicts to be neutral and rigorous, while Chinese courts want to be more edifying. It is naturally difficult for the two sides to reach an agreement if they stick to their own views.
The differences in judicial philosophies between China and the West will lead to collisions in more cases. However, this collision is not entirely a bad thing, and it helps the two sides to gradually understand each other's judicial cultures and explore the possibility of integration between the two in mutual respect.
Chinese courts understand the legitimacy of Western companies in pursuing judicial neutrality, but Western companies also need to respect China's local legal culture.
In this case, it does not seem realistic to delete the relevant language in the judgment at Apple's request. However, Chinese courts can avoid overly subjective value judgments in rhetoric in order to show goodwill. At the same time, Apple should also objectively understand the local characteristics of China's judiciary and understand the cultural logic behind it, rather than simply using Western judicial concepts as a standard to ask the other side to make corrections.
The core of this case may not be who is right and who is wrong, but how to seek common ground while reserving differences in ideas. Only when both sides can take the initiative to think from each other's perspective, can this seemingly-for-tat game become a process of mutual learning and understanding. It will take time, it will take time, but it will lead us to the path of mutual respect.
#头条创作挑战赛#