台灣企業開拓大陸市場有關競爭法之問題研究 --以策略聯盟為中心--

A Study on Issues of Competition Laws Related to Taiwan Enterprises Developing the Mainland Market -- Centering on Strategic Alliance --

吳宗傑(Jeffery Wu)

指導教授 ： 李憲佐

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200800373

摘要

近年國內企業紛紛前進大陸，不僅著眼於大陸市場廣大且勞工成本低廉，也兼顧企業調整轉型之企業發展特質，必須尋求境外發展，以達成永續經營之目的。相對的，大陸方面十數年來對外經濟開放政策之實施與對外關係之擴大，相關涉外經貿法上之問題也附隨而生，其範疇當然也包括公平競爭之議題。
分析企業前進大陸之模式，一般認為以策略聯盟為主要。蓋企業為確保生存空間，產業或廠商間形成暫時性合作關係，結合企業之個別競爭力，達成乘數效果之整體競爭力，以取得競爭優勢。惟策略聯盟常造成實際或潛在競爭者之減少，因而產生妨害、限制或扭曲市場競爭之效果，而損及消費者或一般較小企業之生存與競爭時，政府即有必要頒布及施行競爭法律，以維護正常市場競爭及貿易秩序之運作。
就兩岸競爭法制而論，台灣於民國80年2月4日公佈公平交易法，並於91年1月15日修正，採取合併立法模式，詳細規範限制競爭行為與不公平競爭行為，藉以維護交易秩序並確保公平競爭。而大陸競爭法制則採取分立之立法模式，亦即透過分別規範限制競爭行為與不公平競爭行為之方式呈現。反不正當競爭法於1993年9月2日通過，並於1993年12月1日實施，對於限制競爭行為亦予相當詳細之規範。法界及商界一般認為反不正當競爭法對於限制競爭行為規範太過細目化，且造成反不正當競爭法與競爭法制有銜接上之困難。
大陸加入WTO後，基於WTO所賦予之透明化義務，大陸必須建立並實施較完善之競爭法制給予市場經營者與企業經營者公開、透明與可預期之行為準則，以規範市場經濟競爭秩序與嚇阻跨國企業之壟斷勢力。因此反壟斷法於2007年8月31日制定通過，今(2008)年8月1日即將實行，完全針對限制競爭行為予以規範，詳細規範壟斷協議、經營者集中與相關企業責任，並訂定「行政性壟斷」專章，以保障大陸市場公平競爭與確保大陸順利邁向市場經濟之路，至此大陸競爭法制已然大致奠定。今後臺灣企業必須熟悉大陸競爭法之基本原則與詳細規定，以確保其在大陸之經濟行為免於違背相關競爭法令而招致重大損失。
經由歸納兩岸競爭法制之發展歷程與實體內容，法理評析其於產業策略聯盟之具體規範，本研究最後透過研析台灣企業開拓大陸市場實際發生之案例，包括青島海爾與台灣代工業者合作案、台泥與嘉泥之合作案、聯電與和艦技術合作案，以及統一集團維力購股案，逐案敘述案情摘要並嘗試評析其法理判斷之基礎，分析其策略聯盟之方式是否涉及兩岸競爭法問題，同時參酌兩岸競爭法制之運作，瞭解兩岸競爭法制之處理結果有無異同之處，從而對前往大陸開拓市場之企業提出具體之建議。

