Atsisakymo bendradarbiauti bylose taikytinų sąlygų susisteminimas ir jų ryšio su skirtingomis atsisakymo bendradarbiauti formomis nustatymas, manytina, yra esminė prielaida siekiant nubrėžti pagrįstą ribą tarp dominuojančio ūkio subjekto teisėto atsisakymo bendradarbiauti ir piktnaudžiavimo dominuojančia padėtimi. Atitinkamai magistro baigiamaje darbe, priešingai paplitusiai kazuistinei atsisakymo bendradarbiauti atvejų analizei, apibendrintai įvardijamos ir nagrinėjamos sąlygos, reikšmingos sprendžiant ar atsisakymas bendradarbiauti konkrečiu atveju laikytinas piktnaudžiavimu dominuojančia padėtimi. Magistro baigiamajame darbe patvirtinama hipotezė, kad visose atsisakymo bendradarbiauti bylose, įskaitant esminių išteklių ir atsisakymo suteikti intelektinės nuosavybės teisių licenciją atvejus, išpildytinos dvi kertinės – prašomo tiekti ištekliaus būtinumo ir konkurencijos pašalinimo – sąlygos. Daroma išvada, kad tik patenkinus šias dvi sąlygas galima tolesnė atsisakymo bendradarbiauti situacijos analizė sprendžiant, ar konkrečiu atveju ūkio subjekto atsisakymas bendradarbiauti laikytinas piktnaudžiavimu dominuojančia padėtimi. Darbe taip pat prieinama prie išvados, kad konkurencijos teisėje nėra konceptualaus skirtumo tarp esminių išteklių, atsisakymo suteikti intelektinės nuosavybės teisių licenciją ir kitų atsisakymo bendradarbiauti bylų tiek įvardijant atitinkamas bylas kaip atstovaujančias vienai iš atitinkamų doktrinų, tiek taikomų sąlygų atžvilgiu. Magistro baigiamąjį... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The essential premise when drawing a line between the legitimate refusal to deal by a dominant undertaking and its abuse of a dominant position is to file the conditions to be satisfied in refusal to deal cases and to understand their relations with different forms of refusal to deal. Therefore contrary to the common incidental analysis of refusal to deal cases, in this master thesis the conditions which are significant when deciding if refusal to deal in a specific case is to be considered abuse of a dominant position are identified and analyzed as a whole. In a master thesis the hypothesis is confirmed that in all refusal to deal cases, including essential facilities and refusal to licence intellectual property rights cases, two crucial conditions are to be satisfied – indispensability of an input and elimination of competition. The conclusion is drawn that only after satisfying these two conditions further analysis of a refusal to deal situation shall be carried on in order to decide if a refusal to deal by an undertaking is to be considered an abuse of a dominant position. The conclusion also drawn is that there is no conceptual distinction between essential facilities, refusal to licence intellectual property rights and other refusal to deal cases when attributing them to one of the respective doctrines and when identifying the conditions to be satisfied. Master thesis consists of two parts. First part analyses the concept of refusal to deal cases, different forms which... [to full text]

Agentes econômicos com posição dominante são capazes de se conduzir de maneira independente na sua atividade comercial. Da mesma forma, possuem todos os incentivos para manutenção desta posição, em detrimento de seus concorrentes, fornecedores e clientes. O presente trabalho visa, inicialmente, em estudo comparado da doutrina e jurisprudência no Brasil, União Europeia e Estados Unidos, identificar os elementos de cognição da teoria do abuso de posição dominante para cinco modalidades de conduta. A partir daí traçamos seus elementos de correlação com o propósito de sugerir uma teoria aplicada ao ordenamento jurídico pátrio, que passa pelo reconhecimento da concorrência como garantia institucional, de forma a estabelecer-se igualdade material segundo a teoria da função social dos meios de produção. A presença constante da concorrência nos mercados deve ser tratada como presunção de bem-estar social. E finalmente, valendo-se destes elementos de suporte, propomos uma teoria da responsabilidade especial para agentes econômicos em posição dominante, que implicaria o dever de autoaplicação dos limites permitidos para sua conduta comercial, cujo descumprimento ensejaria presunção relativa de efeitos deletérios ao mercado, segundo os parâmetros propostos. / Firms enjoying dominant position are able to conduct themselves independently in their commercial activities. Likewise, they hold all due incentives to maintain such position, in detriment of their competitors, suppliers and clients. The present work aims, initially, through a comparative study of the Brazilian, the European Union and the United States\' legal doctrine and jurisprudence, to identify cognitive elements of the abuse of dominance theory, for five different natures of conducts. Subsequently, we identify their elements of connection with the purpose of suggesting a theory applicable to the local legal system, which includes the recognition of competition as an institutional guarantee, so to establish a material equality according to the theory of social function of productive assets. The constant presence of competition on the markets shall be treated as a presumption of social welfare. And finally, based on such supportive elements, we propose a theory of special responsibility for dominant firms that implies in a duty of self-application of the permitted limits for their commercial conduct, and which infringement would entail a relative presumption of harmful effects to the market, pursuant to the proposed parameters.

In this study, the origin and main parameters of the Essential Facilities Doctrine are analysed through the case-law that developed out of the application of the EC Competition Rules. Besides putting forward the historical roots, the basic criteria and limitations that apply to the Doctrine are elaborated so as to clarify the legal and analytical foundations of the Doctrine in the EU context. In addition, the added value attributed to the Doctrine in realm of competition policies pursued in network-based industries is expounded with special emphasis on telecommunications sectors. With this regard, the potential role of EFD against the challenging effects of &lsquo / convergence&rsquo / phenomenon and the technological changes is discussed. At last, the effects of EFD on the competitive dynamics of Turkish telecommunications sector which is undergoing a liberalisation process are also examined with the accompanied Turkish case-law.

Agentes econômicos com posição dominante são capazes de se conduzir de maneira independente na sua atividade comercial. Da mesma forma, possuem todos os incentivos para manutenção desta posição, em detrimento de seus concorrentes, fornecedores e clientes. O presente trabalho visa, inicialmente, em estudo comparado da doutrina e jurisprudência no Brasil, União Europeia e Estados Unidos, identificar os elementos de cognição da teoria do abuso de posição dominante para cinco modalidades de conduta. A partir daí traçamos seus elementos de correlação com o propósito de sugerir uma teoria aplicada ao ordenamento jurídico pátrio, que passa pelo reconhecimento da concorrência como garantia institucional, de forma a estabelecer-se igualdade material segundo a teoria da função social dos meios de produção. A presença constante da concorrência nos mercados deve ser tratada como presunção de bem-estar social. E finalmente, valendo-se destes elementos de suporte, propomos uma teoria da responsabilidade especial para agentes econômicos em posição dominante, que implicaria o dever de autoaplicação dos limites permitidos para sua conduta comercial, cujo descumprimento ensejaria presunção relativa de efeitos deletérios ao mercado, segundo os parâmetros propostos. / Firms enjoying dominant position are able to conduct themselves independently in their commercial activities. Likewise, they hold all due incentives to maintain such position, in detriment of their competitors, suppliers and clients. The present work aims, initially, through a comparative study of the Brazilian, the European Union and the United States\' legal doctrine and jurisprudence, to identify cognitive elements of the abuse of dominance theory, for five different natures of conducts. Subsequently, we identify their elements of connection with the purpose of suggesting a theory applicable to the local legal system, which includes the recognition of competition as an institutional guarantee, so to establish a material equality according to the theory of social function of productive assets. The constant presence of competition on the markets shall be treated as a presumption of social welfare. And finally, based on such supportive elements, we propose a theory of special responsibility for dominant firms that implies in a duty of self-application of the permitted limits for their commercial conduct, and which infringement would entail a relative presumption of harmful effects to the market, pursuant to the proposed parameters.

