Leibook
2021-09-24
干的漂亮!把那些拿黑心钱专干坏事的媒体全洗净!净化商业环境,公平竞争!
小米起诉天极网商业诋毁获赔200万
免责声明:上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点,不构成本平台的任何投资建议。
分享至
微信
复制链接
精彩评论
我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白
打开APP,发表看法
APP内打开
发表看法
3
{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":861978277,"tweetId":"861978277","gmtCreate":1632452476899,"gmtModify":1632453630511,"author":{"id":3493012938768215,"authorId":3493012938768215,"authorIdStr":"3493012938768215","name":"Leibook","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f3268c768f4bf0092448cf248c0683c1","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":2,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>干的漂亮!把那些拿黑心钱专干坏事的媒体全洗净!净化商业环境,公平竞争!</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>干的漂亮!把那些拿黑心钱专干坏事的媒体全洗净!净化商业环境,公平竞争!</p></body></html>","text":"干的漂亮!把那些拿黑心钱专干坏事的媒体全洗净!净化商业环境,公平竞争!","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/861978277","repostId":2169869199,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"2169869199","pubTimestamp":1632451140,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2169869199?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-24 10:39","market":"hk","language":"zh","title":"小米起诉天极网商业诋毁获赔200万","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2169869199","media":"界面","summary":"据天眼查APP显示,9月23日,中国裁判文书网公开小米科技有限责任公司与重庆天极魅客科技有限公司不正当竞争纠纷一审民事判决书,案号渝01民初755号,审理法院为重庆市第一中级人民法院。本案裁判结果为,被告重庆天极魅客科技有限公司赔偿原告小米科技有限责任公司经济损失2000000元,并在相关网站上发表声明以消除影响。","content":"<div>\n<p>据天眼查APP显示,9月23日,中国裁判文书网公开小米科技有限责任公司与重庆天极魅客科技有限公司不正当竞争纠纷一审民事判决书,案号(2020)渝01民初755号,审理法院为重庆市第一中级人民法院。判决书显示,原告小米科技公司诉称,“小米”电视是原告的核心产品之一,2020年6月,被告进行智能电视直播拆机测评,在阻燃测试、开机测试、画质评测、电路板比对等诸多环节,通过设置不公平比对条件、回避原告产品...</p>\n\n<a href=\"http://gu.qq.com/resources/shy/news/detail-v2/index.html#/?id=nesSN2021092410400777efd699&s=b\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"tencent","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>小米起诉天极网商业诋毁获赔200万</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n小米起诉天极网商业诋毁获赔200万\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-09-24 10:39 北京时间 <a href=http://gu.qq.com/resources/shy/news/detail-v2/index.html#/?id=nesSN2021092410400777efd699&s=b><strong>界面</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>据天眼查APP显示,9月23日,中国裁判文书网公开小米科技有限责任公司与重庆天极魅客科技有限公司不正当竞争纠纷一审民事判决书,案号(2020)渝01民初755号,审理法院为重庆市第一中级人民法院。判决书显示,原告小米科技公司诉称,“小米”电视是原告的核心产品之一,2020年6月,被告进行智能电视直播拆机测评,在阻燃测试、开机测试、画质评测、电路板比对等诸多环节,通过设置不公平比对条件、回避原告产品...</p>\n\n<a href=\"http://gu.qq.com/resources/shy/news/detail-v2/index.html#/?id=nesSN2021092410400777efd699&s=b\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/537e08ee4cb694b56ef79b75b4b0c349","relate_stocks":{"01810":"小米集团-W"},"source_url":"http://gu.qq.com/resources/shy/news/detail-v2/index.html#/?id=nesSN2021092410400777efd699&s=b","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/9a95c1376e76363c1401fee7d3717173","article_id":"2169869199","content_text":"据天眼查APP显示,9月23日,中国裁判文书网公开小米科技有限责任公司与重庆天极魅客科技有限公司不正当竞争纠纷一审民事判决书,案号(2020)渝01民初755号,审理法院为重庆市第一中级人民法院。判决书显示,原告小米科技公司诉称,“小米”电视是原告的核心产品之一,2020年6月,被告进行智能电视直播拆机测评,在阻燃测试、开机测试、画质评测、电路板比对等诸多环节,通过设置不公平比对条件、回避原告产品优点、突出竞品优点等误导性手段,让公众产生原告的产品相比于荣耀智慧屏X1存在偷工减料或存在严重质量问题等误导性认识,使得原告产品销售量急剧下降,且导致原告的商业信誉和商品声誉遭受了难以弥补的重大损失。被告天极公司辩称,如果被告类似对等测评都被予以诋毁商誉的不正当竞争行为予以追责,将不利于类似媒体进行理性或良心发声,将不利于消费者最终知情权,反而导致正常的商业竞争被不当的限制。法院认为,被告关于透光孔评测、电源电路PCB板评测、MOS管散热片评测,PCB层数评测属于误导性信息,损害了原告的商业信誉和商品声誉。被告天极公司是天极网(http://www.yesky.com)的开办者,作为一家专业性媒体,其制作和传播包括前述误导性信息的涉案视频和文章具有明显的主观过错,构成商业诋毁。本案裁判结果为,被告重庆天极魅客科技有限公司赔偿原告小米科技有限责任公司经济损失2000000元,并在相关网站上发表声明以消除影响。","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1826,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"CN","currentLanguage":"CN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":66,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ZH_CN"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/861978277"}
精彩评论