互联网企业滥用市场支配地位认定中的“正当理由”

The Justification in Defining The Abuse of Market Dominance of Network Corporate

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

宣潇然

导师:

叶明

导师单位:

经济法学院(生态法学院)

学位:

硕士

语种:

其他

关键词:

互联网企业;滥用市场支配地位;类型化分析;正当理由

摘要:

近年,随着互联网产业规模及其普及程度的稳步扩大和提升,诸如“腾讯诉360案”、“唐山人人诉百度案”等影响重大的互联网企业滥用市场支配地位案件也频繁出现。该类案件是在互联网背景下出现的新型案件,我国反垄断法对此类案件规定不够完善。立法中将不具备“正当理由”作为滥用市场支配地位行为认定的限定条件,但是我国反垄断立法及理论研究中缺少对“正当理由”界定原则及因素的具体分析,更未对“正当理由”进行类型化研究。这可能导致实践中企业无法有效地以“正当理由”为由进行抗辩。反垄断实务中存在的诸多问题,表明我国“正当理由”制度构建上还存在不足,基于此,本文以“互联网企业滥用市场支配地位认定中的‘正当理由’”为题,对互联网企业滥用市场支配地位中哪些可以作为企业进行抗辩的正当理由进行专门研究。本文除了引言、结语外,主要由以下六部分构成:第一部分:滥用市场支配地位认定中“正当理由”的内涵及重要性。首先,对“正当理由”内涵进行界定。其次,由于“正当理由”有利于实现反垄断法目的及价值,体现了情理与法律的融合,有利于实质公平与形式公平的统一。因此,对于“正当理由”进行研究具有一定的必要性。第二部分:互联网特性对于界定“正当理由”的影响。通过对互联网行业存在的网络外部性、双边市场特性、用户锁定效应、经营模式的创新性等特性进行分析,阐述其对于界定“正当理由”的影响。第三部分:互联网企业滥用市场支配地位认定中“正当理由”的界定原则。首先,本身违法原则在界定“正当理由”时存在弊端,采取合理原则可以最大限度地保护了市场中的竞争、适应互联网企业滥用市场支配地位行为的不确定性。其次,采取合理原则界定“正当理由”时,需要着重考虑经济效率的提高、互联网行业的特点。第四部分:互联网企业“正当理由”界定应考虑的因素。衡量互联网企业行为是否具有“正当理由”,应当着重从经济效率、公平、保护竞争三个层面入手,分析其合理性及具体情形。第五部分:互联网企业滥用市场支配地位认定中“正当理由”的类型化分析。互联网企业滥用市场支配地位行为常见类型有价格垄断、掠夺性定价、拒绝或限定交易、搭售或附加其他不合理条件。本文通过结合立法以及互联网行业特点,对典型滥用市场支配地位行为的“正当理由”进行类型化分析。第六部分:完善我国反垄断法对“正当理由”的界定。首先,结合“正当理由”的界定原则及类型化分析,提出我国立法中“正当理由”制度完善路径;其次,建立“正当理由”事前申请与事后抗辩制度,完善“正当理由”认定程序。最后,我国反垄断执法机构应当缩短执法时间、调节执法力度,以适应互联网行业的特殊性。

学科:

