【摘要】：目前,國家提出了“互聯(lián)網(wǎng)+”戰(zhàn)略,“互聯(lián)網(wǎng)+”已經(jīng)成為競(jìng)爭(zhēng)新常態(tài),但是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)已經(jīng)客觀存在一些典型的壟斷行為�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷企業(yè)實(shí)施壟斷行為,如壟斷協(xié)議、濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位,嚴(yán)重?cái)_亂了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)市場(chǎng)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序。反壟斷法實(shí)施包括執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)的公共實(shí)施與私人實(shí)施。互聯(lián)網(wǎng)私人實(shí)施中的私人是指:市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶。比如在騰訊訴360案件中,奇虎360根據(jù)《反壟斷法》第50條的規(guī)定,提出民事訴訟,奇虎即為私人實(shí)施中的私人,也即同行業(yè)的市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者。互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷是指在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)中出現(xiàn)的特定壟斷行為,即網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)的提供商、管理商為了取得壟斷利益實(shí)施的限制或損害網(wǎng)絡(luò)正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的行為。本文所探討的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)是指由上述一些市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)主體組成,即互聯(lián)網(wǎng)是其主要經(jīng)營載體,而網(wǎng)民是該經(jīng)濟(jì)主體的主要用戶群體。一些傳統(tǒng)企業(yè)通過門店渠道銷售其產(chǎn)品,其建立的網(wǎng)站主要是用來展示和聯(lián)系的,這些企業(yè)并不在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)范疇內(nèi)。具體而言,娛樂、信息、消費(fèi)、社交是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)基本應(yīng)用的四大類,為這四大類提供服務(wù)和產(chǎn)品的企業(yè)即為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)的企業(yè)。第一章通過介紹互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷的典型案例來分析互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)反壟斷法實(shí)施時(shí)所面臨的困境及其根源,其中最為典型的就是2008年發(fā)生的唐山人人公司狀告百度涉嫌壟斷的全國首例互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷案例,以及在2010年發(fā)生的360訴騰訊QQ案,該案件被網(wǎng)民戲稱為“3Q大戰(zhàn)”,這是迄今為止涉及金額最大、在整個(gè)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)造成了極為重大影響的一起壟斷案件�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷中最為普遍的行為是濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位,具體包括搭售、拒絕交易、差別待遇、強(qiáng)迫交易等�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)業(yè)中,高科技、新興是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)的代表詞,其呈現(xiàn)出技術(shù)更新快、產(chǎn)業(yè)創(chuàng)新呈幾何倍數(shù)增長、科技含量高的特點(diǎn)。事實(shí)上,公共實(shí)施確實(shí)不能適應(yīng)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷發(fā)生迅速、危害傳遞更快的特征。而廣大的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)私人主體依舊寄希望于公共實(shí)施即反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)來對(duì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷行為進(jìn)行監(jiān)管和規(guī)制。相反私人實(shí)施能在及時(shí)性和針對(duì)性上有效彌補(bǔ)公共實(shí)施的缺陷,私人實(shí)施對(duì)于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷法的實(shí)施具有迫切性。第二章主要探討了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)反壟斷法規(guī)制困境之原因�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)有顯著的特點(diǎn),反壟斷法在適用時(shí)受到很多因素的影響�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)的特點(diǎn)使得反壟斷法在實(shí)施中陷入困境,反壟斷競(jìng)爭(zhēng)政策與互聯(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)業(yè)政策的沖突以及反壟斷法的不確定性都加大了反壟斷法對(duì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)實(shí)施的難度。