1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Law
  4. Periodical Articles
  5. Item

Publications-Periodical Articles

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 論網路經銷的價格限制
作者 魏杏芳
Wei, Hsin-Fang
貢獻者 法律系
關鍵詞 價格限制 ; 轉售價格維持 ; 最低廣告價格政策 ; 搭便車 ; 電子商務產業調查
Restriction on Pricing ; Resale Price Maintenance ; Minimum Advertised Price Policy ; Free-riding ; E-commerce Sector Inquiry
日期 2018-04
上傳時間 22-Dec-2020 09:42:05 (UTC+8)
摘要 網際網路為電子商務時代不可或缺的交易管道，對於網路經銷，製造商或供應商施以影響或限制經銷商定價的措施，具有限制品牌內競爭效果，其主要作法包括：討論轉售價格、建議轉售價格、最低廣告價格、轉售價格維持。供應商實施轉售價格維持最常提到的理由是為了解決搭便車問題，相關統計顯示搭便車對實體店的負面效果較大。在美國基於「Colgate原則」，製造商實施最低廣告價格政策是被允許的，但網路最低廣告價格政策與最低轉售價格維持如何區別，易有爭議，目前美國有關網路最低廣告價格的案件仍然很少，然聯邦貿易委員會認為不會因為網路因素而改變經銷價格限制的分析方式。在歐盟，網路經銷價格限制適用「歐盟運作條約」第 101 條，但並無美國法上「當然違法」與「合理原則」之爭。歐盟電子商務產業調查結果顯示，有高比例的零售商與製造商間，定有價格限制條款，但無論是實體或線上經銷限制，適用歐盟競爭法的方式是一致的，尚無必要因網際網路另設特別規定。我國公平交易法第 19 條適用於網路經銷的價格限制，但規範效果相對嚴格而不具彈性，且執行實務並未真正考量網路因素，宜速建構清晰的執行理念，使未來涉及網路經銷價格限制的決定更具有說服力。
As the Internet has become one of the prominent channels for doing business in the booming e-commerce era, the vertical restrictions on pricing imposed by manufacturers or suppliers which restrict intra-brand competition normally take the form of discussions over resale prices, recommended resale prices (RRP), minimum advertised prices (MAP), and resale price maintenance (RPM). The central concern in resale price control by the manufacturers is the "free-riding" problem and statistical analysis also shows that free-riding has more detrimental effects on brick-and-mortar distributors than on on-line re-sellers. According to the "Colgate rule", manufacturers are allowed, on their own, to set MAP in the United States. However, the differences between Internet MAP (IMAP) and online RPM are not readily distinguishable, but are contestable. Up to the present time, cases involving disputed IMAP polices have been quite rare, and the Federal Trade Commission considers that it is not necessary at this moment to establish a new analytical pattern that deviates from the one for traditional vertical restrictions without the Internet factor. Under EU competition law, the legality of online vertical restrictions on prices is valued under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union without the dispute over illegal per se v. rule of reason. The EU sector inquiry on e-commerce has indicated that, with the high percentage of such respondents to the questionnaires, the imposition of contractual restrictions on resale prices by manufacturers on resellers is quite common. Even though the facts indicate this, the European Union takes the view that the pattern for analysis and the application of EU competition law are consistent in either the traditional vertical restrictions on pricing or cases involving online istribution. In Taiwan, Article 19 of the Fair Trade Act is applicable in regard to online vertical restrictions on pricing. By reviewing the decisions leading to the fines imposed by the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (TFTC), it is considered that the TFTC`s enforcement has been more restrictive with less reasonable flexibility without taking into account the element of the Internet. It is strongly recommended that the TFTC clarify and set the enforcement policy for e-commerce and online business as soon as possible and make its enforcement decisions for cases involving online pricing restrictions more convincing.