经济法学

提交日期

2019-04-11

引用参考

宣潇然. 互联网企业滥用市场支配地位认定中的“正当理由”[D]. 西南政法大学,2015.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 互联网企业滥用市场支配地位认定中的“正当理由”
  • dc.title
  • The Justification in Defining The Abuse of Market Dominance of Network Corporate
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20120301070746
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 宣潇然
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 经济法学院(生态法学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2015
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 叶明
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 经济法学院(生态法学院)
  • dc.language.iso
  • 其他
  • dc.subject
  • 互联网企业;滥用市场支配地位;类型化分析;正当理由
  • dc.subject
  • network enterprise;abusing the dominant market position;the category;the justification
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 近年,随着互联网产业规模及其普及程度的稳步扩大和提升,诸如“腾讯诉360案”、“唐山人人诉百度案”等影响重大的互联网企业滥用市场支配地位案件也频繁出现。该类案件是在互联网背景下出现的新型案件,我国反垄断法对此类案件规定不够完善。立法中将不具备“正当理由”作为滥用市场支配地位行为认定的限定条件,但是我国反垄断立法及理论研究中缺少对“正当理由”界定原则及因素的具体分析,更未对“正当理由”进行类型化研究。这可能导致实践中企业无法有效地以“正当理由”为由进行抗辩。反垄断实务中存在的诸多问题,表明我国“正当理由”制度构建上还存在不足,基于此,本文以“互联网企业滥用市场支配地位认定中的‘正当理由’”为题,对互联网企业滥用市场支配地位中哪些可以作为企业进行抗辩的正当理由进行专门研究。本文除了引言、结语外,主要由以下六部分构成:第一部分:滥用市场支配地位认定中“正当理由”的内涵及重要性。首先,对“正当理由”内涵进行界定。其次,由于“正当理由”有利于实现反垄断法目的及价值,体现了情理与法律的融合,有利于实质公平与形式公平的统一。因此,对于“正当理由”进行研究具有一定的必要性。第二部分:互联网特性对于界定“正当理由”的影响。通过对互联网行业存在的网络外部性、双边市场特性、用户锁定效应、经营模式的创新性等特性进行分析,阐述其对于界定“正当理由”的影响。第三部分:互联网企业滥用市场支配地位认定中“正当理由”的界定原则。首先,本身违法原则在界定“正当理由”时存在弊端,采取合理原则可以最大限度地保护了市场中的竞争、适应互联网企业滥用市场支配地位行为的不确定性。其次,采取合理原则界定“正当理由”时,需要着重考虑经济效率的提高、互联网行业的特点。第四部分:互联网企业“正当理由”界定应考虑的因素。衡量互联网企业行为是否具有“正当理由”,应当着重从经济效率、公平、保护竞争三个层面入手,分析其合理性及具体情形。第五部分:互联网企业滥用市场支配地位认定中“正当理由”的类型化分析。互联网企业滥用市场支配地位行为常见类型有价格垄断、掠夺性定价、拒绝或限定交易、搭售或附加其他不合理条件。本文通过结合立法以及互联网行业特点,对典型滥用市场支配地位行为的“正当理由”进行类型化分析。第六部分:完善我国反垄断法对“正当理由”的界定。首先,结合“正当理由”的界定原则及类型化分析,提出我国立法中“正当理由”制度完善路径;其次,建立“正当理由”事前申请与事后抗辩制度,完善“正当理由”认定程序。最后,我国反垄断执法机构应当缩短执法时间、调节执法力度,以适应互联网行业的特殊性。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • In recent years,with the steady expansion of the size and popularity of the Internet industry,the case of the abuse of market dominance of network corporate have been increased.For example,the “TECENT VS. 360 case ”,and the “Tangshan RENREN vs. The baidu case”.Such cases is a new case in the context of emerging Internet, Provisions of China's anti-monopoly law is not suitble for that case. Although the "justification" is excluded in defining the abuse of market dominance behavior in our legislation,but the relative theory is lacked in define what is "justification".This could lead to companies unable to effectively "justification" as an excuse to defend.Antitrust problems in practice indicates that China's "justification" still insufficient.Base on this situation,this thesis choose “The Justification in Defining The Abuse of Market Dominance of Network Corporate” to be the theme of the thesis.Try to find out what can be the reasons in defining the abuse of market dominance behavior . There are six parts except that the introduction and conclusion in the thesis. Part I:Connotation and significance of the justification in defining the abuse of market dominance behavior .First, the "justification" connotation has to be defined.Secondly, since the "justification" conducive could achieve the purpose and value of Antitrust Law,and reflects the integration of reason and law, and could help to unify the form of equity and fairness in real terms,it determine that the studies in the “justification” is necessary. Part II:The effect in defining the "justification" in consideration of the internet features. Analyzing the externalities of network,and the Bilateral Market Characteristics,and user lock-in effect,and the innovative business model,to elaborate the effect in defining the "justification". Part III:The principle in defining the justification of abusing of market dominance behavior.First of all,the illegal per se rule is defective in defining the justification,to take the principle of reasonableness could protect the competition in the market,and adopt the uncertain of the behavior of the internet company.what’s more,It is important to consider the economic efficiency and the characteristics of the Internet industry to take the principle of reasonableness. Part IV:The factor in defining the justification of abusing of market dominance behavior.To measure whether the conduct of the Internet companies has the "justification",the economic efficiency, equity, protection should be take into consideration. Part V:The categories of the justification in defining the abuse of market dominance behavior of network corporate.Price fixing, predatory pricing, refusal or limit trading, tying or attach other unreasonable conditions is the common categories of abusing of market dominance behavior of network corporate.In this paper, through a combination of legislation and the characteristics of the Internet industry,trying to find out the common categories of the "justification" in defining the abuse of market dominance behavior of network corporate. Part VI:Improving the our anti-monopoly law in defining the "justification". First, pointing out the measures in defining the "justification".Secondly, applying beforehand and afterwards defensing system in "justification" has to be established,and setting up the identification procedure of the "justification".Finally, China's anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies should shorten the time, and should adjust law enforcement to accommodate the special nature of the Internet industry.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-04-02
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2015-05-24
回到顶部