论关键设施规则在知识产权拒绝许可反垄断中的适用

目前在跨国公司掌控我国高科技市场,利用知识产权垄断地位进行拒绝许可的情形下,构建我国的知识产权反垄断制度,对知识产权人滥用权利拒绝许可的行为进行强有力的规制就显得十分必要和觜迫。本文在对美国和欧盟知识产权拒绝许可反垄断中普遍适用的关键设施规则的构成要件进行详细分析后。指出我国在知识产权拒绝许可反垄断中亦应引进关键设施规则,并对我国在使用该规则时应该注意的问题进行了分析,以期能更好地维护我国企业的利益。     

后TRIPs时代我国知识产权反垄断的立法价值选择

后TRIPs时代,我国知识产权保护水平已与世界先进国家标准接轨;但我国自主创新比例却相当低,知识产权已经成为国外知识产权权利人进人中国后封闭市场、排挤竞争对手的工具。一国的知识产权反垄断立法价值取向应当与其具体的国内外经济政治环境相适应,反映其“本土性”、“时代性”的特点。作为拥有知识霸权的发达国家,已放松了对知识产权反垄断的规制,持有利于知识产权人的立场;他们的立场与技术落后的发展中国家截然不同。我国在知识产权反垄断立法过程中,当务之急不是去寻求国外的立法技术移植;而是从战略高度确定知识产权反垄断的立法价值取向,即以社会公益为本位,强化反垄断规制。     

知识产权人拒绝交易中的垄断控制——知识经济视角下的分析

在知识经济条件下,规模报酬递增、网络效应、锁入效应等知识经济特有的运行模式,使得知识产权人的拒绝交易能在特定市场上产生严重的反竞争后果,迫切需要反垄断法予以规制.但产生并发晨于工业经济时代的反垄断法,并无针对知识产权人拒绝交易中垄断控制的具体规则,各国普遍尝试采取延伸解释或类推的方法,将现有反垄断法中的"关键设施理论"适用于知识产权人拒绝交易,但无论在理论上还是在实践中都产生了严重的法律困惑与障碍.因此,应在反垄断法现有制度体系中构建控制知识产权人拒绝交易的新制度规则.该规则应包括:建立知识产权人拒绝交易反垄断法审查制度;规定知识产权人特别的反垄断义务;采取"结合点"分析方法等.     

德先诉索尼垄断案及其启示——知识产权滥用反垄断规制之实证分析

德先起诉索尼案是我国第一起针对跨国公司滥用知识产权的反垄断诉讼。通过对相关市场、支配地位、搭售、垄断性高价、拒绝交易等诸多基本反垄断结构要素的实证分析以及知识产权滥用的探讨,可以认定索尼公司以滥用专利技术为手段实施了滥用市场支配地位之行为,但是,在我国现行立法中却难以得到有效的规制。我国应该借鉴有关国家和地区的经验,加快建立反垄断法及其对知识产权滥用规制的制度。     

知识产权人拒绝行为违反反垄断法的构成要件——CSU L.L.C.诉施乐案的启示

知识产权人的拒绝行为主要有拒绝授权和拒绝出 售由该项知识产权制造的产品这两种情形。在 市场经济中,每个经济主体都有权决定自己的 交易对象和交易行为,单纯的拒绝行为并不违法,但当该 拒绝行为造成了阻碍竞争或增加垄断势力的影响时就有 可能违反了反垄断法。具体到知识产权人而言,其拥有合 法的垄断地位,法律已授予其排他的制造、销售、使用权。 因此,授权和销售与否是知识产权人的应有权利,也是其 实现经济利益的重要途径。那么,知识产权人单纯的拒绝 行为1 就可以完全豁免于反垄断法吗?如果答案是不能, 该行为会在何种情况下受到反垄断法的规制?本文将以 美国CSU L.L.C.诉施乐案为例,分析知识产权人拒绝行 为违反反垄断法的构成要件及其对我国反垄断立法的启 示。     

