本文選題：非公益必要不干擾 + 互聯(lián)網(wǎng)領(lǐng)域的不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)　； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：互聯(lián)網(wǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)市場(chǎng)發(fā)展迅速,伴隨著該領(lǐng)域頻發(fā)的不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。我國(guó)《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》于1993年生效,由于當(dāng)時(shí)的技術(shù)環(huán)境,沒有可能對(duì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)進(jìn)行針對(duì)性的規(guī)定,司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)類的不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)一般適用《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》第二條即一般條款進(jìn)行判定。但是作為一般條款的第二條過于抽象與原則,導(dǎo)致司法裁判適用的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不一。由此,我國(guó)法官創(chuàng)造性地在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)領(lǐng)域不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)案中發(fā)展出“非公益必要不不干擾原則”,該原則的提出,是《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》修改前做出的一次大膽嘗試。該原則緣起于“百度訴360插標(biāo)及劫持流量案”,可以簡(jiǎn)要概括為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)之間原則上不得相互干擾,確實(shí)出于保護(hù)消費(fèi)者等公共利益的需要,在特定的情形下可以不經(jīng)用戶自主選擇干擾其他互聯(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)的運(yùn)行,但必須確保干擾手段的必要性和合理性�？梢詮姆床徽�(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的基本原則與權(quán)利不得濫用的民法基本原則為“非公益必要不干擾原則”尋求法理依據(jù)。在我國(guó)《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》對(duì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為未進(jìn)行具體規(guī)定的條件下,“非公益必要不干擾原則”具有重要司法實(shí)踐價(jià)值,具體表現(xiàn)為相比一般條款,其在司法適用上更具可操作性,從而有效地規(guī)制網(wǎng)絡(luò)不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為。當(dāng)然,由于該原則從具體司法判例中提出,其具體內(nèi)涵需要進(jìn)行一般化的界定,其中“公益”應(yīng)該界定為以消費(fèi)者利益為主要內(nèi)容的公共利益,尤其是指消費(fèi)者的利益;“干擾”應(yīng)該界定為阻礙競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的行為或者對(duì)公共利益造成損害的行為;“必要”應(yīng)該界定為以保護(hù)消費(fèi)者等公共利益為限度。其制度化的立法歸屬為《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》,立法上應(yīng)該分兩款表述,第一款表述為:在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中,除非出于保護(hù)消費(fèi)者等公共利益的需要,經(jīng)營(yíng)者不得干擾其他經(jīng)營(yíng)者的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)的正常運(yùn)行;第二款表述為,經(jīng)營(yíng)者基于消費(fèi)者等公共利益的必要對(duì)其他經(jīng)營(yíng)者的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)進(jìn)行干擾時(shí),以保護(hù)消費(fèi)者等公共利益為限度。
[Abstract]:Internet economic market is developing rapidly, accompanied by frequent unfair competition in this field. China's Anti-unfair Competition Law came into effect in 1993. Due to the technological environment at that time, it was not possible to provide for unfair competition on the Internet. In judicial practice, the second article of the Anti-unfair Competition Law is generally applicable to the unfair competition of the Internet. However, as a general clause, the second article is too abstract and principle, leading to the application of different standards. As a result, our judges creatively developed the "principle of non-commonweal necessity and non-interference" in the case of unfair competition in the field of Internet, which is a bold attempt made before the revision of Anti-unfair Competition Law. The principle stems from the case of Baidu v. 360 and hijacked Traffic, which can be summarized as not to interfere with each other in principle between Internet products or services, and indeed out of the need to protect public interests such as consumers. Under certain circumstances, it is possible to interfere with the operation of other Internet products or services without the user's choice, but the necessity and rationality of the means of interference must be ensured. From the basic principles of the anti-unfair competition law and the basic principle of civil law that the rights may not be abused, we can seek the legal basis for the principle of non-public necessity and non-interference. Under the condition that the unfair competition act of Internet is not specified in the Anti-unfair Competition Law of our country, "the principle of non-public necessity and non-interference" has important judicial practical value, which is embodied in the comparison of general terms. It has more maneuverability in the judicial application, thus effectively regulating the network unfair competition behavior. Of course, because the principle is put forward from the specific judicial precedent, its specific connotation needs to be defined in a general way, in which "public good" should be defined as the public interest with consumer interests as the main content, especially the interests of consumers; "interference" should be defined as conduct that impedes competition or causes harm to the public interest; "necessity" should be defined to the extent of protecting public interests such as consumers. Its institutionalized legislation falls under the Anti-unfair Competition Law, which should be legislated in two paragraphs. The first paragraph states that in Internet competition, unless there is a need to protect public interests such as consumers, The business operator shall not interfere with the normal operation of the Internet products or services of other business operators; the second paragraph states that when the operator is necessary to interfere with the Internet products or services of other operators on the basis of the public interests such as consumers, To protect consumers and other public interests as a limit.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 孔祥俊;;反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的司法創(chuàng)新和發(fā)展——為《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》施行20周年而作[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2013年12期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 劉建臣;利益衡量視角下《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》一般條款的適用研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

2 吳夏夢(mèng);反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法一般條款司法適用研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

3 劉晗;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)新型不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：2104052