掠夺性定价的经济学及法律分析——美国和欧盟的经验与趋势

掠夺性定价一般表现为企业为排挤、制约竞争对手或阻碍竞争对手进入市场而在相当长的一段时期内故意将价格设置于其成本之下。其目的是为将竞争对手逐出市场并随后设定高于竞争水平的价格,以收回前期降价的损失。《中华人民共和国反垄断法》以及其他相关的法律法规都包含了禁止掠夺性定价的规定。然而,对于掠夺性定价中的一些具体问题还没有相应的法制规章提供指引和解读,再加上此类案件法院判决的先例在中国现阶段还属少见,因此,本文将详细讲解近年来美国和欧盟的经济学家、反垄断机构以及法院对此类经典案件(如Wanadoo案等)的审理分析经验与趋势,以供借鉴。     

Research on the dilemma and improvement of legal regulation for unfair competition related to corporate data in China

Corporate data disputes have been rising rapidly in recent years in China. Courts typically apply the trade secret clause, the Internet clause, and the general clause under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of PRC to the disputes. However, there are some limitations and problems, including the limited scope of the trade secret clause, the difficulty in interpretation of the Internet clause, and short of sufficient demonstration of the general clause, all leading to the lack of clear rules and guidelines for solving corporate data competition issue. The property nature of corporate data and the business operators’ factual control of the data necessarily require standard legal protection. Corporate data is not the property right, but the property interest protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. For further legal positioning of the corporate data, the paper refers to the trade secret clause’s legislative principles. The paper also learns from the United States and Japan that both information misappropriation rule and newly established ‘shared data with limited access’ provision protect corporate data under their anti-unfair competition law. The paper concludes by providing judicial and legislative suggestions to pave the way for corporate data protection in China. At the judicial level, Chinese courts should clarify the specific application conditions of the general clause. At the legislative level, enacting new legislation ‘data clause’ into the Anti-Unfair Competition Law is necessary to regulate unfair competition behaviors related to corporate data.     

竞争法体系下商标立法模式探讨

从宏观视阈看,商标法属于竞争法的体系范畴,与反不正当竞争法一样都体现了政府对微观经济的干预。法律保护民事主体的合法民事权益,商标权益在内容上涵盖商标专用权与商标利益,从维护我国注册制的权威以及有利于制度的可操作性而言,对于权利和利益在法律保护的路径上应有所区别。将商标权益区分为商标专用权与商标利益分别由《商标法》和《反不正当竞争法》保护,使《商标法》作为民法的特别法,与其他民事法律,包括《民法通则》、《侵权责任法》等形成较强的逻辑自洽性,同时,也使商标法作为反不正当竞争法的特别法,与反不正当竞争法在制止利用商标而进行的不正当竞争方面彼此分工,有效协调。     

论我国技术创新法制的“社会本位”重构

技术创新法制主要涉及专利法和相关竞争法。在我国的专利法即将修改、反垄断法已经实施的新形势下,我国现有的技术创新法制将面临总体上的重构,鉴于该重构异常复杂,我们有必要从法理学的视角进行较深入的思考。从我国的基本国情出发,借鉴国外的成功经验,并考察相关的哲学和经济学根据,我们认为:我国技术创新法制的重构应坚持"社会本位"的立场,以维护与技术创新有关的社会性创新、社会性竞争以及消费者福利等社会利益为根本任务。而该定位要求:专利法应通过修订回归于社会本位,也就是要确立"准弱化"的专利法;相关竞争法应强化其原有的社会本位,也就是要确立"最强化"的相关竞争法;二者皆以增进消费者的经济福利为最终诉求。     

滥用专利权的内涵及其制止措施

通过论述在我国建立制止滥用专利权体系的必要性,围绕滥用专利权行为的内涵以及制止滥用专利权行为的措施这两个核心问题,介绍了《巴黎公约》和《TRIPS协定》的有关规定以及美国制止滥用专利权行为的实际做法,在此基础上分析我国反垄断法和专利法有关规定的含义.     

“平等主体”民法调整对象限制语研究综述

我国《民法通则》第2条规定：“中华人民共和国民法调整平等主体的公民之间、法人之间、公民与法人之间的财产关系和人身关系。”可见对所调整的社会关系加了“平等主体”的限制语。对民法学界关于这一限制语存在的当否问题的证成研究和证伪研究两方面进行疏理,进而启发学人的思考,显得十分必要。     

《反垄断法》的不足与完善建议

反垄断法在中国有两项基本定位与目标:规制私人限制竞争行为与规范政府干预。由此展开,可以发现,我国《反垄断法》的规定存在一些不足。这些不足主要体现为规则设计上缺乏足够的科学性和可操作性,如豁免的规定不合理、未规定行政执法的具体程序、没有效率抗辩等。此外,执法机构的设置、执法标准等方面的规定也值得进一步完善。     

欺诈:一种竞争法的理论诠释——兼论《消费者权益保护法》第49条的适用与完善

欺诈在合同法中是一种意思瑕疵 ,在信息社会里 ,欺诈作为误导公众的行为 ,是一种典型的不正当竞争行为。《消费者权益保护法》不能简单地视为合同法的特别法 ,欺诈的研究不应拘泥于意思表示的狭隘范围 ,反欺诈的消费者权益保护应纳入反不正当竞争法的范畴来考察。从竞争法的角度来看 ,欺诈不要求行为人具有主观故意 ,一种行为只要在客观上有误导消费者的效果 ,就足以构成欺诈。欺诈的救济措施 ,在主体设计、补救措施和赔偿责任上均有区别于传统合同欺诈的制度设计。     

论竞争法中的法定赔偿:制度变迁个案的解剖——基于不正当竞争案例的整理与研究

《反不正当竞争法》第20条规定了反不正当竞争案件中损害赔偿额的计算方法,但是对于既无充分证据证明原告损失、也无法认定被告所得的情况,没有相应的规定。司法实践中,为了解决此类案件,法院进行了各种探索,并逐渐确立了定额赔偿的制度。但此种制度一直受到合法性的困扰。在商标法、著作权法以及专利法明确规定法定赔偿金制度后,反不正当竞争法中确立此种制度也势在必行。而法学理论界对这一制度变迁未能提供相应的理论支持与关注,是法学研究值得总结的教训。本文通过对我国司法案例的类型化整理与系统考察,对这一制度变迁过程进行了研究。     

How Chinese enterprises live in freedom,competition under the rule of law —on the current changes of Corporate Law and Competition Law in China1

China has thoroughly amended its corporate law and hastens to formulate an anti-monopoly law. To rebound then deny the planned economy once adopted, China firmly practices marketization reform. However, common-recognized rules haven t taken shape without sufficient gaming and, lots of quick introduced legislations are only superficial provisions. As the trend of corporate legal system in developed countries, freedom and responsibility are the two contraries but not contradictory directions during the recent reform of China s corporate law. One is deregulation, e.g., introducing one-person company and the transition from approval system to registration system for the establishment of a company; while the other is adding various provisions of responsibility and liability to the Company Law for controlling shareholders, actual controllers, directors, supervisors and top managers. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law of China not only prescribes unfair competition but also counters monopoly. In general, it mainly focuses on anti-monopoly provisions, to popularize the concept and value of free market, making systematic regulations on any kinds of monopoly. This article reviews its background, process, meaning as well as the problems encountered. As there remains somewhat a mystery that China rapidly develops, it may also reflect a fringe of the reason.     

