欧盟竞争法对知识产权人拒绝许可行为的规制及其启示

发布时间：2018-04-27 14:00

本文选题：知识产权 + 拒绝许可　；参考：《华东政法大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： 本论文结合“新经济”的背景,以“知识产权拒绝许可行为的竞争法规制”为主题。具体考察欧盟竞争法的相关实践,希望借此对竞争法与知识产权法的关系、规制知识产权拒绝许可的规则、我国相关制度的完善这三个问题进行更深入的思考。论文主体包括三部分。第一部分。从权利专有性的角度的分析,说明了知识产权拒绝许可行为在多数情况下都为法律所认可,因而不需要受到竞争法的干预。只有当其威胁到市场竞争和消费者利益时,才应当受到竞争法的规制。尤其是在“新经济”条件网络效应等特征的影响下,使得知识产权的行使对保护市场竞争秩序、企业创新激励,并最终促进消费者利益,有着更为重要的影响和意义。最后对知识产权拒绝许可的表现形式进行了归纳,确定了本文的主要分析对象为单方拒绝许可行为。第二部分。主要分析欧盟竞争法相关立法和案例及其对“关键设施”理论的态度。本部分的分析说明,欧盟竞争法规制知识产权拒绝许可的判例发展并不是一个清晰、一致的过程,更大程度上是针对个案特定情形的分析。而且在此过程中,欧盟委员会和法院也并未有意识地适用或发展出严格意义的“关键设施”原则。这种做法为其应对个案中不断出现的新情况,对《里斯本条约》第102条(原《欧共体条约》第82条)规定进行灵活解释,保留了一个必要的空间。因此对欧盟相关实践的经验进行关注和借鉴时,就必须采取更为审慎的态度。第三部分。首先,结合我国反垄断法与知识产权法的立法目的,以及我国自主创新的现实环境,分析了知识产权拒绝许可行为的反垄断法规制在我国语境下:维护有效竞争、促进国内产业自主创新,并最终促进消费者利益和社会公共利益的制度目标与意义。然后以欧盟委员会2009年发布的关于执行《欧共体条约》第82条的执法指南为重点,并与我国《反垄断法》及相关配套规范互相参照。从“总体立场、市场支配力认定、判定滥用市场支配地位的标准、合理理由和法律责任”五方面,对欧盟与我国相关机构的规则适用标准、执法态度、面临的不同市场环境等因素具体分析了两者之间的互相参照和启示意义。结语部分对全文进行了简要总结。通过对比可看出,欧盟与我国相关执法机构针对各自的市场环境,表现出了共同的谨慎态度。这既反映了市场中不同竞争者、消费者、立法和执法机构之间的博弈,也回应了本文篇首提出的时代主题:人们通过知识产权与反垄断法两项制度,追求普遍福利与个人权利之间互相平衡的持续努力。
[Abstract]:Based on the background of "New economy", this thesis focuses on the regulation of competition law on the refusal of intellectual property rights (IPR). This paper investigates the relevant practice of European Union competition law, and hopes to make more in-depth consideration on the relationship between competition law and intellectual property law, the rules governing the refusal of license by intellectual property rights, and the perfection of relevant systems in China. The main body of the thesis consists of three parts. Part I From the perspective of exclusivity, it is shown that the refusal of intellectual property rights is recognized by law in most cases, so it is not necessary to be interfered with by competition law. Only when it threatens the market competition and consumer interests, should it be regulated by competition law. Especially under the influence of the "new economy" condition network effect, the exercise of intellectual property has more important influence and significance on protecting the market competition order, encouraging the enterprise to innovate, and finally promoting the consumer interest. Finally, the paper summarizes the manifestations of intellectual property refusal, and determines that the main object of this paper is unilateral refusal. Part II This paper mainly analyzes the relevant legislation and cases of EU competition law and its attitude to the theory of "key facilities". The analysis of this part shows that the case development of EU competition law regulating the refusal of intellectual property rights is not a clear and consistent process, but to a greater extent the analysis of specific cases. And in the process, the European Commission and courts have not consciously applied or developed strict "critical facilities" principles. This approach provides a flexible interpretation of the provisions of Article 102 of the Treaty of Lisbon (formerly Article 82 of the Treaty of the European Communities) in response to the emerging developments in individual cases and reserves a necessary space. Therefore, we must take a more cautious attitude when we pay attention to and draw lessons from the experience of the European Union. Part three. First of all, combining the legislative purpose of our country's anti-monopoly law and intellectual property law, as well as the realistic environment of independent innovation in our country, this paper analyzes the anti-monopoly law regulation of intellectual property refusal in the context of our country: to maintain effective competition. Promote the independent innovation of domestic industry, and ultimately promote the interests of consumers and social public interest system objectives and significance. Then it focuses on the law enforcement guidelines issued by the European Commission in 2009 on the implementation of Article 82 of the EC Treaty, and makes reference to China's Anti-Monopoly Law and related related norms. From the five aspects of "general position, market power determination, criteria for judging abuse of market dominant position, reasonable reasons and legal liability", the relevant EU and China institutions should apply standards and enforcement attitudes to the rules. The different market environment and other factors are analyzed in detail. The conclusion part makes a brief summary of the full text. According to the comparison, the EU and China's relevant law enforcement agencies show a common cautious attitude in view of their respective market environment. This not only reflects the game between different competitors, consumers, legislation and law enforcement agencies in the market, but also responds to the theme of the era: people adopt two systems of intellectual property rights and antimonopoly law. An ongoing effort to achieve a balance between universal welfare and individual rights.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D95;D913

【参考文献】