本文選題：網(wǎng)絡(luò)效應(yīng) + 價格歧視��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的飛速發(fā)展，導(dǎo)致互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)濫用優(yōu)勢地位的案件層出不窮，比如著名的“微軟案”、“亞馬遜案”等，這些互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)為獲得超額壟斷利潤，利用其壟斷地位，，在提供相同產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)時，對消費者進(jìn)行區(qū)別定價，使市場公平、自由的競爭秩序遭到破壞，并且還造成阻礙技術(shù)創(chuàng)新、削減消費者福利等后果。但互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)價格歧視行為具有特殊性，使傳統(tǒng)認(rèn)定理論遭遇困境。具體而言，網(wǎng)絡(luò)經(jīng)濟(jì)下，判斷某一企業(yè)是否具備壟斷地位不再以市場份額作為唯一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，還必須結(jié)合市場壁壘、關(guān)鍵設(shè)施或技術(shù)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)等因素加以考慮。此外，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)可通過實施價格歧視改善其經(jīng)濟(jì)效益，并能滿足部分消費者對產(chǎn)品的需求，因此在認(rèn)定其違法性時，需要綜合考慮各種因素，而非直接將其定義為違法行為。最后，在我國反壟斷法律責(zé)任設(shè)定中，某些制度并不適用于網(wǎng)絡(luò)經(jīng)濟(jì)下的價格歧視行為。綜上所述，網(wǎng)絡(luò)經(jīng)濟(jì)背景下，傳統(tǒng)理論面臨諸多困境，充分說明其在建構(gòu)制度上還具備很大的空間，于是，這就成為了本文構(gòu)思的來源。 文章除了引言、結(jié)論外，由以下三部分構(gòu)成： 第一部分：互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)價格歧視的行為認(rèn)定。本部分圍繞主體要件與客觀要件展開對價格歧視行為的界定。第一，行為的實施者應(yīng)是具有市場支配地位的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)，進(jìn)而提出界定互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)相關(guān)市場的方法。第二，結(jié)合互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)的特征，指出市場份額不再是認(rèn)定市場支配地位的唯一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，認(rèn)定時應(yīng)參考用戶規(guī)模、市場壁壘、關(guān)鍵設(shè)施或技術(shù)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)等因素。 第二部分：互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)價格歧視的違法性認(rèn)定。首先提出判定濫用行為的一般原則即合理原則與本身違法原則，分析它們的優(yōu)點與不足，得出認(rèn)定互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)價格歧視行為違法性時必須采用合理原則的結(jié)論。然后，探討認(rèn)定該行為違法性的主要考量因素，對行為的主觀目的及后果進(jìn)行具體分析。 第三部分：互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)價格歧視的反壟斷法律責(zé)任。綜合考慮互聯(lián)網(wǎng)價格歧視行為的民事責(zé)任、行政責(zé)任、刑事責(zé)任，提出罰款、罰金、監(jiān)禁等責(zé)任形式。并且，重點強(qiáng)調(diào)反壟斷刑事責(zé)任的設(shè)立，為完整有效的反壟斷體系的建立提供理論支持，進(jìn)而更好地維護(hù)競爭秩序、推動技術(shù)創(chuàng)新和保護(hù)消費者福利。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 許光耀;“合理原則”及其立法模式比較[J];法學(xué)評論;2005年02期

2 高巍;;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷語境下反思我國《反壟斷法》的不足與完善[J];法制與社會;2013年01期

3 孔喜梅;;電子商務(wù)市場實施價格歧視的優(yōu)勢和障礙分析[J];湖南財政經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年01期

4 卓凱;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)環(huán)境中的價格歧視——基于數(shù)字產(chǎn)品定價的應(yīng)用分析[J];科技進(jìn)步與對策;2004年02期

5 姜伯靜;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)壟斷正悄然誕生[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究參考;2011年30期

6 楊福學(xué);;從QQ與360爭端透視網(wǎng)絡(luò)壟斷問題[J];蘭州商學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年04期

7 潘勇;論電子商務(wù)市場中的“價格歧視”[J];商業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)與管理;2003年01期

8 張娥;;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)濫用市場支配地位行為的認(rèn)定——從互聯(lián)網(wǎng)反壟斷第一案“奇虎訴騰訊壟斷案”出發(fā)[J];商品與質(zhì)量;2012年S5期

9 朱春燕;;電子商務(wù)中的價格歧視分析[J];中國西部科技;2011年12期

10 王國才;陶鵬德;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)外部性存在下的產(chǎn)品差異化競爭與價格歧視策略[J];系統(tǒng)管理學(xué)報;2007年S1期

本文編號：1749089