| 關 鍵 詞： |
反托拉斯；立法目的；新布蘭迪斯學派；效率；正當競爭行為；整體福祉；競爭過程；數位平臺；事前監管；芝加哥學派 |
| 中文摘要： |
公平會白皮書並未探討國外因應數位經濟之新興立法及 New Brandeis School 此新學派主張的具體內容，即提出相反主張予以否定。為彌補此一研究缺口，本文針對該學派重要主張及競爭分析過程進行批判性評估，發現該派學者並非認為「大即是惡」，而係忽視競爭削弱可能來自正當競爭或有其他合理事由，致使其過度放大限制競爭疑慮。然而該學派有關既有競爭法過度偏重價格上揚與銷售量下滑兩項反競爭指標，導致其他面向反競爭損害遭到忽視，以及 2000 年以來競爭法執法強度偏低，面對數位平臺大型化應當提高規範及執法水準的建議，非常具有洞察力。當前學說實務經常以消費者福祉作為競爭法最終判斷標準，惟若仔細分析美歐對於現行法之解釋，可發現實則為購買者福祉標準，但競爭法規範何以獨厚需求者，在學理上欠缺合適基礎，也不符競爭法主要保護市場競爭機制而非相關當事人之基本宗旨。New Brandeis School 指出消費者福祉標準在實務上欠缺可行性，應回歸傳統上以競爭過程是否遭到扭曲作為關注焦點，本文支持此項主張，但理由構成有所不同。公平會應斟酌該學派主張中值得參考的啟示，體察白皮書內容不足之處，謹慎考慮有無必要修法或制定專法以彌補競爭法先天侷限，才是面對數位經濟較為中肯持平的適宜態度。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Antitrust；Legislative Goal；New Brandeis School；Efficiency；Competitive Conduct；Total Welfare；Competition Process；Digital Platform；Ex Ante Regulation；Chicago School |
| 英文摘要： |
The Fair Trade Commission's White Paper does not explore foreign new legislations emerging in response to the digital economy, nor the concrete thoughts of the New Brandeis School, yet puts forward conclusive opposite allegations to reject them. To fill up that gap of study, this article critically examines the important contentions and specific way of competition analysis of the New Brandeis School, and finds out that the scholars of this School do not actually consider "the Big is definitely the Bad." Actually, they neglect that the weakening of competition in relevant markets may arise from legitimate competitive conduct from competitors or with other reasonable justifications promoting competition or efficiency, so that exaggerate the possibility and scale of restraint of trade. However, their critique that contemporary competition law over-emphasizes the rise of price and decline of quantity as indicis of anticompetition, thus overlooks anticompetitive harms from other dimensions, such as quality, innovation, privacy and personal data, and their recommendation to rachet up the regulatory and enforcement level of competition law due to the low density of enforcement worldwide since the year of 2000 and the currently rising scale of large digital platforms, are both truly persuasive and insightful. Consumer welfare is oftentimes considered as the ultimate judging standard of competition law, yet through careful examination of current interpretation in the U.S. and E.U., it is found to be a "purchaser welfare standard" in essence. The theoretical foundation for competition law to treat purchasers more favorably is nonetheless still missing. The Brandeis School further indicates that consumer welfare standard is not practically feasible in the ligation and other enforcement processes, and the focus of competition law should therefore return to the distortion of competition process as did traditionally. This paper agrees with that conclusion, but based on somewhat different rationales. The Fair Trade Commission should carefully consider the lessons of referential values from the contentions of the New Brandeis School, realizing the deficiencies of its White Paper, and closely evaluating the necessity of bespoke legislation or amendment to compensate for limitations a priori in competition law. That attitude shall be much more balanced and appropriate for tackling competition issues in the digital economy.
|
| 目 次： |
一、前言：從公平會數位經濟競爭政策白皮書談起
二、New Brandeis School 重要主張與批判性評析
（一）主張一：反獨占係為保護民主與經濟自由
（二）主張二：否定「大即是惡」，但主張大幅強化競爭法執法
（三）主張三：反獨占應專注於市場結構與競爭過程，而非行為結果
（四）實例分析：關注限制競爭疑慮，但未評估正當事由
（五）小結：強化執法之主張值得留意
三、最終判斷基準：消費者福祉，還是競爭過程的扭曲？
（一）消費者福祉與整體福祉標準的爭辯
（二）New Brandeis School 對消費者福祉標準的質疑與評析
（三）本文見解：回歸關注競爭過程的傳統立場
四、New Brandeis School 對於競爭法之啟示
五、公平會白皮書不足之處與面對數位平臺適宜態度
六、結語
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|