互联网不正当竞争行为的规制研究

Study on the Regulation of the Internet Unfair Competition Behaviors under the Anti- Unfair Competition Law

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

民商法学院

作者：

王磊

摘要：

近年来，随着互联网市场的持续快速发展，与互联网有关的不正当竞争纠纷也频发不止，互联网不正当竞争行为的规制问题成为实务界与学术界的热议焦点。对此，2017年《反不正当竞争法》专门增设了第十二条“互联网专条”用于规制与互联网有关的不正当竞争行为，意图减轻互联网不正当竞争行为对反不正当竞争法的适用压力。时至今日，“互联网专条”已经运行了五年之久，尽管规范成效有所彰显，但却并未有效解决反不正当竞争法在互联网竞争领域的适用难题，反不正当竞争法对互联网不正当竞争行为的规制仍然存在诸多亟待完善之处。本文对现行反不正当竞争法规制互联网不正当竞争行为存在的问题展开分析，重点检视“互联网专条”出台后，适用反不正当竞争法处理互联网不正当竞争纠纷在理论基础、基本思路和列举条款等方面存在的问题。在理论基础方面，反不正当竞争法存在的问题主要在于，未能深刻认识市场竞争具有承认市场主体自私与理性、通过自愿交易生产与分配资源、最终旨在实现民富国强目标的特点，未能准确把握互联网领域竞争具有网络外部性、竞争动态性、跨界竞争性、创新依赖性的特点，由此导致规范互联网市场竞争的适用理念不够清晰。在基本思路方面，反不正当竞争法存在的问题主要在于，无论是一般条款还是“互联网专条”兜底条款，均未明晰其在规制互联网不正当竞争行为时，保护消费者利益、经营者利益、社会公共利益的立场和思路。在列举条款方面，反不正当竞争法主要存在的问题在于，“互联网专条”列举条款存在法律适用闲置，以及部分条款用词语意模糊的现象。为优化完善反不正当竞争法规制互联网不正当竞争行为的制度功能，本文分别从理论基础、基本思路、列举条款三个方面进行了针对性探讨，总共进行了六章内容的撰写。第一章的内容是介绍规制互联网不正当竞争行为的演变历程。梳理互联网市场三个不同发展阶段的变化、互联网不正当竞争行为表现形态的变化，以及反不正当竞争法规制互联网不正当竞争行为的变化，勾勒从“传统不正当竞争时代”到“前互联网专条时代”再到“后互联网专条时代”的反不正当竞争法适用变迁。第二章的内容是总结反不正当竞争法规制互联网不正当竞争行为的现存问题。“互联网专条”并未完全解决反不正当竞争法的适用问题。在适用理念上，反不正当竞争法对市场机制的认识欠精准、对竞争理念的认识存分歧；在适用思路上，反不正当竞争法的适用面临调控范围模糊、调控立场不清等问题；在列举条款上，反不正当竞争法面临列举条款的内涵语义模糊、列举条款的调控范围僵化等问题。第三章的内容是从基础理论层面展开分析。首先，市场是自洽自治运行的机制，正常运行就能实现市场功能，反不正当竞争法的目标就是保护市场这种正常自运行状态，使其实现市场功能。其次，从互联网市场环境与竞争行为的特点看，互联网市场竞争更加激烈，具有更强更快的自循环淘汰机制，创新成为竞争发展升级的重要推动力。因此，反不正当竞争法在互联网不正当竞争领域的适用，应当树立以效率为基础、公平为补充的“有效竞争观”。第四章的内容是从基本思路方面展开分析。“互联网专条”兜底条款未能类型化出一类具有“互联网竞争不正当性”特征的“竞争行为”，本质上与一般条款无区别，适用一般条款即可。对于一般条款的适用，需要考虑互联网环境下诚信原则和商业道德。在此基础上，一般条款的适用要进一步具体化，区分消费者利益、经营者利益和社会公共利益受侵害三个场景。保护消费者利益，需要对侵害个体消费者利益、侵害程度轻微但叠加侵害诸多个体消费者利益、损害产品或服务的公平安全等关键属性、侵害消费者长远整体利益这四类行为加以区分性规制。保护经营者利益，需要先确认经营者存在合法值得保护的竞争利益，再以经营者利益受到的不利影响不能通过市场机制自发调整作为提供保护的门槛，避免对经营者利益提供过分保护，重点规制“跨越门槛”的行为。保护社会公共利益，需要以保护市场机制的良好运转为宗旨，为技术创新留有足够空间，仅规制利用技术破坏市场机制的行为。第五章的内容是从列举条款方面展开分析。具体结合“互联网专条”第十二条第二款第（一）至（三）项的规定，根据文义、裁判、理论展开详细分析，构建超越其狭窄文义解释、拓展其弹性适用情形的规则。对于第（一）项规定的“流量劫持”，重点应对“强制”“插入链接”“目标跳转”的内涵与外延加以澄清；对于第（二）项规定的“不当干扰”，重点应该分析行为是否侵害消费者权益，借此判断经营者利益是否受到“转致”的损害；对于第（三）项规定的“恶意不兼容”，不应将重点放在“恶意”的含义，而应从经营者是否存在基于法定的、约定的、习惯的“兼容义务”角度展开分析。第六章的内容是在前文基础上，在厘清现有反不正当竞争法对于互联网不正当竞争行为的理论基础、基本思路、列举条款后，对2022年《反不正当竞争法修订草案（征求意见稿）》中涉规制互联网不正当竞争部分（第13条—第21条），提出细致的修改和优化思路。总之，本文主张以效率为基础、公平为补充的“有效竞争观”作为适用思路，根据诚信原则与商业道德，区分消费者利益保护、经营者利益保护、社会公共利益保护三个场景，提出对一般条款理解适用的优化方案，最后结合“流量劫持”“不当干扰”“恶意不兼容”“恶意交易”“盗用商业数据”“不合理差别待遇或不合理限制”的表现形态与规制现状，提出对列举条款理解适用的优化方案。