關鍵字

青島海爾 ； 策略聯盟 ； 聯電與和艦合作 ； 台泥與嘉泥結盟 ； 統一集團維力購股 ； 競爭法

並列摘要

In recent years domestic enterprises in abundance went forward to mainland China, not only eyeing on its huge market and inexpensive labor costs, but also responding to the needs for long-term development involving business adjustments or transformation. Enterprises today must seek to develop beyond the border to achieve the goal of sustaining operation. On the other hand, the open economy and enhanced foreign relationship policy adopted by mainland in the recent decade prompt the government to take charge the corresponding issues in economic and trade laws. Its scope certainly includes aspects on fair trades and free competition.
When analyzing patterns enterprises adopted in advancing to mainland, strategic alliance is generally regarded as the main approach. Seeking to maintain their competitive edges industries or manufacturers often form temporary relations of cooperation by combining each other’s competitive powers and aim to achieve a multiplication effect to the overall competitive advantages. However, strategic alliance often causes the reduction of actual or potential competitors and thus results in the hindrance, limiting or twist of market competition. This is damaging to the interests of consumers and the competitiveness or even the chance of survival of small enterprises. Government alike ought to inaugurate and implement competition laws in order to maintain the normal market competition and trade order.
Speaking of the legal systems on market competition at both sides of the Taiwan Straits, Taiwan announced the Fair Trade Law on February 4, 1991, and accordingly had it revised on January 15, 2002. The Fair Trade Law regulates both business behaviors that limit competition as well as activities of unfair competition. Mainland on the other hand, adopts a different legislation pattern by inaugurating separate laws to regulate behaviors that limit competition and activities of unfair competition. The Anti-improper Competition Law was inaugurated in September 2, 1993, and implemented in December 1, 1993. The Law in part covers business behavior that limits competition in a rather detailed manner. As such both legal scholars and practicing lawyers consider that the Anti-improper Competition Law not only regulates competition behaviors too substantially, but also may cause difficulties when engaging between the Anti-improper Competition Law and the competition law system.
Upon participating WTO, mainland is required of the transparency duty by WTO and must establish and implement a comprehensive competition legal system that provides an open, transparent and predictable behavior criterion to market operators and enterprisers. This is vital to maintain market competition orders and fence off potential monopoly often influenced by multinational enterprises in the open market. Therefore, the Anti-monopoly Law as inaugurated on August 31, 2007, and subjected to implementation on August 1, 2008 aims specifically at market behaviors that limit competition. It regulates market behaviors in great details that include monopoly agreements, centralization of market operators and related enterprise responsibilities. The chapter on “administrative monopoly”, which suits a unique condition in mainland, intends to guard fair market competition against its public-owned enterprises and to assure the advancement to market economy in a global scale. In accordance, Taiwan enterprises must be familiar with the basic principle and detailed stipulation of mainland’s competition law to avoid being trapped with unlawful behaviors and suffering economic losses when developing markets in the mainland.
This research studied the development history and detailed contents of competition laws at both sides of the straits, and offered to analyze their stipulation on strategic alliance. The research follows by analyzing four cases of actual Taiwanese enterprises developing market into mainland, including cooperation between the Haired(海爾) and Taiwan’s OEM companies, between the Taiwan Cement(台泥) and Cha-Ni Cement(嘉泥), the technological association between UMC(聯電) and 和艦technology companies, association between Uni-President Enterprises Corporation(UPEC)(統一企業) and Wei-Lih(維力) by stock holding. These cases were studied to explain whether associations in terms of strategic alliance actually involve rulings stipulated by competition laws at either side of the straits. By reference to actual legal practices in details, similarities and differences in the application of each competition legal system may be better comprehended. Practical suggestions to Taiwan enterprises seeking to develop the mainland market may be offered accordingly.

並列關鍵字

Competition Laws ； Centering on Strategic Alliance

參考文獻

22.顏曉筑，反傾銷制度與公共利益關係之研究，中原大學財經法律學系碩士論文，93年6月。

9.李素華，技術授權協議之限制約款與競爭法關係--由歐美立法看我國公平交易法適用，透析期別 88年03月，http://www.ftc.govtm/news0203.htm。

22.楊婉苓，合作研發政策及競爭法出碳—以歐盟為例，資策會科技法律中心。

1.吳姵潔，論反托拉斯法與專利授權之衡平—以專利集管為例，中原大學碩士論文，94年6月。

4.王文杰，中國大陸反不正當競爭法之研究，中國大陸研究，44卷7期，90年。