论文部分内容阅读
中国的《反垄断法》对于在判断滥用市场支配地位是否成立时需要证明存在反竞争效果以及何种反竞争效果的问题上并没有给出清晰的答案。最高人民法院在2014年10月作出的奇虎360诉腾讯案判决是中国反垄断法历史上里程碑式的判决,其在效果分析如何适用的问题上带来了重大的转变,表明在分析被诉行为是否为垄断行为时,效果分析是必要的,尽管在分析效果时应采用何标准仍然存在模糊性,但该判决显示出最高院更偏向从竞争者角度出发进行效果分析。中国反垄断执法机构及其他法院是否采取该判决的裁判思路尚具有不确定性。
China’s “anti-monopoly law” does not give a clear answer to the question of whether it is necessary to prove the existence of anti-competitive effects and what kind of anti-competitive effects exist when the abuse of market dominance is established. The judgment of Qihoo 360 v. Tencent made by the Supreme People’s Court in October 2014 is a landmark judgment in the history of antitrust law in China. It has brought a significant change on the issue of how effect analysis is applicable. When the behavior is monopolistic behavior, the effect analysis is necessary. Although the standard of the effect should still be ambiguous when analyzing the effect, the judgment shows that the Supreme Court prefers to analyze the effect from the competitor’s point of view. China’s antitrust law enforcement agencies and other courts to decide whether to take the verdict of the decision is still uncertain.