论互联网竞争中的“非公益必要不干扰原则”

发布时间：2018-07-06 20:53

本文选题：非公益必要不干扰 + 互联网领域的不正当竞争　；参考：《湘潭大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：互联网经济市场发展迅速,伴随着该领域频发的不正当竞争。我国《反不正当竞争法》于1993年生效,由于当时的技术环境,没有可能对互联网不正当竞争进行针对性的规定,司法实践中对于互联网类的不正当竞争一般适用《反不正当竞争法》第二条即一般条款进行判定。但是作为一般条款的第二条过于抽象与原则,导致司法裁判适用的标准不一。由此,我国法官创造性地在互联网领域不正当竞争案中发展出“非公益必要不不干扰原则”,该原则的提出,是《反不正当竞争法》修改前做出的一次大胆尝试。该原则缘起于“百度诉360插标及劫持流量案”,可以简要概括为互联网产品或服务之间原则上不得相互干扰,确实出于保护消费者等公共利益的需要,在特定的情形下可以不经用户自主选择干扰其他互联网产品或服务的运行,但必须确保干扰手段的必要性和合理性。可以从反不正当竞争法的基本原则与权利不得滥用的民法基本原则为“非公益必要不干扰原则”寻求法理依据。在我国《反不正当竞争法》对互联网不正当竞争行为未进行具体规定的条件下,“非公益必要不干扰原则”具有重要司法实践价值,具体表现为相比一般条款,其在司法适用上更具可操作性,从而有效地规制网络不正当竞争行为。当然,由于该原则从具体司法判例中提出,其具体内涵需要进行一般化的界定,其中“公益”应该界定为以消费者利益为主要内容的公共利益,尤其是指消费者的利益;“干扰”应该界定为阻碍竞争的行为或者对公共利益造成损害的行为;“必要”应该界定为以保护消费者等公共利益为限度。其制度化的立法归属为《反不正当竞争法》,立法上应该分两款表述,第一款表述为:在互联网竞争中,除非出于保护消费者等公共利益的需要,经营者不得干扰其他经营者的互联网产品或服务的正常运行;第二款表述为,经营者基于消费者等公共利益的必要对其他经营者的互联网产品或服务进行干扰时,以保护消费者等公共利益为限度。
[Abstract]:Internet economic market is developing rapidly, accompanied by frequent unfair competition in this field. China's Anti-unfair Competition Law came into effect in 1993. Due to the technological environment at that time, it was not possible to provide for unfair competition on the Internet. In judicial practice, the second article of the Anti-unfair Competition Law is generally applicable to the unfair competition of the Internet. However, as a general clause, the second article is too abstract and principle, leading to the application of different standards. As a result, our judges creatively developed the "principle of non-commonweal necessity and non-interference" in the case of unfair competition in the field of Internet, which is a bold attempt made before the revision of Anti-unfair Competition Law. The principle stems from the case of Baidu v. 360 and hijacked Traffic, which can be summarized as not to interfere with each other in principle between Internet products or services, and indeed out of the need to protect public interests such as consumers. Under certain circumstances, it is possible to interfere with the operation of other Internet products or services without the user's choice, but the necessity and rationality of the means of interference must be ensured. From the basic principles of the anti-unfair competition law and the basic principle of civil law that the rights may not be abused, we can seek the legal basis for the principle of non-public necessity and non-interference. Under the condition that the unfair competition act of Internet is not specified in the Anti-unfair Competition Law of our country, "the principle of non-public necessity and non-interference" has important judicial practical value, which is embodied in the comparison of general terms. It has more maneuverability in the judicial application, thus effectively regulating the network unfair competition behavior. Of course, because the principle is put forward from the specific judicial precedent, its specific connotation needs to be defined in a general way, in which "public good" should be defined as the public interest with consumer interests as the main content, especially the interests of consumers; "interference" should be defined as conduct that impedes competition or causes harm to the public interest; "necessity" should be defined to the extent of protecting public interests such as consumers. Its institutionalized legislation falls under the Anti-unfair Competition Law, which should be legislated in two paragraphs. The first paragraph states that in Internet competition, unless there is a need to protect public interests such as consumers, The business operator shall not interfere with the normal operation of the Internet products or services of other business operators; the second paragraph states that when the operator is necessary to interfere with the Internet products or services of other operators on the basis of the public interests such as consumers, To protect consumers and other public interests as a limit.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.294

【参考文献】