【摘要】：平臺(tái)經(jīng)濟(jì)是基于強(qiáng)大的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)應(yīng)用技術(shù)發(fā)展起來(lái)的新的市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)形態(tài),不同于傳統(tǒng)經(jīng)濟(jì),其具有網(wǎng)絡(luò)外部性和相互依賴(lài)性的特點(diǎn)。超高定價(jià)行為是具有市場(chǎng)支配地位的經(jīng)營(yíng)者濫用其優(yōu)勢(shì)地位,以明顯不合理且超過(guò)其所售商品或服務(wù)原本價(jià)值的價(jià)格銷(xiāo)售其商品或者服務(wù)的行為。網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)經(jīng)營(yíng)者在經(jīng)營(yíng)活動(dòng)中的定價(jià)和銷(xiāo)售策略往往給眾多商戶(hù)造成直接影響,其定價(jià)權(quán)的權(quán)限大小關(guān)系重大。網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)經(jīng)營(yíng)者超高定價(jià)的行為與《反壟斷法》的宗旨相悖,損害消費(fèi)者的切身利益,不利于市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展,反壟斷法必須對(duì)其進(jìn)行一定的規(guī)范。如何通過(guò)反壟斷法的制度安排,既保障平臺(tái)商戶(hù)消費(fèi)者不受超高定價(jià)行為的侵害,也不影響市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的自由競(jìng)爭(zhēng),是各國(guó)理論界都在探究的問(wèn)題,也是本文的寫(xiě)作主旨。本文首先以淘寶商城糾紛一例引出網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)經(jīng)營(yíng)者超高定價(jià)這一行為,又結(jié)合國(guó)內(nèi)外理論界的觀點(diǎn)分析其性質(zhì)和危害;其次,通過(guò)對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)外反壟斷立法的解讀,進(jìn)而分析并指出用反壟斷法規(guī)制網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)經(jīng)營(yíng)者時(shí)存在的難點(diǎn);最后,在深入分析規(guī)制困境的基礎(chǔ)上,提出完善反壟斷法規(guī)制網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)經(jīng)營(yíng)者超高定價(jià)的針對(duì)性意見(jiàn),通過(guò)明確使用超高定價(jià)條款時(shí)的限制條件、合理計(jì)算平臺(tái)運(yùn)營(yíng)總成本、把握?qǐng)?zhí)法邊界、慎重選擇規(guī)制方式等,平衡好加強(qiáng)監(jiān)管與鼓勵(lì)創(chuàng)新的關(guān)系,使反壟斷法在指導(dǎo)和調(diào)整平臺(tái)網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)經(jīng)營(yíng)者超高定價(jià)行為中發(fā)揮應(yīng)有的效用。
[Abstract]:Platform economy is a new form of market economy based on powerful Internet application technology. It is different from the traditional economy and has the characteristics of network externality and interdependence. Ultra-high pricing behavior is the behavior that the operators with market dominant position abuse their dominant position and sell their goods or services at prices that are obviously unreasonable and exceed the original value of the goods or services they sell. The pricing and selling strategies of network platform operators often have a direct impact on many merchants, and the power of pricing is of great importance. The behavior of network platform operators' super-high pricing is contrary to the aim of "Anti-monopoly Law", which damages the vital interests of consumers and is not conducive to the development of market economy. The anti-monopoly law must regulate it to a certain extent. How to protect the consumers of the platform from the ultra-high pricing behavior and the free competition of the market economy through the system arrangement of the anti-monopoly law is a question that the theorists of various countries are exploring and the main purpose of this article. In this paper, a case of Taobao Mall dispute is used to introduce the behavior of ultra-high pricing of network platform operators, and the nature and harm are analyzed in combination with the views of domestic and foreign theoretical circles; secondly, through the interpretation of antitrust legislation at home and abroad, Then it analyzes and points out the difficulties in regulating network platform operators with anti-monopoly law. Finally, on the basis of in-depth analysis of regulatory difficulties, the paper puts forward some suggestions on how to improve the anti-monopoly law to regulate the super-high pricing of network platform operators. By defining the restrictive conditions when using the ultra-high pricing terms, reasonably calculating the total operating cost of the platform, grasping the law enforcement boundary, carefully selecting the regulation methods, and so on, the relationship between strengthening supervision and encouraging innovation can be balanced. The anti-monopoly law should play an important role in guiding and adjusting the ultra-high pricing behavior of platform network platform operators.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉貴祥;;濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位理論的司法考量[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2016年05期

2 卜軍;;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)交易沖擊下的銀行卡定價(jià)策略——基于雙邊市場(chǎng)理論的實(shí)證研究[J];財(cái)經(jīng)科學(xué);2015年12期

3 李凌;;平臺(tái)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展與政府管制模式變革[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家;2015年07期

4 高富平;;競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法視野下創(chuàng)新和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為調(diào)整的體系化思考[J];法商研究;2015年03期

5 丁春燕;;論我國(guó)反壟斷法適用中關(guān)于“相關(guān)市場(chǎng)”確定方法的完善——兼論SSNIP方法界定網(wǎng)絡(luò)相關(guān)市場(chǎng)的局限性[J];政治與法律;2015年03期

6 張江莉;;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)與反壟斷規(guī)制 以3Q反壟斷訴訟為視角[J];中外法學(xué);2015年01期

7 李海艦;田躍新;李文杰;;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)思維與傳統(tǒng)企業(yè)再造[J];中國(guó)工業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì);2014年10期

8 張文顯;;法治與國(guó)家治理現(xiàn)代化[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2014年04期

9 王曉曄;;市場(chǎng)支配地位的認(rèn)定——對(duì)華為訴IDC一案的看法[J];人民司法;2014年04期

10 石英;尚芹;;論反壟斷法實(shí)施中互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)相關(guān)市場(chǎng)的界定[J];法律適用;2014年02期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 石必勝;;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)應(yīng)遵循非公益必要不干擾原則[N];人民法院報(bào);2014年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 馬金晶;競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法與消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)法對(duì)消費(fèi)者的協(xié)調(diào)保護(hù)研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2012年

2 沈慧;自然壟斷價(jià)格的法律規(guī)制[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2005年

，

本文編號(hào)：2249317