其中最主要的原因有:互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷的內(nèi)在特性和反壟斷法公共實(shí)施在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)領(lǐng)域的缺陷�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷的內(nèi)在特性,即雙邊市場(chǎng),隱蔽性和市場(chǎng)無邊界性,暫時(shí)性和頻繁的投資并購�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷對(duì)公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)、技術(shù)創(chuàng)新產(chǎn)生了消極的影響,而且影響擴(kuò)大速度快,損害了消費(fèi)者利益。反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)和市場(chǎng)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)主體角色缺失是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷法公共實(shí)施存在的缺陷,體現(xiàn)在:反壟斷執(zhí)法程序啟動(dòng)上主動(dòng)性失靈,反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)的執(zhí)法工作難以做到步驟劃一、和諧統(tǒng)一,相關(guān)法律不完善、執(zhí)行性差,反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)不能有效地開展反壟斷監(jiān)管。第三章分析了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)反壟斷法私人實(shí)施的優(yōu)越性。反壟斷法的私人實(shí)施具體體現(xiàn)在依據(jù)反壟斷法,自然人、企業(yè)或其他組織開展的訴訟或者監(jiān)督。不同于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷法公共實(shí)施有著難以由其自身彌補(bǔ)的根本制度性缺陷,私人實(shí)施的主體具有反壟斷的迫切意愿,并且能夠承擔(dān)反壟斷法私人實(shí)施成本,因而私人實(shí)施在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷中有其優(yōu)越性�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)反壟斷法私人實(shí)施的優(yōu)勢(shì)還有及時(shí)性、專家證人制度、訴訟成本減少以及培育競(jìng)爭(zhēng)文化。及時(shí)性即在壟斷主體通過壟斷行為對(duì)他人合法權(quán)益造成侵害之前就能迅速對(duì)壟斷行為做出審查和違法確認(rèn),從而執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)能夠快速反應(yīng)并采取措施阻止壟斷行為的發(fā)生,最終從根本上防止壟斷行為可能帶來后續(xù)的物質(zhì)損害。反壟斷執(zhí)法人員十分不足,力量薄弱,很難全方位、立體化的監(jiān)督到社會(huì)各行各業(yè)的各個(gè)層面,監(jiān)督責(zé)任很難完成,在這種情況下可以利用私人力量來監(jiān)督壟斷行為或者提起訴訟,追究相應(yīng)的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷民事?lián)p害賠償責(zé)任。比如在3Q大戰(zhàn)中,騰訊以及多家企業(yè)對(duì)360發(fā)出《反對(duì)360不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)及加強(qiáng)行業(yè)自律的聯(lián)合聲明》,申請(qǐng)調(diào)查360的惡意恫嚇、欺騙用戶的行為,關(guān)于這一事件,奇虎方可以在第一時(shí)間請(qǐng)求法院確認(rèn)其無效性、違法性,及時(shí)的防止壟斷違法行為造成進(jìn)一步的損失�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)是高科技新興的產(chǎn)業(yè),技術(shù)更新快、產(chǎn)業(yè)創(chuàng)新呈幾何倍數(shù)增長、科技含量高,對(duì)于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷行為的認(rèn)定需要極為豐富的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)專業(yè)知識(shí)以及一定程度的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)實(shí)際工作經(jīng)驗(yàn),而實(shí)踐中往往原告或被告,甚至是進(jìn)行審判工作的法官和法院人員,都并不滿足這些條件,他們都會(huì)在案件調(diào)查審理過程中因?qū)I(yè)知識(shí)的匱乏而對(duì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)專業(yè)性問題產(chǎn)生困惑,這對(duì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷訴訟的處理增加了難度。針對(duì)該困境,在訴訟中司法解釋明確規(guī)定了當(dāng)事人可以聘請(qǐng)專家就某一專門性問題出庭做出說明,還可以協(xié)商委托專門的機(jī)構(gòu)以及專門的人員進(jìn)行市場(chǎng)調(diào)查,做出經(jīng)濟(jì)分析報(bào)告,專家證人制度能極大限度地減少專業(yè)性問題對(duì)案件審理的困擾。原告在進(jìn)行收集證據(jù)舉證的過程中,必要時(shí)還會(huì)聘請(qǐng)證人專家、律師,有時(shí)還需委托專業(yè)性鑒定機(jī)構(gòu),往往花費(fèi)巨大。另外,基于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷的不穩(wěn)定性、雙邊市場(chǎng)等特征,為制止壟斷違法行為而采取措施的實(shí)施范圍也非常廣泛,涉及面眾多,因而互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷法私人實(shí)施的經(jīng)濟(jì)成本很高。法院會(huì)針對(duì)上述兩項(xiàng)當(dāng)事人的合理開支進(jìn)行合適的損害賠償判決,而非僅僅是以往只具有象征性的低額賠償,這使得私人實(shí)施的局面得到了大大的改善,私人主體在進(jìn)行反壟斷訴訟時(shí)的積極性得到了提高。互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷法私人實(shí)施是培育競(jìng)爭(zhēng)文化的重要手段。