同业监督法律制度建构:正当性、属性及其边界

同业监督克服了产品信息不对称障碍,对于保护消费者合法权益、维护市场竞争秩序、提高产品质量水平有着独特作用,这是建构产品质量同业监督法律制度的正当性基础。我国法确立了产品质量国家监督、消费者监督和社会监督三元监督体系。无论是从宪法渊源看还是从法律渊源看,我国并未明确肯定同业监督,亦未明确禁止同业监督,而是将其蕴含在社会监督之中。同业监督权不属于国家公权,亦不属于企业私权,而是属于社会性权利。同业监督权极易被滥用并异化为商业诋毁手段,从而危害市场竞争秩序。我国要通过法律制度创新明确同业监督的合法性,通过修改我国《产品质量法》、我国《反不正当竞争法》、我国《消费者权益保护法》构建同业监督规范体系。     

New judicial interpretation of PRC Anti-Unfair Competition Law issued

The Supreme People's Court of China has announced the firstjudicial interpretation of the PRC Anti-Unfair Competition Law(‘the Law’), to clarify the ambiguities in the applicationof the Law. Issues covered include passing off by the use oftrade names, packaging or trade dress of well-known products,or the use of the business name or personal name of anotherenterprise or individual, false or exaggerated advertising,and unauthorized use of trade secrets.     

中国《反分裂国家法》与美国《反脱离联邦法》的比较研究

中国的<反分裂国家法>与美国的<反脱离联邦法>都是反分裂法,但两者又存在很多差异,主要表现在:产生的历史背景不同,宪法依据不同,法理依据不同,立法目的不同,适用范围的不同和法律效果不同.     

论违约金的性质——以《合同法》第114条为视角

我国《合同法》第114条约定违约金的性质得由当事人自由约定。对违约金的性质没有约定或者约定不明确的,当事人可以通过补充协议的方式来约定或者明确违约金的性质。不能达成补充协议,应当通过补充性解释来确定违约金的性质。以上方法依次用尽,仍不能确定约定违约金的性质的,应当认定约定违约金的性质是赔偿性为主、惩罚性为辅。《合同法》第114条第3款是赔偿性违约金,不是惩罚性违约金。《合同法》第114条第1款“约定因违约产生的损失赔偿额的计算方法”得出的损害赔偿额是赔偿性违约金。     

《中华人民共和国反垄断法》析评

The Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China has provided to prohibit monopoly agreements and abuse of dominant market position, control concentration of business operators and fight against administrative monopoly. The transformation of China’s economic system is incomplete, and the Anti-Monopoly Law has many flaws. At the initial stage of enforcing the Anti-Monopoly Law, severe challenges will occur in legislative purposes, enforcement authorities, fighting against administrative monopoly and handling of the relationship between anti-monopoly enforcement and industry supervision. Thus, the promulgation of the Anti-Monopoly Law is only the first step in the legislation on anti-monopoly. Wang Xiaoye held a bachelor’s degree of philosophy from Inner Mongolian Normal University (1981), LL.M. from Renmin University of China (1984) and Doctor Juris magna cum laude from the University Hamburg (1993). Since 1984, she works at the Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). From 1988 to 1993, she studied in Germany based on Max-Planck Institute for Comparative Private Law. As visiting scholar she spent a year at Max-Planck Institute for Comparative Intellectual Property and Competition Law, and a year at Max-Planck Institute for Comparative Social Law in Munich. In 2004, she was invited to the US by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. In 2005, she was invited to the European Union Visitors Program, and awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to spend a year at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. Prof. Wang works in the areas of economic law, international economic law, and focuses on competition law. Her publications include: Monopoly and Competition in the Chinese Economy — A conception for merger control in China in view of the American and German practices (J C B Mohr, 1993); Monopoly Problem in the Merger of Enterprises (Law Press, 1996); On Competition Law (China’s Legal Publishing House, 1999); Competition Law of European Community (China’s Legal Publishing House, 2001); Economic Law (Social Sciences Academic Press, 2005); Competition Law (Social Sciences Academic Press, 2007). She also has over 200 papers published in Chinese, German and English languages. Prof. Wang has served as vice president of National Association for Economic Law of China, the head of the Consultant Committee for WTO Trade and Competition Policy of the Ministry of Commerce, and member of the Expert Advisory Board for Anti-Monopoly Legislation of the State Council and the National People’s Congress. In her honor, she once lectured on competition law for the Standing Committee of the Ninth and Tenth People’s Congress. In international academic activities, she is a founding member of Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA) and of the Asian Competition Forum, and member of International Advisory Board of the CUTS C-CIER. She lectured on Chinese law at ABA, IBA, IPBA, ACF, Harvard University, Columbia University, Washington University (St. Louis), New York University, KFTC, Chatham House, LIDC, IDRC and other institutions.     

The implementation of China??s anti-monopoly law: A case on Coca-Cola??s abortive acquisition of Huiyuan Juice

In 2009 after a six-month investigation, the case regarding Coca-Cola Company’s acquisition of Huiyuan Juice Co., Ltd. (Huiyuan Juice) ended when the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (MOFCOM) rejected this acquisition. This is the first anti-monopoly case since the implementation of Anti-Monopoly Law of China (the “AML”). Foreign acquisitions introduce capital, technical and management experience into China, while they also impair competition in China and lead to the disappearance of some Chinese national brands. In recent years, a series of foreign acquisitions attract extensive attention and even controversies. This phenomenon should be addressed rationally. Following the case concerning Coca-Cola’s attempted acquisition of Huiyuan Juice, this article first assesses the pros and cons of foreign acquisitions, and then analyzes foreign acquisitions by the specific requirements of the AML, pointing out the rationalization, grounds and complexity of the law applicable to foreign acquisitions.     

民法总则的使命及其应规范之内涵——以中国民法总则草案为探讨中心

所有现代欧陆民法法典,不论是法国民法典、德国民法典,抑或是继承两民法典之法典以及参考两民法典之法典,均设有民法总则之规定。中国最近有制定民法总则的计划,并已提出建议稿,但此前已经有了9个单行之民法法律规范,构建了松散型的民法典体例,而民法总则属于一体型民法典之构成部分,这就需要对以往民法法律规范重新整合。结合中国民法总则草案建议稿,对民法总则应加以规范之内容,以及法律原则、权利能力和行为能力、法人、民事客体、法律事实、民事责任等具体规范加以分析探讨,以期为制定科学合理的民法总则提供参考。     

香港特区法院的违基审查权兼与董立坤、张淑钿二位教授商榷

特区立法机关应根据基本法制定法律,特区法院审查特区立法机关制定的法律是否违反基本法的权力被称为"违基审查权"。香港的普通法传统为特区法院的违基审查权提供了法理依据,特区的新法治秩序激活了普通法中法院的司法审查权,而全国人大常委会审查权的不完整性使特区法院的违基审查成为必要。司法实践表明,特区法院的违基审查权无法挑战全国人大常委会的审查权,对基本法的实施总体上是有利的;损害特区行政主导体制的主要因素并非是法院的违基审查,而是立法会的强势地位。作为植根于普通法传统、已有十多年运行实践的权力,特区法院的违基审查权无须再通过全国人大常委会释法确认。当然,基于其在特区法治秩序中的地位,特区法院违基审查权应受到特区外部与内部两方面的制约。     

我国行政法实体法的突破与瞻望——评《中华人民共和国公务员法》

《中华人民共和国公务员法》的颁布是我国行政实体立法的一大突破:该法开始了行政法从程序到实体的转型;将行政法调整对象由外部行政关系向内部行政关系转移,开启了法治社会的先声;尽力避免人治,实现了公务员管理的法制化。但是,该法界定的公务员范围过宽,确立的公务员录用制度、工资福利保险制度及人事争议仲裁制度有待完善。     

评港刊《中国法律》之法律英译

香港出版的《中国法律》(2004年2月4号)“最新法律法规”栏,载有英译《中华人民共和国进出口关税条例》全文。经阅读,发现问题多多,不得不评。时下,法律界似有一种错觉:香港的英文地道,不会有错。但事实不然。