Research on the Internet Antitrust Law and Its Improvement Path: Based on the Comparison of China, the United States, and Europe

Shuguang Feng; Jialin Zhang

doi:10.54097/ehss.v1i.667

Authors

Shuguang Feng
Jialin Zhang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/ehss.v1i.667

Keywords:

Antitrust Law, Europe, The United States, China.

Abstract

The monopoly problem of Internet companies is of great significance to economic development. How to define the relevant market, how to determine the abuse of market dominance, etc., are all vacant in Chinese legal time. To fill this gap, based on the comparison of China and the United States, China and Europe, combined with the in-depth interpretation of judicial practice, jurisprudence analysis, and other aspects, a comparative law study is carried out here.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Katz, M.L. and Shapiro, C. 1994. Systems Competition and Network Effects, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2): 93-115. (“Because the value of membership to one user is positively affected when another user joins and enlarges the network, such markets are said to exhibit ‘network effects,’ or ‘network externalities.’”).

Ohio v. Am. Express Co.,138 S.Ct.2274 (2018), at 2299.

Brief for Amici Curiae Prof. David S. Evans and Prof. Richard Schmale see in Ohio et al. v. American Express Company.

Ohio v. Am. Express Co.,138 S.Ct.2274 (2018), at 2285.

Ohio v. Am. Express Co.,138 S.Ct.2274 (2018), at 2286.

Jiang Yan Bo. Judicial Dilemma and Way Out of Relevant Market Definition in Internet Industry: Based on Bilateral Market Conditions [J]. Jurist, 2012, (06): 58 - 74+175 - 176.

Ibid.

Ding Xiaodong. Legal Standards of Platform Anti-monopoly: Reflection on the American Express Case and Definition of Internet Market. cnki.1674 - 5205.2021.04.007.

See Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (1980), p.275.

United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp, 110 F. Supp. 295 (1953), p.342.

Verizon Communs., Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004), p.407.

Ding Xiaodong. Legal Standards of Platform Anti-monopoly: Reflection on the American Express Case and Definition of Internet Market. cnki.1674-5205.2021.04.007.

Xiaoye Wang. Comments on the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China, Frontiers of Law in China, 2009.

Selected Cases from the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2020.

Guo has Li. Research of the theory of public interest of the drafted Anti-monopoly Law of China, Frontiers of Law in China, 2008.

Jingyuan Ma. Regulating Data Monopolies, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2022.

Huilun Lin, Xueying Feng, Di Wu, Fangying Ji, Xichen Li. Legal Governance of Internet Platform Monopoly Based on Big Data Analysis: A Review of Alibaba Case, Mobile Information Systems, 2022.

Ohio v. American Express Co., IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2019.

Zhi-Da Qian, Li-Li Huang, Xiao-Ming Zhu. An immunohistochemical study of CD83- and CD1a-positive dendritic cells in the decidua of women with recurrent spontaneous abortion, European Journal of Medical Research, 2015.

Tingting Weinreich-Zhao. Chinese Merger Control Law, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2015.