欧盟知识产权滥用的反垄断问题研究——以欧盟新修订的《技术许可协议集体豁免条例》为中心

技术许可中知识产权滥用的反垄断规制,是反垄断法中一个历久弥新的话题。欧盟的知识产权反垄断规则以建立统一的欧洲大市场为目标,注重协调知识产权保护与反垄断之间的关系,其精髓集中体现在最新修订的《技术许可协议集体豁免条例》中。本文评析了该条例,并就该条例与美、日的相关规则进行了比较分析。     

正当权利,抑或非法垄断知识产权拒绝许可行为的反垄断法审视与思考

知识产权保护与反垄断法之间并不存在固有的和本质的冲突.虽然我国反垄断法规定了对于滥用知识产权排除和限制竞争的行为可以进行反垄断法审查,但反垄断法介入知识产权领域时仍应当持一种非常审慎的态度.以知识产权拒绝许可行为为考察对象,可以发现绝大多数拒绝许可行为属于知识产权正当权利行使的范畴,只有那些严重妨碍了二级市场上新产品的出现以及限制二级市场竞争的行为,才需要反垄断法加以规制.就我国来说,应当充分借鉴欧美知识产权反垄断法执法的经验与教训,结合我国当前国情,确立正确的知识产权反垄断执法理念.     

滥用知识产权的反垄断法规制

《中华人民共和国反垄断法》已于2008年正式生效,该法对于促进市场竞争、增进消费者福利、推动我国市场经济的健康发展有着极其重要的意义。因为涉及到经济生活的各个领域,《反垄断法》与其他法律的碰撞也将在所难免,而反垄断与知识产权的契合与冲突则成为当下学界讨论的热点。虽然《反垄断法》对滥用知识产权构成垄断的行为进行了规定,但是该法言辞较为抽象,这势必会给日后反垄断的执法和司法带来一定困难。针对这种情况,本文首先从立法目的的角度将保护知识产权的相关法律与《反垄断法》进行比较,找到知识产权保护与反垄断冲突的核心问题。然后按照反垄断分析的一般径路——从垄断地位的确认到垄断行为的规制——对滥用知识产权构成垄断的具体形式加以介绍。最后,文章指出:我国应当尽快出台知识产权相关司法解释,为反垄断执法与司法提供清晰的指导。     

从TRIPs协议第40条谈知识产权滥用的竞争法规制

TRIPs协议第40条授予了各成员国对知识产权许可协议中的限制竞争行为进行规制的权利.主要西方国家根据各国的经济竞争政策制定了相应的反垄断法及知识产权许可的反垄断指南,有力地解决了知识产权滥用的问题.通过对TRIPs协议该条关于知识产权滥用规定的分析,结合该条规定所体现的立法精神与法律价值,认为我国也有必要制定相应的反垄断规则,并尽力保持知识产权的政策性与灵活性,从而对国际知识产权贸易特别是技术贸易领域中存在的知识产权垄断问题进行规制.     

美欧竞争执法对拒绝许可的态度差异及其原因探究

拒绝许可问题是知识产权和反垄断法关系问题上的一个焦点。在美国和欧盟，围绕这个问题，竞争执法领域分别发生了四个典型案件。在美国裁判的四个案件中，只有一个案件中的法院作出了强制许可的判决，而欧盟则在四个相关案件的三个案件中执法机构支持了原告并作出强制许可的判决。考究原因，除了具体案件事实的差异外，所涉知识产权（品）性质上的差异、创新性和投入回报的差异以及美欧政治体制所导致的法律体制的差异可能是造成司法实践和态度差异的主要原因。我国专利法第48条规定了强制许可，争议较多，借鉴欧美的执法经验，中国未来在对待拒绝许可的反垄断案件中应当谨慎行事，对行为进行合理的分析，正确把握和处理反垄断法和知识产权法之间的关系。     

