1. On February 9th, 26, consumer Huang Jing (Long Sisi) bought an ASUS V68V notebook computer at Beijing Xinren Weiye Technology Co., Ltd. (ASUS computer agent) for RMB 2,9. The processor configuration is Pentium-m 76 2.G CPU produced by Intel.

2. On February 9, 26, Huang Jing immediately found that the computer was abnormal after returning home, and contacted the new company. Then he sent the computer to the new company, accompanied by the new company, and went to the Beijing Haidian Branch of Asustek Computer (11th floor of Pacific Building) for testing. After testing, the engineers of Asustek Company told Huang Jing that the computer had no hardware failure and worked normally after reinstalling the system software. On the morning of February 1, 26, Asustek Company informed Huang Jing to take back the computer.

3. After Huang Jing retrieved the computer, he found that it was still not working normally. On the afternoon of February 1th, 26, Huang Jing sent the computer to Asustek Beijing Haidian Branch for testing again, and asked Newcomer Company to return it. Newcomer Company promised to return it if there was any hardware failure, but not if there was no hardware failure. After testing the machine, Asustek issued a service behavior report of Asustek Royal Club. Asustek engineers told Huang Jing that there was no hardware fault in the machine, but the problem was solved after reinstalling the software. Huang Jing was persuaded by ASUS engineers to get the computer back.

4. On the evening of February 1th, 26, Huang Jing found that the computer was unstable again and crashed frequently, so he turned to his friend Zhou Chengyu for help. After checking with software, Zhou Chengyu found that the original official Pentium-m 76 2.G CPU in the computer was replaced by the engineering sample processor ES 2.13G CPU. According to the relevant regulations of Intel Corporation, the CPU of engineering sample processor is not allowed to be used in end-user products. At this time, Zhou Chengyu also found that the service behavior report of Asustek Royal Club clearly stated: In the morning, there were words to upgrade the original 2.G CPU to 2.13G CPU.

5. On the morning of February 14th, 26, accompanied by a lawyer, Huang Jing went to Asustek with recording equipment and camera equipment. The engineers of Asustek acknowledged the replacement of the CPU, and ensured that the replaced CPU was genuine from Asustek, and confirmed that there was no problem in enjoying after-sales service in Asustek.

6. On February 14th, 26, Huang Jing entrusted Zhou Chengyu and Shu Mei, a lawyer of Changji Law Firm, to represent the legal matters related to the rights protection of ASUS.

7. From February 14, 26 to March 7, 26, lawyers Huang Jing, Zhou Chengyu and Shu Mei successively negotiated with Asustek for many times, and put forward the proposal that Asustek should invest 5 million US dollars to set up the China Anti-Consumer Fraud Foundation as a settlement condition. If the settlement fails, they will file a civil lawsuit with the Haidian District People's Court.

8. During the settlement negotiation, many senior executives of Asustek, including Xu Youjia, general manager of China business group, and Zheng Wei, brand director, admitted to replacing the engineering sample CPU and explained the replacement process in detail; On February 17th, 26, at the request of Asustek, the machine was tested by the engineers of Asustek in Beijing Notary Office, and the results confirmed that the CPU of the engineering sample processor was correct.

9. On February 18th, 26, Huang Jing and Zhou Chengyu went to Intel (China) Co., Ltd. and introduced the use of engineering sample processor CPU by ASUS in the service process to Wang Honghua, the public relations manager of Intel Company. Intel Company indicated that it attached great importance to this matter and expressed its willingness to urge ASUS Company to solve it properly as soon as possible.

1. On March 5th, 26, after many unsuccessful negotiations, Huang Jing decided to sue the court to solve the matter through legal procedures and formally informed ASUS that it was ready to start the corresponding legal procedures.

11. On March 7th, 26, Asustek Company tricked Huang Jing and his agent Zhou Chengyu into the Beijing branch of Asustek Company, and then called the police to arrest them.

12. On March 8, 26, Huang Jing and his agent Zhou Chengyu were criminally detained by Haidian Branch of Beijing Public Security Bureau on suspicion of extortion.

13. On April 14th, 26, Huang Jing and his agent Zhou Chengyu were arrested by Haidian District People's Procuratorate in Beijing on suspicion of extortion.

14. On June 13th, 26, Huang Jing and his agent Zhou Chengyu received a notice from the Haidian District People's Procuratorate on accepting the rights and obligations of the two suspects suspected of extortion.

15. From July 26th to November 1th, 26, Haidian District People's Procuratorate of Beijing returned to Haidian Branch of Beijing Public Security Bureau twice for supplementary investigation on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

16. On December 26th, 26, the People's Procuratorate of Haidian District of Beijing granted Huang Jing bail pending trial on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

17. On November 7, 27, the People's Procuratorate of Haidian District of Beijing decided not to prosecute Huang Jing on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

18. On June 5th, 28, the victim Huang Jing filed an application for state compensation for misjudged cases with the People's Procuratorate of Haidian District, Beijing.

18. On June 16th, 28, the People's Procuratorate of Haidian District of Beijing issued a notice to Huang Jing to examine the application for criminal compensation, and the compensation request entered the confirmation procedure.

In the past two years, Asustek has grown into one of the best-known brands in the industry, and Huang Jing was also decided not to prosecute by Haidian District People's Procuratorate on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and received state compensation on September 22nd this year.

However, a case two years ago was suddenly heated by major news media in recent days. Why? What unknown secrets are hidden during this period?

On the surface, after 1 months of unjust imprisonment, Huang Jing appeared in front of everyone with grievances, hoping to sue ASUS again for infringement of reputation and get compensation, but ASUS has been silent about it.

A seemingly ordinary case of rights protection was quickly popularized to the public by mysterious forces. Is this case really that simple? After reviewing the accounts of Huang Jing's case from all walks of life, we put forward our own questions.