论互联网反垄断法规制之困境与私人实施
发布时间：2018-08-01 08:43
【摘要】：目前,国家提出了“互联网+”战略,“互联网+”已经成为竞争新常态,但是互联网行业已经客观存在一些典型的垄断行为。互联网垄断企业实施垄断行为,如垄断协议、滥用市场支配地位,严重扰乱了互联网市场的竞争秩序。反垄断法实施包括执法机构的公共实施与私人实施。互联网私人实施中的私人是指:市场竞争者和互联网用户。比如在腾讯诉360案件中,奇虎360根据《反垄断法》第50条的规定,提出民事诉讼,奇虎即为私人实施中的私人,也即同行业的市场竞争者。互联网垄断是指在互联网行业中出现的特定垄断行为,即网络服务的提供商、管理商为了取得垄断利益实施的限制或损害网络正当竞争的行为。本文所探讨的互联网行业是指由上述一些市场经济主体组成,即互联网是其主要经营载体,而网民是该经济主体的主要用户群体。一些传统企业通过门店渠道销售其产品,其建立的网站主要是用来展示和联系的,这些企业并不在互联网行业范畴内。具体而言,娱乐、信息、消费、社交是互联网基本应用的四大类,为这四大类提供服务和产品的企业即为互联网行业的企业。第一章通过介绍互联网垄断的典型案例来分析互联网行业反垄断法实施时所面临的困境及其根源,其中最为典型的就是2008年发生的唐山人人公司状告百度涉嫌垄断的全国首例互联网反垄断案例,以及在2010年发生的360诉腾讯QQ案,该案件被网民戏称为“3Q大战”,这是迄今为止涉及金额最大、在整个互联网行业领域内造成了极为重大影响的一起垄断案件。互联网垄断中最为普遍的行为是滥用市场支配地位,具体包括搭售、拒绝交易、差别待遇、强迫交易等。互联网产业中,高科技、新兴是互联网行业的代表词,其呈现出技术更新快、产业创新呈几何倍数增长、科技含量高的特点。事实上,公共实施确实不能适应互联网垄断发生迅速、危害传递更快的特征。而广大的互联网私人主体依旧寄希望于公共实施即反垄断执法机构来对互联网垄断行为进行监管和规制。相反私人实施能在及时性和针对性上有效弥补公共实施的缺陷,私人实施对于互联网反垄断法的实施具有迫切性。第二章主要探讨了互联网行业反垄断法规制困境之原因。互联网行业有显著的特点,反垄断法在适用时受到很多因素的影响。互联网行业的特点使得反垄断法在实施中陷入困境,反垄断竞争政策与互联网产业政策的冲突以及反垄断法的不确定性都加大了反垄断法对互联网行业实施的难度。其中最主要的原因有:互联网垄断的内在特性和反垄断法公共实施在互联网领域的缺陷。互联网垄断的内在特性,即双边市场,隐蔽性和市场无边界性,暂时性和频繁的投资并购。互联网垄断对公平竞争、技术创新产生了消极的影响,而且影响扩大速度快,损害了消费者利益。反垄断执法机构和市场监管机构主体角色缺失是互联网反垄断法公共实施存在的缺陷,体现在:反垄断执法程序启动上主动性失灵,反垄断执法机构的执法工作难以做到步骤划一、和谐统一,相关法律不完善、执行性差,反垄断执法机构不能有效地开展反垄断监管。第三章分析了互联网行业反垄断法私人实施的优越性。反垄断法的私人实施具体体现在依据反垄断法,自然人、企业或其他组织开展的诉讼或者监督。不同于互联网反垄断法公共实施有着难以由其自身弥补的根本制度性缺陷,私人实施的主体具有反垄断的迫切意愿,并且能够承担反垄断法私人实施成本,因而私人实施在互联网反垄断中有其优越性。互联网行业反垄断法私人实施的优势还有及时性、专家证人制度、诉讼成本减少以及培育竞争文化。及时性即在垄断主体通过垄断行为对他人合法权益造成侵害之前就能迅速对垄断行为做出审查和违法确认,从而执法机构能够快速反应并采取措施阻止垄断行为的发生,最终从根本上防止垄断行为可能带来后续的物质损害。反垄断执法人员十分不足,力量薄弱,很难全方位、立体化的监督到社会各行各业的各个层面,监督责任很难完成,在这种情况下可以利用私人力量来监督垄断行为或者提起诉讼,追究相应的互联网反垄断民事损害赔偿责任。比如在3Q大战中,腾讯以及多家企业对360发出《反对360不正当竞争及加强行业自律的联合声明》,申请调查360的恶意恫吓、欺骗用户的行为,关于这一事件,奇虎方可以在第一时间请求法院确认其无效性、违法性,及时的防止垄断违法行为造成进一步的损失。互联网行业是高科技新兴的产业,技术更新快、产业创新呈几何倍数增长、科技含量高,对于互联网垄断行为的认定需要极为丰富的互联网专业知识以及一定程度的互联网实际工作经验,而实践中往往原告或被告,甚至是进行审判工作的法官和法院人员,都并不满足这些条件,他们都会在案件调查审理过程中因专业知识的匮乏而对互联网专业性问题产生困惑,这对互联网反垄断诉讼的处理增加了难度。针对该困境,在诉讼中司法解释明确规定了当事人可以聘请专家就某一专门性问题出庭做出说明,还可以协商委托专门的机构以及专门的人员进行市场调查,做出经济分析报告,专家证人制度能极大限度地减少专业性问题对案件审理的困扰。原告在进行收集证据举证的过程中,必要时还会聘请证人专家、律师,有时还需委托专业性鉴定机构,往往花费巨大。另外,基于互联网垄断的不稳定性、双边市场等特征,为制止垄断违法行为而采取措施的实施范围也非常广泛,涉及面众多,因而互联网反垄断法私人实施的经济成本很高。法院会针对上述两项当事人的合理开支进行合适的损害赔偿判决,而非仅仅是以往只具有象征性的低额赔偿,这使得私人实施的局面得到了大大的改善,私人主体在进行反垄断诉讼时的积极性得到了提高。互联网反垄断法私人实施是培育竞争文化的重要手段。充分利用网络的便捷性和推广性,能有效地激励私人实施的推行,提升消费者和竞争者等私人主体对竞争法律法规的理解和运用,竞争文化也在此过程中得到培育和发展,最终维护了反垄断法的权威。第四章阐述互联网行业反垄断法私人实施的不足,即举证较困难、赔偿数额少、诉讼成功率低、法律原则性太强、缺少对于互联网垄断的特殊规定。在分析了互联网反垄断法私人实施不足的基础上,提出了要结合互联网行业特点,细化反垄断法律法规,包括界定相关产品市场、经营者集中申报标准、规定约束力规则、诉讼费规则和归责原则和举证责任方面;探索互联网反垄断法的公益诉讼和集团诉讼,对于互联网垄断行为给互联网用户和企业带来的损害,以及对社会市场竞争秩序的扰乱,司法实践中可以借鉴美国的集团诉讼制度,并结合中国的诉讼代表人制度,由此探索出符合互联网垄断特点的公益诉讼和集团诉讼的制度,使互联网用户能更好地维护自身的合法权益;做好互联网反垄断法公共实施与私人实施的协调与合作;明确互联网垄断民事责任损害赔偿范围及计算标准,引入惩罚性赔偿制度,互联网垄断行为不仅给互联网私人主体带来了实际的损失,还会产生潜在损失。互联网反垄断案中,原告经常提出巨额的损害赔偿,一般是几亿,因而互联网垄断损害赔偿的计算标准和范围显得尤为重要,但是目前没有对互联网垄断损害赔偿的计算标准和范围等问题的规定。为了激励私人市场主体的反垄断诉讼,在借鉴国外的经验和制度的基础上,笔者认为可以采取双倍损害赔偿制度。“互联网+”的时代,人人都是媒介,人人都可以是消费者和经营者,我国反垄断法的私人实施者对于受到的垄断损害提起诉讼具有迫切的愿望。互联网垄断有其特有的类型和危害,因而反垄断法的私人实施能得到有效实施。互联网反垄断法私人实施必须依据互联网行业的特性来调整,在互联网行业反垄断规制中有其特殊性和必要性。通过互联网反垄断法私人实施,解决反垄断法在互联网遇到的困境,以此给予互联网市场一个有序竞争的环境,从而有力地保障互联网中小企业的创新,保护互联网用户的合法利益,使得互联网行业真正成为社会主义市场经济新的增长极。
[Abstract]:At present, the state has put forward the "Internet +" strategy, "Internet +" has become a new normal competition, but the Internet industry has a number of typical monopoly behavior. The Internet monopoly enterprises to implement monopoly behavior, such as monopoly agreement, abuse of market dominance, seriously disrupt the competition order of the Internet market. Antitrust law is real It includes the public implementation and private implementation of the law enforcement agencies. Private implementation in the Internet refers to market competitors and Internet users. For example, in the Tencent v. 360 cases, Qihoo 360 puts forward civil action according to the provisions of the "antitrust law > fiftieth", and Qihoo is private in private implementation, that is, the market competitors of the same industry. The Internet monopoly refers to the specific monopoly behavior in the Internet industry, that is, the provider of network services, the manager's behavior to restrict or damage the legitimate competition of the network in order to obtain monopoly interests. The Internet industry discussed in this paper is composed of some market economic owners, that is, the Internet is its main carrier. Internet users are the main user groups of the economic subject. Some traditional enterprises sell their products through shop channels. The websites they build are mainly used to display and connect. These enterprises are not