English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 49275/83828 (59%)
Visitors : 7144691      Online Users : 63
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/22731


    Title: 論美國反托拉斯法對搭售安排「個別產品」要件之認定標準
    Authors: 陳志民
    Contributors: 淡江大學公共行政學系
    Keywords: 反托拉斯法;策略性槓桿;搭售;美國;排除理論;逃避條款;價格歧視;產品需求特徵;Anti-Trust Law;Strategic Leverage;Tying;United States Of America;Foreclosure Theory;Escape Provision;Price Discrimination
    Date: 1999-05-03
    Issue Date: 2009-11-30 14:17:54 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: 臺北市:行政院公平交易委員會
    Abstract: 目前正於美國進行中之微軟反托拉斯案,其爭議之源起在於微軟公司透過搭售安排,要求授權之個人電腦製造商同時購買微軟之Windows 作業系統與網路瀏攬器。於美國法,法院於審理搭售案件時,首需確定者乃原告所被要求需同時購買之二項產品,是否為反托拉斯法下所謂之「個別產品J ?相較於被告於搭售產品市場是否真有市場力量此男一搭售構成要件而言r 個別產品」要件往往為美國法院視為是較易認定之要件。但微軟一案突顯了此一要件之判斷,可能並非如法院以住所想像的簡單。特別是當繫爭案件涉及高科技產品時,法院能否將消費者因科技進步所可能享受到之便利,列為判斷個別產品之標準?從微軟案雙方當事人針對此點於法院所為之攻防觀之,此恐將是一極具爭議之問題。本文擬對美國法上對搭售安排「個別產品」要件之審查標準'作一有系統及深入之介紹與分析,並於論述過程中提出二項與該要件相關之問題,以作為我國處理公平法相關案件與未來修法時之一項參考。
    At the heart of the dispute arising from United States v. Microsoft is whether "Windows" and "Internet Explorer" (IE) should be treated as a single product under American antitrust laws applicable to tying arrangement. In the past, the legal doctrine governing the separate product test had received less attention from either the courts or antitrust commentators than the other requirements that together with the test form the basic analytical framework for tying. Microsoft reveals that the answers to the separate product test may not be as easy as the courts used to believe. In this article, I intend to present a detailed introduction and analysis regarding the judicial development of the separate product test in the United States. Concomitantly, two related questions concerning the appropriateness of applying the per se rule to tying and the proper allocation of burden of proof for the separate product test will be discussed. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate a rule- of-reason approach to the review of the separate product test that, in my opinion, could avoid the potential conflict between the legal definition of unlawful per se and its current application by U.S . Supreme Court. Based on a cost-effective-oriented approach, I also elaborate on how the burden of proof could be more fairly assigned between parties in tying litigation under the rule of reason. I close the discussion by drawing implications from the analysis for the enforcement of the Fair Trade Law of Taiwan.
    At the heart of the dispute arising from United States v. Microsoft is whether "Windows" and "Internet Explorer" (IE) should be treated as a single product under American antitrust laws applicable to tying arrangement. In the past, the legal doctrine governing the separate product test had received less attention from either the courts or antitrust commentators than the other requirements that together with the test form the basic analytical framework for tying. Microsoft reveals that the answers to the separate product test may not be as easy as the courts used to believe. In this article, I intend to present a detailed introduction and analysis regarding the judicial development of the separate product test in the United States. Concomitantly, two related questions concerning the appropriateness of applying the per se rule to tying and the proper allocation of burden of proof for the separate product test will be discussed. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate a rule- of-reason approach to the review of the separate product test that, in my opinion, could avoid the potential conflict between the legal definition of unlawful per se and its current application by U.S . Supreme Court. Based on a cost-effective-oriented approach, I also elaborate on how the burden of proof could be more fairly assigned between parties in tying litigation under the rule of reason. I close the discussion by drawing implications from the analysis for the enforcement of the Fair Trade Law of Taiwan.
    Relation: 第五屆競爭政策與公平交易法學術研討會論文集,頁477-516
    Appears in Collections:[公共行政學系暨研究所] 會議論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML79View/Open

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback