美国反垄断中的掠夺性定价问题研究

发布时间：2018-05-18 07:46

本文选题：反垄断法 + 掠夺性定价　；参考：《湖南大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：掠夺性定价是一种企业滥用其市场支配地位,以低于成本的价格销售商品的行为。由于企业的掠夺性定价行为,其他市场主体的竞争权利受到了限制,并间接影响到了消费者的权益和社会的整体利益。掠夺性定价的危害性引起了各国立法和实务的重视,在各国已制定的反垄断法律之中,该行为都受到了禁止。随着社会发展不断深入,社会分工日益细化,进一步增加了市场经济的复杂性,由此导致掠夺性定价行为与正常的价格竞争行为较难区分,因此,掠夺性定价的判断和规制成为反垄断法上一个较为复杂的制度。掠夺性定价行为一般具有以下构成要件：首先,掠夺性定价的实施主体是在市场上占据支配地位的企业。掠夺性定价的一个重要条件是在排斥同行竞争者之后,占支配地位的企业提高价格攫取垄断利润。而未占据市场支配地位的企业即使实施了低于成本的销售行为也不会产生排斥竞争和损害消费者权益的后果,因此不受反垄断法的规制。其次,企业把商品的价格定在成本之下。商人的天性是追求利润的最大化,因此,低于成本价格销售的行为表面上看是不理性和不符合经济原则的,但是实质上该行为的目的是通过排挤竞争对手、获得垄断地位后谋取更大的利润。最后,掠夺性定价必须具备补偿的可能性。企业实施掠夺性定价行为的本质是牺牲短期利润的一种前期“假象”,其根本目的却是将来能够通过提高价格来补偿由于低于成本销售而导致的损失。美国的司法实践对掠夺性定价的判定标准探索了相当长的时间。美国通过判例先后确立了几种不同的判定标准,最初是关注企业是否具有垄断化的动机；阿里达和特纳的成本学说使得成本标准成为掠夺性定价的重要考察标准；而在后来的布鲁克集团公司案中补偿标准得以确立。美国关于掠夺性定价问题的探索历程告诉我们任何一个国家关于该行为的判定标准都不是一层不变的,需要结合该国的具体情况进行具体的判断,我国在确定掠夺性定价的判定标准时也应该遵循因地制宜的原则对我国的实际情况进行考量。
[Abstract]:Predatory pricing is the behavior of an enterprise that abuses its dominant market position and sells goods at a price below cost. Because of the predatory pricing behavior of enterprises, the competitive rights of other market entities are restricted, and indirectly affect the interests of consumers and the overall interests of society. The harmfulness of predatory pricing has aroused the attention of the legislation and practice of various countries. With the deepening of social development, the social division of labor is increasingly refined, further increasing the complexity of the market economy, resulting in predatory pricing behavior and normal price competition behavior is difficult to distinguish, therefore, The judgment and regulation of predatory pricing has become a complicated system in anti-monopoly law. Predatory pricing generally has the following elements: firstly, the main body of predatory pricing is the dominant enterprise in the market. An important condition of predatory pricing is that, after excluding competitors, dominant enterprises increase prices and grab monopoly profits. However, even if the enterprises do not occupy the dominant position in the market, they will not have the consequences of excluding competition and harming the rights and interests of consumers, so they are not regulated by the anti-monopoly law. Secondly, the enterprise sets the price of the commodity below the cost. The businessman's nature is to maximize profits, so selling below the cost is seemingly irrational and uneconomic, but in essence it is aimed at squeezing out competitors. Gain a monopoly and gain greater profits. Finally, predatory pricing must have the possibility of compensation. The essence of predatory pricing is to sacrifice the short-term profit, but its fundamental purpose is to compensate for the loss caused by the sale below the cost by raising the price in the future. Judicial practice in the United States has explored the criteria of predatory pricing for a long time. The United States has established several different judgment standards through the precedents at first it pays attention to whether the enterprises have monopolization motivation; Arida and Turner's cost theory makes the cost standard become an important criterion of predatory pricing. In the later Brooke Group case, the standard of compensation was established. The course of exploration on predatory pricing in the United States has told us that any country's criteria for judging this act are not constant, and it is necessary to make specific judgments in the light of the specific circumstances of that country. In determining the criterion of predatory pricing, our country should follow the principle of local conditions.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D971.2;DD912.29

【参考文献】