「沒有標準化就沒有現代經濟。」在知識經濟時代，掌握制定規則權力者，就占有主宰市場的領導地位。由於絕大多數標準係由政府或私人組織所制定，因此，研究標準制定組織具有重要意義。此外，觀察當代立法趨勢，政府以採訂私人組織或非政府組織所擬定之產業標準的方式，擴增其管制功能，在此潮流下，採訂私人草撰標準成為法律規範一環，此舉一方面可能形成授權立法之漏洞，另一方面將迫使個人暴露於著作權侵權行為之刑事、民事以及行政制裁大帽。同時，政府將產品標準及認證之工作委由產業協會等私人組織承擔亦成主流，該項¬「公益性」作業即可能成為事實標準制定者用來限制競爭、不當逐利的手段。 本文便以上述爭議問題為出發點，討論標準制定組織所擬定之標準，特別是經過政府機關以法律規範形式採用後，是否仍該當著作權的保護客體？並將研究延伸到網路產業中標準著作權保護的適當性問題，以及針對標準這類事實編輯物的資料庫保護進行分析；其次，本文將針對一國之產業標準制定組織為研究重心，探討例如標準制定與認證中的限制競爭及獨占管制的法律問題，以及隱然成為事實標準的市場領導者涉及智慧財產權的拒絕交易紛爭等課題。然而，針對上述命題的前提要件是對標準的概念與應用有相當之瞭解，以導入標準制定組織之運作、不同層級標準制定過程之影響及其所涉及之智慧財產爭議問題研究。因此，本文將對國家標準以及行業標準制定及運用過程所涉及之著作權及競爭法問題作深入且廣泛之瞭解，以此為基礎，分析各層級標準制定體系的規範內涵，繼而詮釋一國保護行業標準之著作權與競爭法之法律規定；並提出建言作為我國標準化體系之發展、參與國際標準制定活動、標準著作權保護分析架構、事實編輯物（資料庫）保護模式、競爭法對標準與認證活動之適用以及切入拒絕交易案件等之參考。 / In a knowledge-based economy, whoever dominates rules-developing overpowers the market. Most of the standards are set by the government and private organizations; therefore, a study on standard-setting organizations is of essential value. The Government leverages its regulatory function by adopting law standards promulgated and copyrighted by non-governmental actors. Despite governmental ambitions, no one is responsible for evaluating the legitimacy of this approach ex ante and no framework exists to facilitate analysis. On the other hand, standard-developing and conformity assessment increasingly falls on the shoulders of industry associations and lead to impartiality concerns from the antitrust law perspective. Regarding standards that are generated and controlled by private actors exposing citizens to criminal, civil and administrative sanctions, this paper contributes an analytical framework and proposes institutional mechanisms to implement it in terms of copyright. This paper extends by questioning if copyright would be an appropriate form to protect standards in the Internet industry. Then, it explores ways to protect compilation of facts and databases once they are de facto standards. Following the antitrust concerns, this paper focuses on industry standard-setting organizations within a specific territory to explore the antitrust and unfair competition problems confronting the role of the de facto standard-setters or the certification performers and the refusal to deal involving intellectual property issues. As foundations, this paper initiates by a detailed study of concepts and applications surrounding standardization; then, it leads to how a standards is produced, how standard-developing organizations in various levels affect the market, and how the intellectual property problems involves in standardization. In conclusion, based upon in-depth coverage of copyright and antitrust predicaments facing applications of national standards and industry standards, this paper interprets how copyright and antitrust laws work to protect business standards. At the same time, it delivers suggestions for the development of our standardization system, involvement of international standard-setting activities, an analytical framework for standards in copyright, protection for compilation of facts and databases, and how antitrust laws works when it comes to non-governmental standard-setting actors.

