論反不正當競爭法的一般分析框架

理解競爭的本質是識別不正當競爭的前提。競爭的本質是爭奪交易機會，因交易機會此消彼長所導致的競爭利益損害不可避免。此謂“競爭利益的相對性與損害的相互性”。這意味著，競爭是否正當的關鍵不在損害，“權益—損害範式”存在誤讀。我國《反不正當競爭法》的價值目標是保護優勝劣汰的競爭不被扭曲，識別不正當競爭應採用行為中心主義範式。行為背後的競爭利益對行為定性並無決定性意義，損害亦然。損害概念在反法上旨在解決責任承擔問題，與行為評價分屬不同的系統。首先，行為評價由“行為構成”和“違法性”二要件展開，前者旨在評價涉案行為客觀上是否符合《反不正當競爭法》列舉的行為樣態，後者旨在評價符合行為樣態者是否扭曲了《反不正當競爭法》保護競爭之目標。其次，歸責評價聚焦於行為違法後的責任承擔議題，具體由過錯、損害、因果關係等歸責事由進行“有責性”判斷。經由三階層要件塑造的統一分析框架，使《反不正當競爭法》的解釋適用更加規範化、體系化。

Understanding the nature of competition is the premise of identifying unfair competition. The essence of competition is to compete for trading opportunities. Competitors􀆳 strategy always affects trading opportunities, which can lead to inevitable damage during competition. It shows the relativity of competitive interests and the reciprocity of damage. This means that the key criterion for identifying unfair competition is not the damage in competition and that the “rights and interests—damage paradigm” is based on a misunderstanding of Anti-unfair Competition Law. This study is carried out on the basis of revealing the essence of competition which is protecting the competition mechanism and ensuring fair competition, so that, we should therefore adopt the behaviorist paradigm to identify unfair competition. Competitive interests are not the decisive factor in evaluating the act of competition, and nor is the damage. The interpretive theory of Anti-unfair Competition Law can be divided into two systems. The first system focuses on behavior evaluation, which is determined by two elements: “behavior composition” and “illegality”. The second system focuses on the “accountability” of illegal acts which is consisted of fault, damage, causality, and other imputation reasons. The unified analytical framework composed of three tiers of constitutive elements could optimize internal system and interpretative theory of Anti-unfair Competition Law.