语种：

中文

学科：

知识产权法学

提交日期：

2024-01-10

引用参考：

王磊. 互联网不正当竞争行为的规制研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2023.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 互联网不正当竞争行为的规制研究
  • dc.title
  • Study on the Regulation of the Internet Unfair Competition Behaviors under the Anti- Unfair Competition Law
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • B20180301Z2113
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 王磊
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 民商法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 博士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学博士学位
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2023
  • dc.contributor.direction
  • 知识产权法学
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 邓宏光
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 民商法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 互联网不正当竞争,有效竞争观,一般条款,互联网专条
  • dc.subject
  • Internet unfair competition; effective competitive perspective; general clause; Internet Special Article
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 近年来，随着互联网市场的持续快速发展，与互联网有关的不正当竞争纠纷也频发不止，互联网不正当竞争行为的规制问题成为实务界与学术界的热议焦点。对此，2017年《反不正当竞争法》专门增设了第十二条“互联网专条”用于规制与互联网有关的不正当竞争行为，意图减轻互联网不正当竞争行为对反不正当竞争法的适用压力。时至今日，“互联网专条”已经运行了五年之久，尽管规范成效有所彰显，但却并未有效解决反不正当竞争法在互联网竞争领域的适用难题，反不正当竞争法对互联网不正当竞争行为的规制仍然存在诸多亟待完善之处。本文对现行反不正当竞争法规制互联网不正当竞争行为存在的问题展开分析，重点检视“互联网专条”出台后，适用反不正当竞争法处理互联网不正当竞争纠纷在理论基础、基本思路和列举条款等方面存在的问题。在理论基础方面，反不正当竞争法存在的问题主要在于，未能深刻认识市场竞争具有承认市场主体自私与理性、通过自愿交易生产与分配资源、最终旨在实现民富国强目标的特点，未能准确把握互联网领域竞争具有网络外部性、竞争动态性、跨界竞争性、创新依赖性的特点，由此导致规范互联网市场竞争的适用理念不够清晰。在基本思路方面，反不正当竞争法存在的问题主要在于，无论是一般条款还是“互联网专条”兜底条款，均未明晰其在规制互联网不正当竞争行为时，保护消费者利益、经营者利益、社会公共利益的立场和思路。在列举条款方面，反不正当竞争法主要存在的问题在于，“互联网专条”列举条款存在法律适用闲置，以及部分条款用词语意模糊的现象。为优化完善反不正当竞争法规制互联网不正当竞争行为的制度功能，本文分别从理论基础、基本思路、列举条款三个方面进行了针对性探讨，总共进行了六章内容的撰写。第一章的内容是介绍规制互联网不正当竞争行为的演变历程。梳理互联网市场三个不同发展阶段的变化、互联网不正当竞争行为表现形态的变化，以及反不正当竞争法规制互联网不正当竞争行为的变化，勾勒从“传统不正当竞争时代”到“前互联网专条时代”再到“后互联网专条时代”的反不正当竞争法适用变迁。第二章的内容是总结反不正当竞争法规制互联网不正当竞争行为的现存问题。“互联网专条”并未完全解决反不正当竞争法的适用问题。在适用理念上，反不正当竞争法对市场机制的认识欠精准、对竞争理念的认识存分歧；在适用思路上，反不正当竞争法的适用面临调控范围模糊、调控立场不清等问题；在列举条款上，反不正当竞争法面临列举条款的内涵语义模糊、列举条款的调控范围僵化等问题。第三章的内容是从基础理论层面展开分析。首先，市场是自洽自治运行的机制，正常运行就能实现市场功能，反不正当竞争法的目标就是保护市场这种正常自运行状态，使其实现市场功能。其次，从互联网市场环境与竞争行为的特点看，互联网市场竞争更加激烈，具有更强更快的自循环淘汰机制，创新成为竞争发展升级的重要推动力。因此，反不正当竞争法在互联网不正当竞争领域的适用，应当树立以效率为基础、公平为补充的“有效竞争观”。第四章的内容是从基本思路方面展开分析。“互联网专条”兜底条款未能类型化出一类具有“互联网竞争不正当性”特征的“竞争行为”，本质上与一般条款无区别，适用一般条款即可。对于一般条款的适用，需要考虑互联网环境下诚信原则和商业道德。在此基础上，一般条款的适用要进一步具体化，区分消费者利益、经营者利益和社会公共利益受侵害三个场景。保护消费者利益，需要对侵害个体消费者利益、侵害程度轻微但叠加侵害诸多个体消费者利益、损害产品或服务的公平安全等关键属性、侵害消费者长远整体利益这四类行为加以区分性规制。保护经营者利益，需要先确认经营者存在合法值得保护的竞争利益，再以经营者利益受到的不利影响不能通过市场机制自发调整作为提供保护的门槛，避免对经营者利益提供过分保护，重点规制“跨越门槛”的行为。保护社会公共利益，需要以保护市场机制的良好运转为宗旨，为技术创新留有足够空间，仅规制利用技术破坏市场机制的行为。第五章的内容是从列举条款方面展开分析。具体结合“互联网专条”第十二条第二款第（一）至（三）项的规定，根据文义、裁判、理论展开详细分析，构建超越其狭窄文义解释、拓展其弹性适用情形的规则。对于第（一）项规定的“流量劫持”，重点应对“强制”“插入链接”“目标跳转”的内涵与外延加以澄清；对于第（二）项规定的“不当干扰”，重点应该分析行为是否侵害消费者权益，借此判断经营者利益是否受到“转致”的损害；对于第（三）项规定的“恶意不兼容”，不应将重点放在“恶意”的含义，而应从经营者是否存在基于法定的、约定的、习惯的“兼容义务”角度展开分析。第六章的内容是在前文基础上，在厘清现有反不正当竞争法对于互联网不正当竞争行为的理论基础、基本思路、列举条款后，对2022年《反不正当竞争法修订草案（征求意见稿）》中涉规制互联网不正当竞争部分（第13条—第21条），提出细致的修改和优化思路。总之，本文主张以效率为基础、公平为补充的“有效竞争观”作为适用思路，根据诚信原则与商业道德，区分消费者利益保护、经营者利益保护、社会公共利益保护三个场景，提出对一般条款理解适用的优化方案，最后结合“流量劫持”“不当干扰”“恶意不兼容”“恶意交易”“盗用商业数据”“不合理差别待遇或不合理限制”的表现形态与规制现状，提出对列举条款理解适用的优化方案。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Abstract: In recent years, with the continuous and rapid advancement of the Internet market, issues concerning the regulation of the Internet-related unfair competition behaviors have sparked much debate with the frequent occurrence of a series of relevant cases, affecting the normal operation order of the Internet market. In response, the 2017 Anti-Unfair Competition Law added Article 12, so-called the "Internet Special Article", to curb Internet unfair competition behaviors, aiming to alleviate the application pressure placed on the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. To date, the "Internet Special Article" has functioned for five years. Though effective