關聯 公平交易季刊，26:2, 145-172
資料類型 article
dc.contributor 法律系
dc.creator (作者) 魏杏芳
dc.creator (作者) Wei, Hsin-Fang
dc.date (日期) 2018-04
dc.date.accessioned 22-Dec-2020 09:42:05 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 22-Dec-2020 09:42:05 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 22-Dec-2020 09:42:05 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133204-
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 網際網路為電子商務時代不可或缺的交易管道，對於網路經銷，製造商或供應商施以影響或限制經銷商定價的措施，具有限制品牌內競爭效果，其主要作法包括：討論轉售價格、建議轉售價格、最低廣告價格、轉售價格維持。供應商實施轉售價格維持最常提到的理由是為了解決搭便車問題，相關統計顯示搭便車對實體店的負面效果較大。在美國基於「Colgate原則」，製造商實施最低廣告價格政策是被允許的，但網路最低廣告價格政策與最低轉售價格維持如何區別，易有爭議，目前美國有關網路最低廣告價格的案件仍然很少，然聯邦貿易委員會認為不會因為網路因素而改變經銷價格限制的分析方式。在歐盟，網路經銷價格限制適用「歐盟運作條約」第 101 條，但並無美國法上「當然違法」與「合理原則」之爭。歐盟電子商務產業調查結果顯示，有高比例的零售商與製造商間，定有價格限制條款，但無論是實體或線上經銷限制，適用歐盟競爭法的方式是一致的，尚無必要因網際網路另設特別規定。我國公平交易法第 19 條適用於網路經銷的價格限制，但規範效果相對嚴格而不具彈性，且執行實務並未真正考量網路因素，宜速建構清晰的執行理念，使未來涉及網路經銷價格限制的決定更具有說服力。
dc.description.abstract (摘要) As the Internet has become one of the prominent channels for doing business in the booming e-commerce era, the vertical restrictions on pricing imposed by manufacturers or suppliers which restrict intra-brand competition normally take the form of discussions over resale prices, recommended resale prices (RRP), minimum advertised prices (MAP), and resale price maintenance (RPM). The central concern in resale price control by the manufacturers is the "free-riding" problem and statistical analysis also shows that free-riding has more detrimental effects on brick-and-mortar distributors than on on-line re-sellers. According to the "Colgate rule", manufacturers are allowed, on their own, to set MAP in the United States. However, the differences between Internet MAP (IMAP) and online RPM are not readily distinguishable, but are contestable. Up to the present time, cases involving disputed IMAP polices have been quite rare, and the Federal Trade Commission considers that it is not necessary at this moment to establish a new analytical pattern that deviates from the one for traditional vertical restrictions without the Internet factor. Under EU competition law, the legality of online vertical restrictions on prices is valued under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union without the dispute over illegal per se v. rule of reason. The EU sector inquiry on e-commerce has indicated that, with the high percentage of such respondents to the questionnaires, the imposition of contractual restrictions on resale prices by manufacturers on resellers is quite common. Even though the facts indicate this, the European Union takes the view that the pattern for analysis and the application of EU competition law are consistent in either the traditional vertical restrictions on pricing or cases involving online istribution. In Taiwan, Article 19 of the Fair Trade Act is applicable in regard to online vertical restrictions on pricing. By reviewing the decisions leading to the fines imposed by the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (TFTC), it is considered that the TFTC`s enforcement has been more restrictive with less reasonable flexibility without taking into account the element of the Internet. It is strongly recommended that the TFTC clarify and set the enforcement policy for e-commerce and online business as soon as possible and make its enforcement decisions for cases involving online pricing restrictions more convincing.
dc.format.extent 590550 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.relation (關聯) 公平交易季刊，26:2, 145-172
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 價格限制 ; 轉售價格維持 ; 最低廣告價格政策 ; 搭便車 ; 電子商務產業調查
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Restriction on Pricing ; Resale Price Maintenance ; Minimum Advertised Price Policy ; Free-riding ; E-commerce Sector Inquiry
dc.title (題名) 論網路經銷的價格限制
dc.type (資料類型) article