in the Internet industry. In particular, entertainment, information, consumption and social networking are the four main categories of the basic applications of internetworking, providing services for these four categories. The enterprise of the Internet industry is the enterprise of the Internet industry. Chapter 1 analyzes the difficulties and its root in the implementation of the antitrust law in the Internet industry by introducing the typical cases of Internet monopoly, the most typical of which is the first case of Internet antitrust that the Tangshan Renren company reported the monopoly of Baidu in 2008. The case, as well as the 360 case of Tencent QQ in 2010, was dubbed the "3Q war" by netizens, which has so far been the largest and most significant monopoly in the entire Internet industry. The most common line in the Internet monopoly is to abuse the dominant position of the market, including the tying. In the Internet industry, in the Internet industry, high-tech and emerging are the representative words of the Internet industry, which shows the rapid development of technology, the growth of the industrial innovation and the high content of science and technology. In fact, the public implementation does not adapt to the rapid characteristics of the internetworking monopoly. The big internet private subjects still hope that public implementation is an antitrust law enforcement agency to regulate and regulate Internet monopoly. On the contrary, private implementation can effectively make up for the defects of public implementation in time and pertinence. Private implementation is urgent for the implementation of the Internet antitrust law. The second chapter is mainly discussed. The reasons for the regulation of the antitrust law in the Internet industry are caused by the Internet industry. There are significant characteristics of the Internet industry. The antitrust law is affected by many factors when it is applied. The characteristics of the Internet industry make the antitrust law in trouble, the conflict between the anti monopoly competition policy and the Internet industry policy and the uncertainty of the antitrust law. The main reasons are: the inherent characteristics of the Internet monopoly and the defects of the public implementation of the antitrust law in the Internet. The inherent characteristics of the Internet monopoly, the bilateral market, the invisibility and the market unbounded, the temporary and frequent investment and acquisition. There is a negative impact on the flat competition, and the technological innovation has a negative influence, and the influence of the expansion is fast and the consumers' interests are damaged. The lack of the main role of the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies and the market regulators is the deficiency of the public implementation of the Internet antitrust law, which is reflected in the initiative failure of the anti monopoly law enforcement procedure and the enforcement of the law enforcement agencies of the antitrust law enforcement agencies. The third chapter analyzes the advantages of the private implementation of the antitrust law in the Internet industry. The private implementation of the antitrust law is embodied in the basis of antitrust law, natural people, enterprises or other organizations. The litigation or supervision carried out is different from the basic institutional defects which are difficult to make up for the public implementation of the Internet antitrust law. The subject of private implementation has the urgent desire of antitrust, and it can undertake the private implementation cost of the antitrust law. Therefore, the private implementation has its advantages in the Internet antitrust industry. The advantages of the anti monopoly law are timeliness, the expert witness system, the reduction of the cost of litigation and the cultivation of the competitive culture. The timeliness is that the monopolist can make a quick review and unlawful confirmation of the monopoly before the monopoly is infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of others, so that the law enforcement agencies can react quickly and take measures. To prevent monopoly behavior from happening and ultimately prevent monopolistic behavior may bring about subsequent material damage. Antimonopoly law enforcement personnel are very inadequate, weak in strength, difficult to omni-directional, and stereoscopic supervision of all walks of life in all walks of life, and supervision responsibility is difficult to complete. In this case, private power can