| 英文摘要 |
Prof. Louis Kaplow's proposal to abandon market definition in estimating market power has been criticised by a number of scholars. Both the proposal and its criticism were analysed theoretically. The recent Chinese case of Qihoo v. Tencent provides an empirical examination of the proposal and its criticisms, because the courts deciding the case applied market definition analysis to identify market dominance. The facts and analysis in the decision provide support for Kaplow's proposal because, depite clear facts proving a direct relationship between a firm's unilateral conduct and competitve harm, neither the so-called relevant market nor the dominant firm were successfully identified. By examining the facts and analysis of the decision, this article concludes that the market definition approach to identify market power is misleading and counterprodictive, supporting the position of Prof. Kaplow. This conclusion further supprots an argument that the market definition methodology provisions of article 19 of China's Anti-Monopoly Law of 2008 (AML) and of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of the State Council Guidelines for the Definition of the Relevant Market (Guidelines) Should be repealed of modified. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
