本文選題：打車軟件 + 低于成本價(jià)銷售��； 參考：《天津大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：打車軟件以其方便快捷的特點(diǎn),一定程度上解決了我國(guó)出租車市場(chǎng)分配不均的問題。但經(jīng)過(guò)兩年多的發(fā)展,打車軟件行業(yè)內(nèi)部兼并不斷,競(jìng)爭(zhēng)愈演愈烈。從最盛期的30余款打車軟件逐漸形成快的打車和嘀嘀打車兩家獨(dú)大的局面�？斓拇蜍嚭袜粥执蜍嚍榱藸�(zhēng)奪市場(chǎng)更是開展了價(jià)格補(bǔ)貼戰(zhàn),從現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)貼發(fā)展為打車紅包、優(yōu)惠券、積分換禮品等“暗補(bǔ)貼”模式。目前,我國(guó)《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》中尚無(wú)對(duì)類打車軟件補(bǔ)貼行為不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的規(guī)定,面對(duì)激烈的打車軟件競(jìng)爭(zhēng)市場(chǎng),我國(guó)的法律規(guī)制相對(duì)滯后,《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》的一般條款不盡完善。本文以《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》第11條為基礎(chǔ),從經(jīng)營(yíng)者主觀目的及商品成本構(gòu)成兩大構(gòu)成要件來(lái)分析打車軟件的補(bǔ)貼行為的性質(zhì)。打車軟件基于其正向外部性以及軟件產(chǎn)品的使用相關(guān)性,其大范圍補(bǔ)貼行為具有明顯的掠奪性特征,但是由于軟件類產(chǎn)品的特點(diǎn)及打車軟件行業(yè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的新模式使得傳統(tǒng)的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)顯得力不從心。因此,依照目前《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》第11條的規(guī)定,打車軟件的補(bǔ)貼行為不能構(gòu)成低于成本價(jià)銷售。但是,針對(duì)打車軟件的補(bǔ)貼現(xiàn)象,我們還應(yīng)當(dāng)警惕采用如此大規(guī)模的補(bǔ)貼進(jìn)行推廣是否在無(wú)形之中抬高了打車軟件行業(yè)的交易成本。營(yíng)銷創(chuàng)新的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及政府監(jiān)管的尺度都應(yīng)將是否有利于民生發(fā)展作為首要原則,打車軟件產(chǎn)生的根本原因也是為了使廣大用戶平等的享有社會(huì)公共資源,不能淪為盲目競(jìng)爭(zhēng)而變相的增加了社會(huì)交易成本。
[Abstract]:Because of its convenient and quick characteristics, the taxi hailing software solves the problem of uneven distribution of taxi market in China to a certain extent. But after more than two years of development, ride-hailing software industry continued to merge, competition intensified. From the peak of more than 30 ride-hailing software gradually formed a fast taxi and Didi Didi two major situation. In order to compete for the market, fast taxi hailing and Didi taxi have launched a price subsidy war, from cash subsidies to taxi red envelopes, coupons, points for gifts and other "hidden subsidy" mode. At present, there is no unfair competition regulation on the subsidy of tax-hailing software in the Anti-unfair Competition Law of our country. In the face of the fierce competition market of ride-hailing software, China's legal regulation lags behind, and the general provisions of Anti-unfair Competition Law are not perfect. Based on Article 11 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law, this paper analyzes the nature of the subsidy behavior of the taxi hailing software from the subjective purpose of the operator and the composition of the commodity cost. Based on its positive externalities and the relevance of the use of software products, ride-hailing software has a predatory nature in its extensive subsidy behavior. However, due to the characteristics of software products and the new model of competition in taxi-hailing software industry, the traditional criteria appear to be inadequate. Therefore, according to the current article 11 of the Anti-unfair Competition Act, the subsidization of ride-hailing software cannot constitute a sale below the cost price. However, in view of the subsidy phenomenon of ride-hailing software, we should also be on the alert whether the use of such a large-scale subsidy to promote the promotion of ride-hailing software industry in the invisible increase in transaction costs. The standard of marketing innovation and the scale of government supervision should regard whether it is beneficial to the development of people's livelihood as the first principle. The root cause of the taxi software is also to make the vast number of users equal access to social and public resources. Can not be reduced to blind competition and the disguised increase in social transaction costs.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 于潔涵;梁雪琴;謝紹暉;;手機(jī)打車軟件盈利模式淺析[J];交通科技與經(jīng)濟(jì);2014年02期

2 孫威;;對(duì)建立我國(guó)掠奪性定價(jià)成本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問題的思考[J];價(jià)格理論與實(shí)踐;2010年12期

3 張琳;;不當(dāng)?shù)蛢r(jià)銷售行為之界定[J];科教文匯(下旬刊);2008年08期

4 陳岷;關(guān)于違法低于成本價(jià)格銷售行為的立法思考[J];財(cái)貿(mào)研究;2003年06期

5 盧以品;論“低于成本價(jià)銷售行為”的正當(dāng)性[J];三峽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 孫剛軍;我國(guó)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)市場(chǎng)不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的法律規(guī)制研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

2 彭旭;國(guó)內(nèi)低價(jià)銷售行為法律問題研究[D];中南大學(xué);2011年

3 錢琳;沉沒成本效應(yīng)對(duì)企業(yè)投資決策影響的研究[D];天津大學(xué);2007年

4 金曉菲;掠奪性定價(jià)及其法律規(guī)制研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年

5 莊巖;汽車導(dǎo)航軟件企業(yè)營(yíng)銷策略研究[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2004年

6 張斌;反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法在網(wǎng)絡(luò)經(jīng)濟(jì)中的適用及其完善[D];鄭州大學(xué);2003年

，

本文編號(hào)：1898104