be used to supervise the ridge. For example, in the 3Q war, the Tencent and several enterprises issued a joint statement of "anti 360 unfair competition and strengthening the self-discipline of the industry", such as in the 3Q war, for example, to apply for the malicious intimidation of the investigation 360 and to deceive the user's behavior. In this case, the Qihoo may be in the first place. The Internet industry is a new high-tech industry, the technology is updated quickly, the industrial innovation is increasing in geometric multiplier and high in scientific and technological content. The identification of Internet monopoly needs a very rich Internet professional knowledge. And to a certain extent, the actual work experience of the Internet, and in practice, the plaintiff or the defendant, even the judges and the court personnel in the trial work, are not satisfied with these conditions. They will be puzzled by the lack of professional knowledge in the investigation and hearing of the case, which is an antitrust lawsuit for the Internet. In accordance with the dilemma, the judicial interpretation in the lawsuit clearly stipulates that the party can hire an expert to make a statement on a particular issue in court, and can also negotiate a specialized agency and special personnel to conduct a market investigation and make an economic report. The expert witness system can greatly reduce the profession. In the process of collecting evidence in the collection of evidence, the plaintiff will also employ witnesses, lawyers, and sometimes a professional accreditation agency, which is often costly. In addition, on the basis of Internet monopoly instability and bilateral market characteristics, measures are taken to prevent monopoly violations. The scope is very extensive and involves a large number of faces, so the economic cost of the private implementation of the Internet antitrust law is very high. The court will make appropriate damages for the reasonable expenses of the above two parties, rather than only the previous symbolic low compensation, which has greatly improved the situation of private implementation. The initiative of the human subject in the anti-monopoly litigation has been improved. The private implementation of the Internet antitrust law is an important means to cultivate the competitive culture. Making full use of the convenience and popularization of the network, it can effectively motivate the implementation of private implementation and enhance the understanding and application of the private subjects, such as consumers and competitors, to the competition laws and regulations. The competition culture has also been nurtured and developed in this process, and finally maintains the authority of the antitrust law. The fourth chapter expounds the shortcomings of the private implementation of the antitrust law in the Internet industry, that is, it is difficult to give evidence, the amount of compensation is small, the success rate of the lawsuit is low, the legal principle is too strong, and the special provisions on the Internet monopoly are short. On the basis of the lack of private implementation of the broken law, it is proposed to combine the characteristics of the Internet industry to refine the antitrust laws and regulations, including the definition of the relevant product market, the centralized declaration standard of the operators, the binding rules, the rules of the litigation fee, the principle of imputation and the burden of proof, and the public interest litigation and group litigation of the Internet antitrust law. Because of the damage caused by Internet monopoly to Internet users and enterprises and the disruption of the competition order in the social market, we can learn from the American group litigation system in judicial practice, and combine the Chinese Lawsuit representative system to explore the system of public interest litigation and group litigation conforming to the characteristics of Internet monopoly, and make the Internet The users can better maintain their legitimate rights and interests, do well in the coordination and cooperation of the public implementation and private implementation of the Internet antitrust law, clear the scope of compensation for the damage of the civil liability for the Internet monopoly and the standard of calculation, and introduce the system of punitive damages. The Internet monopoly not only brings real losses to the private subject of the interconnected network, but also produces the property. In the Internet antitrust case, the plaintiff often puts forward a huge amount of compensation for damage, usually hundreds of millions. Therefore, the calculation standard and scope of the Internet monopoly damages is particularly important, but there are no provisions on the standard and scope of the calculation of the compensation for the Internet monopoly damage. On the basis of foreign experience and system, the author thinks that the system of double damage compensation can be adopted. In the era of "Internet +", everyone is a medium, everyone can be a consumer and operator. The private implementer of our antitrust law has an urgent desire to bring a lawsuit against monopoly damage. Network monopoly has its unique type and harm, so the private implementation of the antitrust law can be effectively implemented. The private implementation of the Internet antitrust law must be adjusted according to the characteristics of the Internet industry, and it has its particularity and necessity in the Internet industry antitrust regulation. Through the private implementation of the Internet antitrust law, the anti-monopoly law is solved in the Internet. The plight of the Internet provides an orderly competition environment for the Internet market, thus effectively protecting the innovation of the Internet SMEs, protecting the legitimate interests of the Internet users, and making the Internet industry a new growth pole of the socialist market economy.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.294
本文编号：2157016
[Abstract]:At present, the state has put forward the "Internet +" strategy, "Internet +" has become a new normal competition, but the Internet industry has a number of typical monopoly behavior. The Internet monopoly enterprises to implement monopoly behavior, such as monopoly agreement, abuse of market dominance, seriously disrupt the competition order of the Internet market. Antitrust law is real It includes the public implementation and private implementation of the law enforcement agencies. Private implementation in the Internet refers to market competitors and Internet users. For example, in the Tencent v. 360 cases, Qihoo 360 puts forward civil action according to the provisions of the "antitrust law > fiftieth", and Qihoo is private in private implementation, that is, the market competitors of the same industry. The Internet monopoly refers to the specific monopoly behavior in the Internet industry, that is, the provider of network services, the manager's behavior to restrict or damage the legitimate competition of the network in order to obtain monopoly interests. The Internet industry discussed in this paper is composed of some market economic owners, that is, the Internet is its main carrier. Internet users are the main user groups of the economic subject. Some traditional enterprises sell their products through shop channels. The websites they build are mainly used to display and connect. These enterprises are not in the Internet industry. In particular, entertainment, information, consumption and social networking are the four main categories of the basic applications of internetworking, providing services for these four categories. The enterprise of the Internet industry is the enterprise of the Internet industry. Chapter 1 analyzes the difficulties and its root in the implementation of the antitrust law in the Internet industry by introducing the typical cases of Internet monopoly, the most typical of which is the first case of Internet antitrust that the Tangshan Renren company reported the monopoly of Baidu in 2008. The case, as well as the 360 case of Tencent QQ in 2010, was dubbed the "3Q war" by netizens, which has so far been the largest and most significant monopoly in the entire Internet industry. The most common line in the Internet monopoly is to abuse the dominant position of the market, including the tying. In the Internet industry, in the Internet industry, high-tech and emerging are the representative words of the Internet industry, which shows the rapid development of technology, the growth of the industrial innovation and the high content of science and technology. In fact, the public implementation does not adapt to the rapid characteristics of the internetworking monopoly. The big internet private subjects still hope that public implementation is an antitrust law enforcement agency to regulate and regulate Internet monopoly. On the contrary, private implementation can effectively make up for the defects of public implementation in time and pertinence. Private implementation is urgent for the implementation of the Internet antitrust law. The