English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 109952/140903 (78%)
Visitors : 46047541      Online Users : 981
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU 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: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/70519

    Title: The Intel Decision and the EU’s New Standards for Behaviours by Dominant Firms
    Other Titles: 歐盟競爭法處理濫用獨占地位爭議之新標準-以英特爾案為中心
    Authors: 謝國廉
    Hsieh, Kuo-lien
    Contributors: 法律系
    Keywords: 英特爾案;明顯的智慧財產權壁壘;濫用獨占地位;同等效能競爭者測試法;明顯之限制
    The Intel Decision;Significant intellectual property barriers;Abuse of dominant position;As efficient competitor test;Naked restrictions
    Date: 2012.12
    Issue Date: 2014-10-09 17:15:32 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 歐洲聯盟執行委員會對英特爾案所作的行政處分存在明顯瑕疵。首先,執委會未能慎思此案中相關市場的實際狀況,所作的市場力量評估顯然有誤。誠如執委會所言,英特爾已取得的智慧財產權,對有意進入相關市場參與競爭的企業確係明顯的智慧財產權壁壘,但礙於下游電腦代工廠與英特爾的競爭對手的市場影響力,英特爾事實上無法毫無顧忌地利用其市場力量。其次,執委會對同等效能競爭者測試法之理論的說明,無法令公眾明瞭其實施此測試法的方式。此高度不明確性對成千上萬於歐洲市場運作的企業,特別是擁有獨占地位的企業,極可能造成寒蟬效應。第三,執委會於英特爾案的行政處分,適用了不具法律拘束力的「關於歐洲共同體條約第82條施行重點之指南」,特別是其中關於同等效能競爭者測試法的規定。執委會將此指南作為法律加以適用,顯有違歐盟法的法律確定性原則。關於執委會所稱英特爾所採取的明顯限制行為,執委會指出,英特爾以提供財務支援的方式,限制下游電腦代工廠按計畫製造與販賣內含(英特爾的競爭對手)AMD產品的電腦,但執委會未能提出充足的證據以支持其結論。此外,執委會指稱,英特爾的行為致使代工廠限制內含AMD產品之電腦的製造與販賣,但執委會亦未能提出充分的證據。
    The Intel Decision is signif icantly flawed. First, the Commission did not take into serious account the dynamics of the relevant markets. The market power evaluation by the Commission was flawed because Intel was not able freely to exercise the market power. Second, the Commission’s explanations for the theory of ‘as eff icient competitor test’ do not help the public fully understand how the Commission performed this test. The myth of how the test was used would presumably create chilling effects on numerous companies in various European markets, particularly the dominant firms. Third, the Commission applied Guidance on enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 EC, in particular as efficient competitor test set out in the document, to the Intel case. The Commission applied the test as if the Guidance Paper was legally binding, which violated the principle of legal certainty. As regards the issues of naked restrictions, the Commission failed to present suff icient evidence to support that Intel paid the OEMs to restrict the commercialisation of planned AMDbased products. Also, the Commission failed to prove that the conduct of Intel had a material effect on the decision-making of OEMs in that they restricted the commercialisation of AMD-based computers.
    Relation: 政大智慧財產評論, 10(2), 1-32
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[智慧財產評論] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    1-32.pdf1164KbAdobe PDF2779View/Open

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback