互联网领域界定滥用市场支配地位法律问题研究——以奇虎360诉腾讯案为视角

Research on the legal problems about defining abuse of market dominant position in the Internet area——In the perspective of Qihoo 360 v Tencent

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

法律硕士学院

作者:

武建超

导师:

陈志

导师单位:

经济法学院(生态法学院)

学位:

硕士

语种:

其他

关键词:

相关市场;滥用;市场支配地位;假定垄断者测试

摘要:

滥用市场支配地位在反垄断诉讼中占有重要地位,而在互联网领域,对滥用市场支配地位的界定一直存在着争论,并没有形成一个统一的标准。在奇虎360诉腾讯滥用市场支配地位案中,法院突破性采用SSNIP测试法,判定腾讯不构成滥用市场支配地位,该案作为我国互联网领域反垄断第一案具有标志性意义。首先,这是我国在互联网即时通讯领域对滥用市场支配地位与否做出的首次判决,极大的推动了《反垄断法》在互联网领域的有效应用与实践,确立了我国互联网领域涉及反垄断诉讼的新标准,为后续类似案件提供了经验参考;其次,本案对于推动互联网行业健康、有序发展具有重要作用,有助于实现互联网领域的良性竞争,从而保证互联网行业的创新性。但是,由于互联网领域较之传统行业领域有其特殊性,而现行《反垄断法》及相关法律法规又大都是原则性的规定,缺乏具体的可操作性的标准,从而导致法院在本案判决中留下许多值得推敲和商榷的地方。因此,在进一步加强互联网领域反垄断诉讼的同时,也要不断完善互联网领域现有的反垄断规则,改变传统思维方式,借鉴国外经验教训,发挥类型化案例的指导作用,挖掘新的界定标准与界定模式,从而科学、准确地界定滥用市场支配地位行为,真正打破垄断,创造一个有序、竞争、开放、创新的互联网环境。本文无意对法院的判决作出评判,而是以本案为视角,围绕本案引伸出互联网领域界定滥用市场支配地位的相关问题,本文具体分为三大部分:首先对奇虎360诉腾讯滥用市场支配地位案件争议始末以及反映的焦点问题进行阐述。2012年4月14日,奇虎360公司在广东对腾讯滥用市场支配地位行为提起反垄断诉讼,案件争议焦点主要围绕互联网公司的相关市场、相关市场支配地位的认定以及滥用此种支配地位展开。其次,本文对案件争议焦点进行法律分析,针对被告腾讯是否构成反垄断法上的滥用市场支配地位行为进行探讨,就相关市场的界定、互联网领域市场份额对市场支配地位认定标准的影响、被告腾讯实施的“二选一”行为是否构成限制交易行为以及被告腾讯将QQ通讯与QQ系列软件进行捆绑是否构成搭售行为进行分析,指出互联网领域界定滥用市场支配地位所需要考虑的诸多因素。最后,本文针对前述问题提出法律对策,提出完善反垄断法、进行专门配套立法、引进新的界定模式以及发挥案例的指导性作用等方式,以期实现互联网领域的有序发展。

学科:

经济法学

提交日期

2019-04-11

引用参考

武建超. 互联网领域界定滥用市场支配地位法律问题研究——以奇虎360诉腾讯案为视角[D]. 西南政法大学,2015.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 互联网领域界定滥用市场支配地位法律问题研究——以奇虎360诉腾讯案为视角
  • dc.title
  • Research on the legal problems about defining abuse of market dominant position in the Internet area——In the perspective of Qihoo 360 v Tencent
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20120351011200
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 武建超
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2015
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 陈志
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 经济法学院(生态法学院)
  • dc.language.iso
  • 其他
  • dc.subject
  • 相关市场;滥用;市场支配地位;假定垄断者测试
  • dc.subject
  • Relevant market;Abuse;Dominant Market Position;Small but Significant Not-transitory Increase in Price
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 滥用市场支配地位在反垄断诉讼中占有重要地位,而在互联网领域,对滥用市场支配地位的界定一直存在着争论,并没有形成一个统一的标准。在奇虎360诉腾讯滥用市场支配地位案中,法院突破性采用SSNIP测试法,判定腾讯不构成滥用市场支配地位,该案作为我国互联网领域反垄断第一案具有标志性意义。首先,这是我国在互联网即时通讯领域对滥用市场支配地位与否做出的首次判决,极大的推动了《反垄断法》在互联网领域的有效应用与实践,确立了我国互联网领域涉及反垄断诉讼的新标准,为后续类似案件提供了经验参考;其次,本案对于推动互联网行业健康、有序发展具有重要作用,有助于实现互联网领域的良性竞争,从而保证互联网行业的创新性。但是,由于互联网领域较之传统行业领域有其特殊性,而现行《反垄断法》及相关法律法规又大都是原则性的规定,缺乏具体的可操作性的标准,从而导致法院在本案判决中留下许多值得推敲和商榷的地方。因此,在进一步加强互联网领域反垄断诉讼的同时,也要不断完善互联网领域现有的反垄断规则,改变传统思维方式,借鉴国外经验教训,发挥类型化案例的指导作用,挖掘新的界定标准与界定模式,从而科学、准确地界定滥用市场支配地位行为,真正打破垄断,创造一个有序、竞争、开放、创新的互联网环境。本文无意对法院的判决作出评判,而是以本案为视角,围绕本案引伸出互联网领域界定滥用市场支配地位的相关问题,本文具体分为三大部分:首先对奇虎360诉腾讯滥用市场支配地位案件争议始末以及反映的焦点问题进行阐述。2012年4月14日,奇虎360公司在广东对腾讯滥用市场支配地位行为提起反垄断诉讼,案件争议焦点主要围绕互联网公司的相关市场、相关市场支配地位的认定以及滥用此种支配地位展开。其次,本文对案件争议焦点进行法律分析,针对被告腾讯是否构成反垄断法上的滥用市场支配地位行为进行探讨,就相关市场的界定、互联网领域市场份额对市场支配地位认定标准的影响、被告腾讯实施的“二选一”行为是否构成限制交易行为以及被告腾讯将QQ通讯与QQ系列软件进行捆绑是否构成搭售行为进行分析,指出互联网领域界定滥用市场支配地位所需要考虑的诸多因素。最后,本文针对前述问题提出法律对策,提出完善反垄断法、进行专门配套立法、引进新的界定模式以及发挥案例的指导性作用等方式,以期实现互联网领域的有序发展。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Defining the abuse of dominant market position plays an important role in antitrust litigation. The Internet as an emerging industry, defines its relevant market there has been controversy and did not form a unified standard. In the case of Qihoo 360 v. Tencent, the Court first adopted the "Small but Significant Not-transitory Increase in Price ", and thus ruling Tencent does not constitute a monopoly. Significance of this judgment can be described as major, on the one hand, it is recognized in the field of instant messaging of monopoly or not to act for the first time, creating a Chinese Internet industry antitrust lawsuit new path, pushing the antitrust laws in the Internet industry professional practice and Providing experience for subsequent similar cases; on the other hand, it clarifies the Internet industry for "technological innovation, free competition and unfair competition boundaries" has an important role in helping to promote the Internet towards health, innovation, open direction, maintaining a good network market competition order. However, due to the internet area differs from traditional industries with new features, and present anti-monopoly law and provisions of the relevant laws and regulations are lack of specific operational standards, leading to the court in defining the relevant market in terms of Tencent QQ faces many challenges and difficulties, leaving many debatable and scrutiny place. Therefore, except of continuing to strengthen antitrust litigation, we should also further improve the existing antitrust rules of the network economy, strengthen the guiding role of relevant cases, to change the traditional way of thinking, exploring new definition mode, which made its relevant market an accurate definition of science, the real break monopoly to the Internet to create a competitive, innovative, open environment. This paper tightly around the case of Qihoo360 v Tencent, will be divided into three parts: the first part includes the review of cases. This part describes the merits of the case and the thrust of the court's judgment, and thus the focus of controversy in this case leads to the judgment. The second part of the paper analyzes the dispute in this case the focus of legal comment. The focus of the dispute in this case will be analyzed from the perspective of antitrust law. And the paper will discuss if Tencent abusing dominant market position so that it constitutes a monopoly, including the definition of relevant market, the influence of the role of market share plays in the process of defining dominant market position. Besides, this part will analyze the influence to defining restrict trade and tie-in sale of the “alternative” behavior and bundling. Finally, the article put forward legal countermeasures against the problems, advising perfecting anti-monopoly law, forming a complete set of special legislation, introducing new definition model and case should play the role of instructional mode, in order to achieve the orderly development of the Internet.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-03-19
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2015-05-17
回到顶部