second chapter is mainly discussed. The reasons for the regulation of the antitrust law in the Internet industry are caused by the Internet industry. There are significant characteristics of the Internet industry. The antitrust law is affected by many factors when it is applied. The characteristics of the Internet industry make the antitrust law in trouble, the conflict between the anti monopoly competition policy and the Internet industry policy and the uncertainty of the antitrust law. The main reasons are: the inherent characteristics of the Internet monopoly and the defects of the public implementation of the antitrust law in the Internet. The inherent characteristics of the Internet monopoly, the bilateral market, the invisibility and the market unbounded, the temporary and frequent investment and acquisition. There is a negative impact on the flat competition, and the technological innovation has a negative influence, and the influence of the expansion is fast and the consumers' interests are damaged. The lack of the main role of the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies and the market regulators is the deficiency of the public implementation of the Internet antitrust law, which is reflected in the initiative failure of the anti monopoly law enforcement procedure and the enforcement of the law enforcement agencies of the antitrust law enforcement agencies. The third chapter analyzes the advantages of the private implementation of the antitrust law in the Internet industry. The private implementation of the antitrust law is embodied in the basis of antitrust law, natural people, enterprises or other organizations. The litigation or supervision carried out is different from the basic institutional defects which are difficult to make up for the public implementation of the Internet antitrust law. The subject of private implementation has the urgent desire of antitrust, and it can undertake the private implementation cost of the antitrust law. Therefore, the private implementation has its advantages in the Internet antitrust industry. The advantages of the anti monopoly law are timeliness, the expert witness system, the reduction of the cost of litigation and the cultivation of the competitive culture. The timeliness is that the monopolist can make a quick review and unlawful confirmation of the monopoly before the monopoly is infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of others, so that the law enforcement agencies can react quickly and take measures. To prevent monopoly behavior from happening and ultimately prevent monopolistic behavior may bring about subsequent material damage. Antimonopoly law enforcement personnel are very inadequate, weak in strength, difficult to omni-directional, and stereoscopic supervision of all walks of life in all walks of life, and supervision responsibility is difficult to complete. In this case, private power can be used to supervise the ridge. For example, in the 3Q war, the Tencent and several enterprises issued a joint statement of "anti 360 unfair competition and strengthening the self-discipline of the industry", such as in the 3Q war, for example, to apply for the malicious intimidation of the investigation 360 and to deceive the user's behavior. In this case, the Qihoo may be in the first place. The Internet industry is a new high-tech industry, the technology is updated quickly, the industrial innovation is increasing in geometric multiplier and high in scientific and technological content. The identification of Internet monopoly needs a very rich Internet professional knowledge. And to a certain extent, the actual work experience of the Internet, and in practice, the plaintiff or the defendant, even the judges and the court personnel in the trial work, are not satisfied with these conditions. They will be puzzled by the lack of professional knowledge in the investigation and hearing of the case, which is an antitrust lawsuit for the Internet. In accordance with the dilemma, the judicial interpretation in the lawsuit clearly stipulates that the party can hire an expert to make a statement on a particular issue in court, and can also negotiate a specialized agency and special personnel to conduct a market investigation and make an economic report. The expert witness system can greatly reduce the profession. In the process of collecting evidence in the collection of evidence, the plaintiff will also employ witnesses, lawyers, and sometimes a professional accreditation agency, which is often costly. In addition, on the basis of Internet monopoly instability and bilateral market characteristics, measures are taken to prevent monopoly violations. The scope is very extensive and involves a large number of faces, so the economic cost of the private implementation of the Internet antitrust law is very high. The court will make appropriate damages for the reasonable expenses of the above two parties, rather than only the previous symbolic low compensation, which has greatly improved the situation of private implementation. The initiative of the human subject in the anti-monopoly litigation has been improved. The private implementation of the Internet antitrust law is an important means to cultivate the competitive culture. Making full use of the convenience and popularization of the network, it can effectively motivate the implementation of private implementation and enhance the understanding and application of the private subjects, such as consumers and competitors, to the competition laws and regulations. The competition culture has also been nurtured and developed in this process, and finally maintains the authority of the antitrust law. The fourth chapter expounds the shortcomings of the private implementation of the antitrust law in the Internet industry, that is, it is difficult to give evidence, the amount of compensation is small, the success rate of the lawsuit is low, the legal principle is too strong, and the special provisions on the Internet monopoly are short. On the basis of the lack of private implementation of the broken law, it is proposed to combine the characteristics of the Internet industry to refine the antitrust laws and regulations, including the definition of the relevant product market, the centralized declaration standard of the operators, the binding rules, the rules of the litigation fee, the principle of imputation and the burden of proof, and the public interest litigation and group litigation of the Internet antitrust law. Because of the damage caused by Internet monopoly to Internet users and enterprises and the disruption of the competition order in the social market, we can learn from the American group litigation system in judicial practice, and combine the Chinese Lawsuit representative system to explore the system of public interest litigation and group litigation conforming to the characteristics of Internet monopoly, and make the Internet The users can better maintain their legitimate rights and interests, do well in the coordination and cooperation of the public implementation and private implementation of the Internet antitrust law, clear the scope of compensation for the damage of the civil liability for the Internet monopoly and the standard of calculation, and introduce the system of punitive damages. The Internet monopoly not only brings real losses to the private subject of the interconnected network, but also produces the property. In the Internet antitrust case, the plaintiff often puts forward a huge amount of compensation for damage, usually hundreds of millions. Therefore, the calculation standard and scope of the Internet monopoly damages is particularly important, but there are no provisions on the standard and scope of the calculation of the compensation for the Internet monopoly damage. On the basis of foreign experience and system, the author thinks that the system of double damage compensation can be adopted. In the era of "Internet +", everyone is a medium, everyone can be a consumer and operator. The private implementer of our antitrust law has an urgent desire to bring a lawsuit against monopoly damage. Network monopoly has its unique type and harm, so the private implementation of the antitrust law can be effectively implemented. The private implementation of the Internet antitrust law must be adjusted according to the characteristics of the Internet industry, and it has its particularity and necessity in the Internet industry antitrust regulation. Through the private implementation of the Internet antitrust law, the anti-monopoly law is solved in the Internet. The plight of the Internet provides an orderly competition environment for the Internet market, thus effectively protecting the innovation of the Internet SMEs, protecting the legitimate interests of the Internet users, and making the Internet industry a new growth pole of the socialist market economy.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.294
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前1条
1 吴宏伟;胡润田;;互联网反垄断与“双边市场”理论研究[J];首都师范大学学报(社会科学版);2014年01期
，本文编号：2157016
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/jingjifalunwen/2157016.html