本文研究之議題，並非有關政治面或其他社會面所稱之杯葛，而是競爭法領域中之杯葛行為，主要為公平交易法第十九條第一款所規範之情形。 本文之研究目的，主要希望能對公平交易法第十九條第一項之構成要件、違法性、法律效果等數項議題，參考他國立法例及學說進行研究，並就實務處理進行分析檢討，以及提出管見之看法及建議。 本論文共分為七章。第一章為「緒論」，分為研究題目之說明、研究動機與目的、研究方法、研究範圍及限制，及研究架構等部分，旨在介紹論文的基本方向與架構。 第二章，則是討論「我國法對於杯葛行為之規範及相關內容」。於第一節中，首先進行杯葛行為之基本介紹，以使讀者瞭解本文所處理之客體為何，並且明瞭規範杯葛行為之目的。第二節之內容，是針對公平交易法第十九條第一款，為一全面性介紹。第三節，是就公平交易法第二十四條之適用可能，為一討論。第四節，則是討論民法部分於杯葛行為之適用可能及適用情形。 第三章，討論「美國法對於杯葛行為之規範及分析」。第一節之概說，乃為後述討論內容作一引言。第二節，是就規範杯葛行為之條文－休曼法第一條、聯邦貿易委員會法第五條，作一相關闡釋。第三節，是就美國判例，參考學者Hylton, Keith N.教授的見解，區分三個不同時期，介紹杯葛行為於實務之不同評價演變。第四節，則對本章之內容作一總結。 第四章介紹「德國法對於杯葛行為之規範及分析」。第一節之概說，乃為後述討論內容作一引言。第二節，是就限制競爭防止法第二十一條第一項（GWB §21Ⅰ）為相關闡述。第三節，是就不正競爭防止法第三條（UWG §3），其適用情形及相關內容進行分析。第四節，是就德國民法有關侵權行為之規定（BGB §823、§826），討論杯葛行為之適用情形。第五節，乃討論杯葛行為與憲法上言論自由保護其間之關係。 第五章乃在探討「杯葛行為於我國法制面及實務操作之爭議問題研究」。於第一節中，處理者乃杯葛行為之體系定位之問題。第二節，進行構成要件之細部問題分析；例如，發話人究否應具有一定市場力量？第三節，針對杯葛行為之違法性，分析是否存在進行杯葛行為之正當理由。第四節，旨在討論杯葛行為之法律效果問題。第五節，核心集中於公平會對於同業公會所發起之杯葛行為，究應以第十四條或第十九條第一款論斷為妥？第六節，主要在處理杯葛與其他概念之區別。第七節，則在處理公平交易法第十九條第一款與其他條文競合之問題。 第六章之內容為「實務重要案例之分析及檢討建議與結論」。此部分本文選擇較具重要性之公平會處分案，整理實務之看法及處理模式，並加以分析及檢討。 第七章則是進行「結論與建議」。本文將彙整前面各章之重點，針對本文關心之相關爭點及問題，提出拙見，以供參考。 / This thesis focus on the topic of boycotts issues in competition law, especially article 19 subparagraph 1 of the Fair Trade Law of Taiwan. There are 7 chapters in this study. In chapter 1, there is an introduction to this research such as the structure of this paper. Chapter 2 discusses the regulations about boycotts in Taiwan, including article 19 subparagraph 1 and article 24 of the Fair Trade Law and article 184 of the Civil Law. Besides, in this chapter there are essential introductions to boycotts, e.g. what purpose the party has. Chapter 3 observes how U.S. treats boycotts. According to the observance of professor Hylton, Keith N., the court used different standers to judge boycotts in various periods. This chapter will focus on what doctrine the court adopted to consider boycotts－rule of reason, or illegal per se? On the other hand, chapter 4 introduces rules of boycotts in Germany. There are several important parts: GWB §21Ⅰ, UWG §3, and BGB §823、§826. Besides, there is a point about the relation of boycotts and freedom of speech. Chapter 5 deals several problems of boycotts in Taiwan practices and Fair Trade Law. Besides the opponents of the articles, this chapter tried to solve problems such as should we consider market power of the party? Further more, there are comparisons about boycotts and other similar concepts or topics. Chapter 6 proceeds analysis about the cases in Taiwan practices, especially decisions of the Fair Trade Commission. In chapter 7 the author offered his opinions about some issues of boycotts.