On May 13, the website of the State Administration of Market Supervision issued a notice saying that on the basis of preliminary verification, a case of suspected monopoly of HowNet was filed for investigation. Subsequently, HowNet issued an announcement in response to the investigation, saying that it would fully cooperate, deeply introspect and thoroughly rectify. HowNet was put on file for investigation, which is reasonable.
The HowNet collects a large number of periodical papers, master's degree papers, conference papers, books and other resources. It is a digital service platform for academic documents with great market influence in China. It has played a great role in realizing the dissemination, sharing and Value-added Utilization of knowledge resources in the whole society. However, in recent years, the commercial flavor of HowNet has become stronger and stronger. With its advantageous position, its price has been rising, which makes many colleges and universities, including Peking University, call it "not affordable". Recently, the Chinese Academy of Sciences suspended the use of HowNet due to the "renewal fee of nearly 10 million yuan", which once again pushed it to the forefront of the storm. In addition to charging, whether HowNet pays the corresponding copyright fee when collecting resources is also the focus of social attention.
Previously, in the face of the question of "one wave after another", although HowNet apologized for many times and said it would "reflect on rectification", there were not many substantive actions. Behind the "open-minded acceptance and unrepentant education" is considerable profits - some data show that in 2021, the main business income of HowNet was 1.289 billion yuan, and the net profit attributable to the parent company was 194 million yuan. Among them, the gross profit margin reached 53.35%.
Academic literature is a knowledge product with intellectual achievements as the core. The value contained in academic resources is far more than commercial value. As the crystallization of human wisdom, academic resources should not only protect the rights and interests of their creators, but also be regarded as the common wealth of society, remove occlusion and monopoly as far as possible, and maximize the value of knowledge. The bad profit-making behavior of HowNet is turning it from a "stepping stone" serving academic development to a "stumbling block" hindering academic development.
Moreover, HowNet locks in high-quality academic resources in the upstream and artificially creates barriers to knowledge flow, which also makes it difficult for other competitors to compete fairly with it, which hinders the dissemination of academic documents and knowledge sharing, damages the ecological environment of knowledge innovation, deviates from its original intention of building "China's knowledge infrastructure project", and raises concerns of people from all walks of life.
HowNet's "academic business" has frequently aroused public anger. Whether it has monopoly behavior should be determined by professional institutions or judicial organs. However, it must be pointed out that knowledge cannot be "bullied". The investigation of HowNet is an important measure for China's anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies to actively respond to social concerns and supervise the platform economy according to law. It is of great significance to maintain fair competition in the academic literature database service market, promote knowledge production and flow, promote innovation and development, and protect intellectual property rights.
It should be clear that the purpose of filing such a case for investigation is not to defeat anyone, but to promote the sustainable and healthy development of the industry by establishing a standardized order, so as to return the academic database to publicity, so as to better protect the interests of consumers and social public interests.
It is hoped that HowNet will take this investigation as an opportunity to fully cooperate, deeply reflect on itself, make thorough rectification, return to the original intention of service knowledge, operate in accordance with the law, assume the social responsibility of knowledge infrastructure, and provide better services for the majority of authors and readers.