《反不正當競爭法》網路條款的反思與解釋

《反不正當競爭法》引入的網路條款旨在評價網路競爭行為的正當性。但該條款在解釋論上面臨諸多困境，因此難堪重任。困境的根源在於方法論研究之欠缺，即立法者未曾反省類型化原理就盲目選擇了案例群類型化的修法進路。類型化的合理性基礎在於通過更精細的認知模型來降低決策成本，因此只有當建立精細認知模型的社會收益高於成本時，類型化方為恰當。網路條款並不滿足該條件。我們應當對網路條款予以限縮解釋，將其適用範圍控制在文本無歧義的範圍內。針對網路條款無法評價的網路競爭行為，首先應當對既有的成熟類型化條款予以功能主義解釋；其次應在必要時審慎制定新類型化規則；最後可以承認適用一般條款評價少量行為的合理性。

An internet clause was introduced into the Anti-Unfair Competition Law in 2017. The legislator wished to provide the courts with more detailed rules regarding online competition. However, the clause bears serious flaws largely because the legislator has overlooked the rationale of categorization. A new category in law is desirable only when the social benefit of building a more concrete cognitive model exceeds its social cost. Legislators should investigate the optimal level of categorization before introducing a new category, and choose modelling variables that are frequent, significant as well as clear. Quite the opposite, the internet clause is based on variables that are transient, insubstantial and vague, representing an inefficient cognitive model. That is why it fails. A more promising approach of categorization would be to fully utilize the existing rules. New rules should be introduced carefully. Compared to inventing troublesome new rules, relying on the general clause could be a better solution.