内幕人交易的规制理论与内幕人的范围--以美国法为比较分析的素材

主要从比较法的视点出发,着重考察分析了美国判例法上有关内幕人的规制理论和内幕人的范围。基于这样的考察,提出以下的观点:与美国法相比,我国现行法无法将公司外部人利用内幕信息的情况纳入规制的射程范围,故而将导致证券法中的公正、公平理念变得苍白无力;因此我们有必要导入美国的判例法中的信息窃取理论以界定内幕人的范围。     

Trilemma and tripartition: The regulatory paradigms of cross-border personal data transfer in the EU,the U.S. and China

The regulation of the cross-border transfer of personal data is a major issue of globalization in the digital era. The key point for lawmakers is how to choose two of the following three elements in the trilemma: personal data protection, free transborder flow of information and the expansion of national jurisdiction. The EU, the U.S. and China adopt their own decisions, resulting in three inherently incompatible legislative paradigms, which has led to the restricted flow of personal data around the world as well as the free flow in three different regions, with the EU, the U.S. and China as the center of each region. In this way, the regulating paradigms of cross-border personal data transfer presents a pattern of tripartition.     

The Inefficiency of Quasi–Per Se Rules: Regulating Information Exchange in EU and U.S. Antitrust Law

It is well understood that the exchange of information between horizontal competitors can violate competition law provisions in both the European Union (EU) and the United States, namely, article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and section 1 of the Sherman Act. However, despite ostensible similarities between EU and U.S. antitrust law concerning interfirm information exchange, substantial differences remain. In this article, we make a normative argument for the U.S. antitrust regime's approach, on the basis that the United States’ approach to information exchange is likely to be more efficient than the relevant approach under the EU competition regime. Using economic theories of harm concerning information exchange to understand the imposition of liability in relation to “stand-alone” instances of information exchange, we argue that such liability must be grounded on the conception of a prophylactic rule. We characterize this rule as a form of ex ante regulation and explain why it has no ex post counterpart in antitrust law. In contrast to the U.S. antitrust regime, we argue that the implementation of such a rule pursuant to EU competition law leads to higher error costs without a significant reduction in regulatory costs. As a majority of jurisdictions have competition law regimes that resemble EU competition law more closely than U.S. antitrust law, our thesis has important implications for competition regimes around the world.     

美国反补贴法中“因果关系”的确定及其对我国的启示

在反补贴调查中,"因果关系"的审查和确定是决定反补贴措施是否公平合理的关键所在,各国对此做法不同、争论很大.在"因果关系"的确定上,WTO补贴与反补贴措施协议>的规定存在不明确之处,各国对其保留有相当程度的解释空间.美国反补贴法在因果关系上的用语与<补贴与反补贴措施协议>不同,同时还存在两个重要的争议因果关系是应存在于"进口"与"损害"之间,还是存在于"补贴"与"损害"之间;应同时决定还是别决定损害与因果关系.在因果关系的具体分析方法上,我国可借鉴美国的"整体分析法".     

美国行政法法官集中使用制度研究

行政法法官是美国行政法中颇具特色的制度,上世纪40年代,加州试验将部分行政法法官集中合署办公,由此掀开地方行政法法官集中使用制度的序幕。行政法法官集中使用制度的理论、地方实践、成功经验和推行行政法法官集中使用制度的前景,对行政法法官制度乃至美国行政法的这一新发展更深入地了解,对完善我国有关行政法律制度将会有所借鉴和帮助。     

Introduction

The Roberta Kevelson Seminar on Law and Semiotics is integrated in the regular program of a US Law School and student enrollment is honored with credit points. Hitherto, the study of Legal Semiotics has mainly been located outside the Law Schools in the US and the Faculties of Law in the EU. Two important questions within the more general theme of Legal Semiotics and Legal Education arose: (1) the program requirements in an education context, and (2) the attention and interests of the students. This IJSL issue offers essays presented during the Round Table which closed the Seminar, provides some experience-based suggestions for a Seminar program and discusses how to deal with the pragmatic attitude of law students. It interests how those topics relate to legal and semiotic literature and how they focus globally important viewpoints, as can be concluded in the example of the legal semiotics of family structures.     

Editor’s Note

In the context of today’s big data and cloud computing, the global flow of data has become a powerful driver for international economic and investment growth. The EU and the U.S. have created two different paths for the legal regulation of the cross-border flow of personal data due to their respective historical traditions and realistic demands. The requirements for data protection have shown significant differences. The EU advocates localization of data and firmly restricts cross-border flow of personal data. The U.S. tends to protect personal data through industry self-regulation and government law enforcement. At the same time, these two paths also merge and supplement with each other. Based on this, China needs to learn from the legal regulatory paths of the EU and the US, respectively, to establish a legal idea that places equal emphasis on personal data protection and the development of the information industry. In terms of domestic law, the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China needs to be improved and supplemented by relevant supporting legislation to improve the operability of the law; the industry self-discipline guidelines should be established; and various types of cross-border data need to be classified and supervised. In terms of international law, it is necessary to participate in international cooperation based on the priority of data sovereignty and promote the signing of bilateral, multilateral agreements, and international treaties on the cross-border flow of personal data.     

EU–China Competition Dialogue: A New Step in the Internationalisation of EU Competition Law?

EU has been the protagonist in promoting the internationalization of competition laws based on EU competition law norms. The development of China's Antimonopoly Law shows that EU has succeeded so far in establishing itself as the main reference point for China's competition regulation. The success can be mainly attributed to the EU‐China Competition Dialogue (Dialogue), a new initiative set up by EU and China in 2004. The paper reviews the internationalization of EU competition law and its characteristics. It then examines the Dialogue and how EU exported its competition law norms to one of the latest AML secondary legislations on Antimonopoly Pricing. It argues that the Dialogue's informal nature, EU's routinized technical assistance to Chinese competition authorities and its China‐oriented strategy in communication have been highly important in ensuring that the EU Competition Law becomes the main reference point for the AML. However, the paper argues that it is for the same reasons that EU faces weakness in controlling the reception of EU competition law norms by China. Based on this, the paper further illustrates that EU's understanding of competition law internationalization as reflected under the Dialogue has not undergone fundamental changes.     

美国、欧盟、韩国、日本微软案件比较研究——以软件产业中滥用支配地位的认定和规制为视角

关于拒绝交易，欧盟、美国的司法救济没有本质差别。至于捆绑，美国要求微软隐藏被捆绑软件的图标；欧盟要求微软提供删除多媒体播放器源代码的视窗版本，但仍允许销售提供捆绑播放器的视窗版本；韩国除了采用类似于欧盟的救济以外，还要求微软在视窗操作系统中安装辅助软件，以方便用户下载微软竞争对手的软件；在针对微软IE浏览器与视窗的调查中，欧盟迫使微软承诺在视窗操作系统中设置选择屏，以便用户自由选择浏览器。比较而言，欧盟2004年的救济比美国的有力，韩国的救济比欧盟2004年的救济又更进一步，而欧盟2009年迫使微软在视窗中设置选择屏足迄今为止解决软件捆绑最彻底的救济手段。     

WTO协定下美国贸易权利论——以美国对中国实施“双轨制反补贴措施”为视角

美国一方面对中国适用反补贴税法，另一方面通过WTO争端解决机制控告中国的禁止性补贴措施之做法，说明美国正在积极行使WTO协定下的贸易权利。应当从美国联邦宪法与国际法之双重视角把握贸易权利之性质并将其分成实体性市场准入权利与程序性贸易救济权利两大类，唯此才能理解美国对中国实施“双轨制反补贴措施”之实质。对美国正在推行的以贸易权利为导向的对华贸易政策，中国必须用自己的贸易救济权利加以对抗。