期刊文献+

单方拒绝交易的反垄断法规制问题 被引量:1

The Regulations on the Unilateral Refuse to Deal in Antitrust Law
下载PDF
导出
摘要 单方拒绝交易被认为是经营者滥用市场支配地位的行为,但支持反垄断法规制此类行为的"必要设施"理论是不充分的。规制单方拒绝交易行为和经营自主权有冲突,对经营者从事投资和创新的动机有负面影响,而且在救济措施方面也存在困难。美国反垄断法经过反复摸索已经放松了对拒绝交易行为的处理。中国反垄断法采取"过错推定"的做法,要求垄断经营者必须提供采取此类行为的正当理由,迫使垄断经营者承担了过多的法律风险,恰当的做法应当是"无罪推定"。 Unilateral refuse to deal is considered as the abuse of its dominant market position by a company, while the doctrine against it is not well established. Regulating unilateral refuse to deal conflicts with the right of business discretion, and beside the difficulty to make a remedy, it also has a negative impact on the companies' motivation to investment and creation. The antitrust law of the United State has relaxed the regulation on refuse to deal after many year of practice. The antitrust law of our country takes the doctrine of presumed fault. Companies with monopoly power have to provide justified reasons when they refuse to deal with others, which make them undertake more legal risks. The right answer to unilateral refuse to deal should be the presumption of innocence.
作者 郭跃
出处 《中国石油大学学报(社会科学版)》 2012年第3期57-61,共5页 Journal of China University of Petroleum (Edition of Social Sciences)
关键词 反垄断法 滥用市场支配地位 拒绝交易 必要设施 经营自主权 antitrust law abusing dominant market position refuse to deal necessary facility the right of business discretion
  • 相关文献

参考文献17

二级参考文献39

  • 1崔欣.论维持转售价格制度[J].政法论丛,2003(4):23-28. 被引量:13
  • 2王先林.实施国家知识产权战略与规制知识产权滥用[J].US-China Law Review,2005,2(6):1-10. 被引量:3
  • 3林廷机.公平法有关不公平竞争行为,应如何适用"合理原则"或"当然违法原则"[J].辅仁法学,1998,(17):96-96.
  • 4http://www.vlex.us/caselaw/U-S-Supreme-Court/Associated-Press-v-United-States-326-U-S-1-1945/2100-20015290%2C01.html
  • 5http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1308.html,United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,98-1308,INTERGRAPH CORPORATION,v.INTEL CORPORATION.
  • 6Verizon Communications Inc.v.Law Offices of Curtis V.Trinko,LLP;http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-682.pdf#search=%22VERIZON%20COMMUNICATIONS%20INC.%20v.%20LAW%20OFFICES%20supreme%20court%22.
  • 7Areeda,P.,1990,Essential Facility:An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles,Antitrust Law Journal,Vol.58,pp.841-894.
  • 8Areeda,P.E.and H.Hovenkamp,2002,Antitrust Law:An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application,2nded Aspen Publishers.
  • 9Bergman,M.A.2001,The Role of the Essential Facilities Doctrine,The Antitrust Bulletin,pp.403-434.
  • 10Bobrow,A.F.et.al,Joint Submission of the American Bar Association's Sections of Antitrust Law,Intellectual Property Law and International Law on the Proposed Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China,http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/jt-pdf/joint-comments/abaprcat2005finalcombowapp.pdf#search=%22www.abanet.org%22

共引文献51

同被引文献7

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部