somehow, the "Internet Special Article" has not fully solved the problems concerning the application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law in the field of Internet competition, and there still exist deficiencies in regulating Internet unfair competition in accordance with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.This dissertation analyzes the existing issues on regulating the Internet unfair competition behaviors under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, especially the very issues after the introduction of "Internet Special Article", and provides analysis from the aspects of Theoretical Basis, Basic Ideas and Enumerated Clauses. In terms of Theoretical Basis, the main issue lies in the lack of clear understanding of the market competition characteristics—which acknowledges the selfish and rational nature of market entities, resource production and distribution through voluntary transactions, and ultimate vision to establish a strong country with wealthy people—and such characteristics as network externality, competition dynamics, cross-border competitiveness, and innovation dependence, which leads to an unclear regulatory philosophy for Internet market competition. Regarding the Basic Ideas, the main issue is that neither the general clause nor the "catch-all clause" of the " Internet Special Article" clearly articulate their stance or approach when dealing with Internet unfair behaviors to protect consumer interests, business interests, and public interests. In terms of enumerated clauses, the primary problems include the underutilization of enumerated clauses in the "Internet Special Article" and the vagueness in the wording of some items.To optimize and improve the Anti-Unfair Competition Law's practice in regulating Internet unfair competition behaviors, this dissertation elaborates discussions from the perspectives of Theoretical Basis, Basic Ideas and Enumerated Clauses, and a total of six chapters have been written. Chapter one introduces the evolution of regulating unfair competition on the Internet. It outlines the changes in three different development stages of the Internet market, the transformations in the manifestation of unfair Internet competition, and the evolution in regulating unfair Internet competition under anti-unfair competition law, sketching the transition from the "traditional unfair competition era" to the "pre-internet-specific clause era" and then to the "post-internet-specific clause era".Chapter two summarizes the existing issues in regulating unfair Internet competition under the anti-unfair competition law. The "Internet Special Article" have not completely resolved the application issues of the anti-unfair competition law. In terms of application concept, the law's understanding of market mechanisms is imprecise, and there are divergences in the understanding of competition concepts. In terms of application approach, the application of the law faces problems such as vague regulatory scope and unclear regulatory stance. In enumerated clauses, the law confronts issues like the ambiguous semantic meaning of enumerated clauses and the rigidity in the regulatory scope of these clauses.From the perspective of Theoretical Basis in chapter three, first, the market mechanism is a self-consistent and autonomous operating mechanism, the normal operation of which could achieve the market function. The goal of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law is to protect such functional status of spontaneous operation of the market mechanism. Second, in view of the characteristics of the Internet market environment and competition therein, the competition is fiercer under a stronger and faster self-recycling elimination mechanism, and innovation turns into a crucial driving force for the development and upgrading of competition. Accordingly, the application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law shall conform to the " effective competitive perspective " featuring efficiency as its basis and fairness as its supplement.From the perspective of Basic Ideas in chapter four, The "Internet Special Article" has not typified a category of internet-specific unfair conduct, with which the general clause functions essentially the same and thus could be applied substitutively. For the application of general clause, the principles of good faith and business ethics in the internet environment must be considered. On this basis, the application of general clause must be further specified to differentiate between the scenarios where consumer interests, business interests, and social public interests are infringed upon. To protect consumer interests, regulations must be applied to behaviors infringing on individual consumer interests, behaviors with minor but cumulative detrimental effects on multiple individual consumers, behaviors harming key attributes such as fair and safe use of products or services, and behaviors jeopardizing the long-term overall interests of consumers. To protect business interests, it is first necessary to confirm that the business has lawful and protectable competitive interests. Protection should only be provided when the adverse impact on business interests cannot be spontaneously adjusted through market mechanisms, to avoid overprotecting business interests and only regulating behaviors that "cross the threshold." To protect the public social interests, it is necessary to protect the smooth operation of market mechanisms, leave ample room for technological innovation, and regulate behaviors disrupting market mechanisms by means of technology.From the perspective of Enumerated Clauses: specifically in chapter five, this part focuses on the very stipulation of Paragraph 2, Item 1 to 3 of Article 12, constructs more applicable rules beyond the narrow literal interpretation after the detailed analysis of the literal meaning, judicial practice, and theoretical basis. For the "traffic hijacking" stipulated in Item 1, the focus should be on understanding and constructing the meanings of "forced", "link insertion" and "URL redirection"; for the "improper interference" stipulated in Item 2, it is necessary to analyze whether the conduct has infringed upon the consumers interests, so as to determine whether the operators' interests are indirectly damaged; for the "malicious incompatibility" stipulated in Item 3, the focus should not be on the literal meanings of "malicious", whereas analysis from the perspective of whether the operators have statutory, agreed or customary "obligations to be compatible" is more practical.Finally, after clarifying the aforesaid three aspects of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law in regulating the Internet unfair competition behaviors, this dissertation provides detailed revision and optimization suggestions for the part (Article 13-21) concerning the regulation of Internet unfair competition in the 2022 Draft Amendments to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (Draft for Comment).In summary, in chapter six, this dissertation first advocates for an " effective competitive perspective " based on efficiency and supplemented by fairness as an applicable approach. Then, based on the principles of good faith and business ethics, it distinguishes between the protection of consumer interests, business interests, and social public interests in three scenarios. It proposes optimized solutions for the application and understanding of general clause.Conclusively, combining the manifestations and regulatory status of "traffic hijacking," "improper interference," "malicious incompatibility," "malicious trading," "theft of business data," "unreasonable differential treatment or unreasonable restrictions," it proposes optimized solutions for the application and understanding of enumerated clauses.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2023-11-23
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2023-11-15
回到顶部