充分利用網(wǎng)絡(luò)的便捷性和推廣性,能有效地激勵(lì)私人實(shí)施的推行,提升消費(fèi)者和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者等私人主體對(duì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法律法規(guī)的理解和運(yùn)用,競(jìng)爭(zhēng)文化也在此過程中得到培育和發(fā)展,最終維護(hù)了反壟斷法的權(quán)威。第四章闡述互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)反壟斷法私人實(shí)施的不足,即舉證較困難、賠償數(shù)額少、訴訟成功率低、法律原則性太強(qiáng)、缺少對(duì)于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷的特殊規(guī)定。在分析了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷法私人實(shí)施不足的基礎(chǔ)上,提出了要結(jié)合互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)特點(diǎn),細(xì)化反壟斷法律法規(guī),包括界定相關(guān)產(chǎn)品市場(chǎng)、經(jīng)營者集中申報(bào)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、規(guī)定約束力規(guī)則、訴訟費(fèi)規(guī)則和歸責(zé)原則和舉證責(zé)任方面;探索互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷法的公益訴訟和集團(tuán)訴訟,對(duì)于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷行為給互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶和企業(yè)帶來的損害,以及對(duì)社會(huì)市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序的擾亂,司法實(shí)踐中可以借鑒美國的集團(tuán)訴訟制度,并結(jié)合中國的訴訟代表人制度,由此探索出符合互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷特點(diǎn)的公益訴訟和集團(tuán)訴訟的制度,使互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶能更好地維護(hù)自身的合法權(quán)益;做好互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷法公共實(shí)施與私人實(shí)施的協(xié)調(diào)與合作;明確互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷民事責(zé)任損害賠償范圍及計(jì)算標(biāo)準(zhǔn),引入懲罰性賠償制度,互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷行為不僅給互聯(lián)網(wǎng)私人主體帶來了實(shí)際的損失,還會(huì)產(chǎn)生潛在損失�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷案中,原告經(jīng)常提出巨額的損害賠償,一般是幾億,因而互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷損害賠償?shù)挠?jì)算標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和范圍顯得尤為重要,但是目前沒有對(duì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷損害賠償?shù)挠?jì)算標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和范圍等問題的規(guī)定。為了激勵(lì)私人市場(chǎng)主體的反壟斷訴訟,在借鑒國外的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和制度的基礎(chǔ)上,筆者認(rèn)為可以采取雙倍損害賠償制度。“互聯(lián)網(wǎng)+”的時(shí)代,人人都是媒介,人人都可以是消費(fèi)者和經(jīng)營者,我國反壟斷法的私人實(shí)施者對(duì)于受到的壟斷損害提起訴訟具有迫切的愿望�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷有其特有的類型和危害,因而反壟斷法的私人實(shí)施能得到有效實(shí)施。互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷法私人實(shí)施必須依據(jù)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)的特性來調(diào)整,在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)反壟斷規(guī)制中有其特殊性和必要性。通過互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷法私人實(shí)施,解決反壟斷法在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)遇到的困境,以此給予互聯(lián)網(wǎng)市場(chǎng)一個(gè)有序競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的環(huán)境,從而有力地保障互聯(lián)網(wǎng)中小企業(yè)的創(chuàng)新,保護(hù)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶的合法利益,使得互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)真正成為社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)新的增長極。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(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1條

1 吳宏偉;胡潤田;;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷與“雙邊市場(chǎng)”理論研究[J];首都師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：2157016