本文選題：搭售 + 正當(dāng)理由　； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：在實(shí)際生活中，搭售隨處可見(jiàn)。汽車(chē)與車(chē)載收音機(jī)、墓地與骨灰盒等等，不一而足。波斯納認(rèn)為，搭售協(xié)議作為出售主產(chǎn)品的條件，賣(mài)主要求買(mǎi)主購(gòu)買(mǎi)搭售產(chǎn)品。搭售理論在不斷地發(fā)展，從古典經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)派的“杠桿理論”，，到芝加哥學(xué)派的“價(jià)格歧視理論”，再到后芝加哥學(xué)派的“策略行為理論”。芝加哥學(xué)派揭示了搭售的效率。對(duì)搭售的處理原則也從本身違法原則向合理原則過(guò)渡。但是，搭售作為一種濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位的行為，其對(duì)市場(chǎng)秩序的影響是深遠(yuǎn)重大的，反壟斷法仍然有規(guī)制搭售的必要。 我國(guó)正在建設(shè)市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)，公平、自由的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序是應(yīng)有之義。2008年開(kāi)始施行的《中華人民共和國(guó)反壟斷法》對(duì)搭售的規(guī)制采用合理原則，“正當(dāng)理由”對(duì)搭售的認(rèn)定具有重大的影響。由于法律規(guī)定的原則性，該條款有待明確解釋。2012年公布的反壟斷司法解釋以及知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法指南草案也沒(méi)有對(duì)此作出明確的解釋與規(guī)定。基于此，本文對(duì)搭售進(jìn)行了正當(dāng)性分析，并結(jié)合美國(guó)與歐盟搭售案件的司法實(shí)踐，提出對(duì)我國(guó)完善搭售規(guī)制的建議。 本文除引言與結(jié)語(yǔ)以外，分為四個(gè)部分： 第一部分是搭售概述，主要介紹了搭售的概念、反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)效果以及構(gòu)成要件，其中搭售的反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)效果的闡述，綜合了相關(guān)搭售理論的觀點(diǎn)，以主產(chǎn)品與搭售產(chǎn)品為立足點(diǎn)。 第二部分是對(duì)搭售的正當(dāng)性分析，以經(jīng)濟(jì)分析與政策分析為主，闡述了技術(shù)創(chuàng)新、商業(yè)慣例、知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)、效率以及產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量與商譽(yù)等在搭售行為中的意義。 第三部分是美國(guó)與歐盟對(duì)搭售的規(guī)制與實(shí)踐，主要闡述了技術(shù)創(chuàng)新等在司法實(shí)踐中的運(yùn)用以及法院的分析，對(duì)完善我國(guó)搭售的規(guī)制具有借鑒意義。 第四部分是我國(guó)的反壟斷法規(guī)制搭售的現(xiàn)狀以及完善建議，提出了正當(dāng)理由以及法律責(zé)任兩方面的完善建議。
[Abstract]:In real life, tying is everywhere. Cars and car radios, cemeteries and ashes, and so on. Posner believes that the tying agreement as a condition for the sale of the main product, the seller asked the buyer to buy the product for sale. The theory of tying sale is developing continuously, from the "lever theory" of the classical economic school to the "price discrimination theory" of the Chicago school, to the "strategic behavior theory" of the post-Chicago school. The Chicago School revealed the efficiency of tying. The principle of handling tying is also from the principle of illegality to the principle of reasonableness. However, as an act of abusing the dominant position of the market, the effect of tying on the market order is far-reaching, and the anti-monopoly law is still necessary to regulate the pegging. In 2008, the Anti-monopoly Law of the people's Republic of China adopted the reasonable principle to regulate the tying sale, and the "just reason" had a great influence on the confirmation of the tying sale. Due to the principle of the legal provisions, this provision has yet to be clearly interpreted. The anti-monopoly judicial interpretation and the draft guidelines on intellectual property enforcement published in 2012 also do not provide a clear interpretation and regulation. Based on this, this paper analyzes the legitimacy of the tying sale, and combines the judicial practice of the United States and the European Union, and puts forward some suggestions to improve the regulation of the tying sale in China. It is divided into four parts: the first part is an overview of tying, mainly introduces the concept of tying, anti-competitive effect and constitutive requirements, including the anti-competitive effect of tying, synthesizing the related theory of tying. The second part is an analysis of the legitimacy of the tying sale, with economic analysis and policy analysis as the main focus, expounding technological innovation, business practices, intellectual property rights, The third part is the regulation and practice of the United States and the European Union on the tying sale, which mainly expounds the application of technological innovation in judicial practice and the analysis of the courts. The fourth part is the current situation and the perfect suggestion of the anti-monopoly law regulation in our country, and puts forward the reasonable reason and the legal responsibility two consummation suggestion.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 許光耀;;搭售行為的反壟斷法分析[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年11期

2 王健;搭售法律問(wèn)題研究——兼評(píng)美國(guó)微軟公司的搭售行為[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2003年02期

3 臧旭恒,尹莉;美國(guó)現(xiàn)行反壟斷法對(duì)軟件產(chǎn)業(yè)的適用性探析——以搭售和掠奪性定價(jià)為例[J];中國(guó)工業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì);2005年05期

4 李煥中;;對(duì)完善我國(guó)規(guī)制搭售行為的思考[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2012年07期

5 張楠楠;;搭售行為與其他相關(guān)商業(yè)行為的區(qū)別[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2012年07期

6 李晗;;基于法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的視角對(duì)搭售行為合法性的研究[J];海南金融;2008年07期

7 羅先覺(jué);;論軟件搭售救濟(jì)模式的發(fā)展——從隱藏、刪除到選擇屏[J];科技與法律;2011年02期

8 孟雁北;;搭售行為中的拒絕交易問(wèn)題研究——由美國(guó)Kodak(1992)案談起[J];中國(guó)人民大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2008年06期

本文編號(hào)：2003855