大型科技公司和捆绑安排:是否需要反垄断修订?

Amy Sindik
{"title":"大型科技公司和捆绑安排:是否需要反垄断修订?","authors":"Amy Sindik","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2023.2179877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract One area of antitrust law in which many Big Tech organizations fight antitrust lawsuits is tying arrangements. Tying arrangements, which occur when a seller requires the sale one product to be tied to the purchase of another product, are subject to the partial per se analysis introduced in Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde. Partial per se does not automatically assume that a tying arrangement is illegal, but rather sets conditions to determine when a tie between two products is an antitrust violation. However, criticism of the partial per se standard has existed for decades. This article argues that proposed changes to antitrust laws should include changing the standard used to evaluate tying arrangements to a consistent rule-of-reason approach.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"28 1","pages":"47 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Big Tech and Tying Arrangements: Are Antitrust Revisions Needed?\",\"authors\":\"Amy Sindik\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10811680.2023.2179877\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract One area of antitrust law in which many Big Tech organizations fight antitrust lawsuits is tying arrangements. Tying arrangements, which occur when a seller requires the sale one product to be tied to the purchase of another product, are subject to the partial per se analysis introduced in Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde. Partial per se does not automatically assume that a tying arrangement is illegal, but rather sets conditions to determine when a tie between two products is an antitrust violation. However, criticism of the partial per se standard has existed for decades. This article argues that proposed changes to antitrust laws should include changing the standard used to evaluate tying arrangements to a consistent rule-of-reason approach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Law and Policy\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"47 - 66\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2023.2179877\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2023.2179877","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多大型科技公司在反垄断法中对抗反垄断诉讼的一个领域是捆绑安排。捆绑安排,即卖方要求将一种产品的销售与另一种产品的购买捆绑在一起,是杰斐逊教区医院第2区诉海德案中引入的部分本身分析的对象。Partial本身并不自动假定捆绑安排是非法的,而是设定条件来确定两种产品之间的捆绑何时是违反反托拉斯的。然而,对部分本身标准的批评已经存在了几十年。本文认为,对反垄断法的拟议修改应包括改变用于评估将安排与一致的理性规则方法联系起来的标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Big Tech and Tying Arrangements: Are Antitrust Revisions Needed?
Abstract One area of antitrust law in which many Big Tech organizations fight antitrust lawsuits is tying arrangements. Tying arrangements, which occur when a seller requires the sale one product to be tied to the purchase of another product, are subject to the partial per se analysis introduced in Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde. Partial per se does not automatically assume that a tying arrangement is illegal, but rather sets conditions to determine when a tie between two products is an antitrust violation. However, criticism of the partial per se standard has existed for decades. This article argues that proposed changes to antitrust laws should include changing the standard used to evaluate tying arrangements to a consistent rule-of-reason approach.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
33.30%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The societal, cultural, economic and political dimensions of communication, including the freedoms of speech and press, are undergoing dramatic global changes. The convergence of the mass media, telecommunications, and computers has raised important questions reflected in analyses of modern communication law, policy, and regulation. Serving as a forum for discussions of these continuing and emerging questions, Communication Law and Policy considers traditional and contemporary problems of freedom of expression and dissemination, including theoretical, conceptual and methodological issues inherent in the special conditions presented by new media and information technologies.
期刊最新文献
Digital Rights in Europe After the Entry Into Force of Regulations for the Protection of Personal Data: Before and After the Right to Be Forgotten Regulatory Capture in a Transitional Democracy: Media Laws in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq Paranoid Androids: Free Speech Versus Privacy in America’s Resistance Against Intrusive Robocalls An Unreasonable Standard?: The Dilemma of Applying Actual Malice to Irrational Speakers “The Gloss of History”: A Historical Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ Framing of First Amendment Press Rights to Cover and Access Court Proceedings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1