互联网企业掠夺性定价的认定研究  

The Identification of Predatory Pricing of Internet Enterprises

作　　者：叶明[1] 

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学经济法学院,重庆401120

出　　处：《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2015年第5期194-200,共7页Science of Law：Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：司法部国家法治与法学理论研究项目(14SFB2035)"互联网新型不正当竞争行为司法规制的实证研究";中国博士后科学基金第7批特别资助项目(2014T70170)"互联网经济对反垄断法的挑战及对策研究";重庆哲学社会科学规划项目(2014YBFX112)"互联网领域的反垄断执法困境及其对策研究"

摘　　要：反垄断立法的不足和现有研究针对性不强等问题妨碍了对互联网企业掠夺性定价的准确认定。认定互联网企业掠夺性定价,可以遵循以下进路:首先,从形式上分析行为主体是否为具有市场支配地位的互联网企业,该互联网企业实施的行为是否属于反垄断法规制范围的低于成本价销售行为;其次,从实质上分析互联网企业的低于成本价销售行为是否存在限制竞争的主观故意,是否产生排挤竞争对手、抑制创新、降低经济效率或损害消费者福利的危害后果。互联网企业的行为只有同时满足以上形式要件和实质要件,方可认定为掠夺性定价。从以上进路对互联网企业掠夺性定价进行认定,可以节约认定成本,认定结果也更加合理、科学。The insufficiency of Anti - monopoly legislation, impertinent existing research and other issues hampered the identification of the Internet Enterprises ＇ predatory pricing. As a general pattern, the identification can follow such ways ： Firstly, we have to analyze that whether the Internet Enterprises have a dominating market status, and whether their behaviors can be attributed into ＂ selling below cost＂ under the Anti - monopoly Law; Secondly, to substantially analyze that whether there is the subject intent of limiting competitions and substantial harm by investigating whether those ＂selling below cost＂ behaviors have inhibited innovations, reduced economy efficiency and damaged the interests of consumers. When both these formal and essential requirement are met, the predatory pricing can be affirmed. This cognizance method can not only save the identification cost, but also ensure a more scientific and reasonable identification result.

关 键 词：互联网企业 掠夺性定价 市场支配地位 低于成本价 

分 类 号：D922.294[政治法律—经济法学]