互联网企业价格歧视的反垄断规制

发布时间：2018-04-14 11:20

本文选题：网络效应 + 价格歧视　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：互联网的飞速发展，导致互联网企业滥用优势地位的案件层出不穷，比如著名的“微软案”、“亚马逊案”等，这些互联网企业为获得超额垄断利润，利用其垄断地位，，在提供相同产品或服务时，对消费者进行区别定价，使市场公平、自由的竞争秩序遭到破坏，并且还造成阻碍技术创新、削减消费者福利等后果。但互联网企业价格歧视行为具有特殊性，使传统认定理论遭遇困境。具体而言，网络经济下，判断某一企业是否具备垄断地位不再以市场份额作为唯一标准，还必须结合市场壁垒、关键设施或技术的知识产权等因素加以考虑。此外，互联网企业可通过实施价格歧视改善其经济效益，并能满足部分消费者对产品的需求，因此在认定其违法性时，需要综合考虑各种因素，而非直接将其定义为违法行为。最后，在我国反垄断法律责任设定中，某些制度并不适用于网络经济下的价格歧视行为。综上所述，网络经济背景下，传统理论面临诸多困境，充分说明其在建构制度上还具备很大的空间，于是，这就成为了本文构思的来源。文章除了引言、结论外，由以下三部分构成：第一部分：互联网企业价格歧视的行为认定。本部分围绕主体要件与客观要件展开对价格歧视行为的界定。第一，行为的实施者应是具有市场支配地位的互联网企业，进而提出界定互联网企业相关市场的方法。第二，结合互联网企业的特征，指出市场份额不再是认定市场支配地位的唯一标准，认定时应参考用户规模、市场壁垒、关键设施或技术的知识产权等因素。第二部分：互联网企业价格歧视的违法性认定。首先提出判定滥用行为的一般原则即合理原则与本身违法原则，分析它们的优点与不足，得出认定互联网企业价格歧视行为违法性时必须采用合理原则的结论。然后，探讨认定该行为违法性的主要考量因素，对行为的主观目的及后果进行具体分析。第三部分：互联网企业价格歧视的反垄断法律责任。综合考虑互联网价格歧视行为的民事责任、行政责任、刑事责任，提出罚款、罚金、监禁等责任形式。并且，重点强调反垄断刑事责任的设立，为完整有效的反垄断体系的建立提供理论支持，进而更好地维护竞争秩序、推动技术创新和保护消费者福利。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of the Internet, there are endless cases of Internet enterprises abusing their dominant position, such as the famous "Microsoft case", "Amazon case", and so on. In order to obtain excess monopoly profits, these Internet enterprises take advantage of their monopoly position.When providing the same products or services, the consumers are differentiated and priced so that the market is fair, the free competition order is destroyed, and the technological innovation is hindered and the consumer welfare is reduced.However, the behavior of price discrimination in Internet enterprises has its particularity, which makes the traditional theory of cognizance encounter difficulties.Specifically, in the network economy, judging whether an enterprise has a monopoly position is no longer the sole criterion of market share, but also must be taken into account with market barriers, key facilities or intellectual property rights of technology and other factors.In addition, Internet enterprises can improve their economic benefits by implementing price discrimination, and can meet the needs of some consumers for products. Therefore, when determining their illegality, they need to consider all kinds of factors comprehensively, rather than defining them as illegal acts directly.Finally, some systems do not apply to price discrimination in the network economy.To sum up, under the background of network economy, the traditional theory is faced with many difficulties, which fully shows that there is still a lot of space in the construction of the system. Therefore, this has become the source of this article's conception.In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the article consists of the following three parts:The first part: Internet enterprise price discrimination behavior cognizance.This part focuses on the subjective and objective elements of the definition of price discrimination.First, the executor of the behavior should be the Internet enterprise which has the dominant position in the market, and then put forward the method to define the relevant market of the Internet enterprise.Secondly, according to the characteristics of Internet enterprises, it points out that market share is no longer the only criterion for determining the dominant position of the market, and should refer to the factors such as user size, market barriers, intellectual property rights of key facilities or technologies, etc.The second part: the illegal nature of Internet enterprise price discrimination.First of all, the paper puts forward the general principles of judging abuse, that is, the principle of reasonableness and the principle of violating the law itself, analyzes their advantages and disadvantages, and draws the conclusion that the reasonable principle must be adopted in determining the illegality of price discrimination in Internet enterprises.Then, the author discusses the main factors to determine the illegality of the act, and analyzes the subjective purpose and consequence of the act.The third part: the anti-monopoly legal liability of internet enterprise price discrimination.Consider the civil liability, administrative liability, criminal liability, penalty, fine, imprisonment and other forms of liability.Moreover, the establishment of anti-monopoly criminal responsibility is emphasized to provide theoretical support for the establishment of a complete and effective anti-monopoly system, and thus to better maintain the competition order, promote technological innovation and protect consumer welfare.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.294

【参考文献】