從法律經濟分析觀點論公平交易法第四十五條

本文的目的在檢討公平交易法四十五條之規定，除了假設上須待檢驗以外，在立法條文內容與實際運作採行的合理原則，分屬兩種不同的立場，以致於學說上出現分歧的見解，實際上只不過是在兩種不同的立場中間調整，卻使公平交易法的問題顯的十分混亂。該條文涉及專利法與公平交易法間的調和，專利的目的只是提供無體財產權的公示效果，使被創造出來的無體財產權所生的利益得以內部化，避免專利權人的技術被毫無成本的複製與剽竊，與公地悲劇道理是相當的，因此，專利權即可視為一般財產權，並不足以引起公平交易法的限制。財產權的行使也並非毫無限制，適用上應該可以採納美國法上的財產權保護規則，即財產規則與補償規則，法院具有足夠的形成空間，決定在甚麼條件下可以衡量雙方的利益，或是整體社會的利益，而限制專利權的行使範圍，或是彈性的採用補償規則的保護，不必然需透過公平交易法之主管機關進行干預，才能有效的避免專利權人過度的主張權利。在公平交易法的規定中，所謂的維持競爭，指的應該是維持經濟學定義的完全競爭狀態。但從新制度經濟學與芝加哥學派的觀點來看，競爭是一種動態的過程，而且必須要以促進消費者福利為考量，而效率是唯一促進消費者福利的標準。就理性廠商的角度而言，即便是獨占廠商，在市場的條件限制下，並不會發生定價過高的問題。新制度經濟學對於產業組織的解釋，採用交易成本的概念，認為企業的整合，無論是水平或垂直都有其必要性，理性的廠商不會無限制的擴張規模，以免管理成本高過於交易成本。芝加哥學派則以價格理論為基礎，說明反競爭行為，大多具有合理的基礎，除非廠商的行為很明顯的唯一目的是為組成市場的卡特爾或是獨占地位的達成。綜合新制度經濟學與芝加哥學派的主張，市場可以透過本身的市場機能決定均衡，而且行政管制在經濟上也容易產生管制無效率的問題，我國的公平交易法，參考了外國反托拉斯發展的經驗，大致上採取了合理原則。公平交易法四十五條的規定，實際上只是徒增困擾的規定。假設公平交易法的具正當性，即依照公平交易法的規定適用法律即可，不須因涉及專利而有不同的處理，惟應考量各種有效率的抗辯，做為阻卻事由，盡量賦予事業自由的市場運作，特別是在新經濟領域，創新的利益即可做為一種效率的抗辯事由，在合理原則中加以考慮讓公平交易法具有更高的彈性。

關鍵字

專利；公平交易；無體財產權；合理原則；新制度經濟學；芝加哥學派；消費者福利

並列摘要

The purpose of this thesis is to review the Article 45 of Fair Trade Act. Besides of being examined the hypothesis, there are two different standpoints in the content of the article itself and the reasonable principle adopted practically. For that, it leads to different academic views, which in fact are just the adjustments between the two standpoints, however, makes the problem between patent and antitrust confusing. This regulation is involved to the reconciling between Patent Act and Fair Trade Act. Patent is acted to declare the intangible property right and to internalize the profits of intangible property right created, in order to protect the owner’s techniques from being plagiarized and copied gratuitously, so as the tragedy of commons. Therefore, the patent right can be regarded as a general property right, and is not qualified to be limited by the Fair Trade Act. There are some limits on property rights, such as the property rule and liability rule applied in United States, should be adopted as the limits. With the discretion, the courts could decide to counterbalance interests of both parties or the society as a whole in some conditions, to restrict the scope of patent, or apply the liability rule with flexibility. It is not necessary to intervene by the authority of the Fair Trade Act to avoid the misuse of patent right. What so called the maintenance of competition in the Fair Trade Act means the definition of the state of perfect competition in economics. However, from the view of Neo-Institutional Economics and Chicago School, competition is a dynamic process, it needs to take the promotion of consumer’s welfare into consideration, and efficiency is the only standard. As rational player, the monopolized firm do not overprice under the conditions of the market. The Neo-Institutional Economics explains that any vertical or horizontal integration has its necessity with the concept of transaction costs. A rational firm do not expand its scale without any limits, and cause higher management. On the other hand, the Chicago School takes the price theory as the grounds to elaborate that most of the acts of Anti-competition have the justifications, unless the purpose of firm is very obvious to form a cartel in the market or to create monopoly. In sum of the ideals of the Neo-Institutional Economics and Chicago School, the market will be counterbalanced with the market mechanism by itself. In addition, administration regulations have some inefficient problems in Economics. So the Fair Trade Act is adopted with reasonable principle according to the experience of antitrust development. The article 45 of the Fair Trade Act is confusing. If the Fair Trade Act has the legitimacy, the dealing wouldn’t be different in the case with the patent or not. However, it should take each effective defense into consideration as justifiable causes, and endow enterprise into free market operation. The interests of innovation are an efficiency defense as justifiable cause in the new economic field particularly. The Fair Trade Act will be more flexible in thinking over these ideas while applying the reasonable principle.

並列關鍵字

Patent ； Fair Trade ； Intangible property right ； Reasonable principle ； Neo-institutional Economics ； Chicago school ； Consumer welfare

參考文獻

廖心予，智財權下臺灣專利法制的發展與挑戰：國民經濟的觀點，國立暨南大學碩士論文

張心悌，國際智慧財產權保護擴張與競爭法規範，東吳大學84年碩士論文

謝銘洋，智慧財產權法之發展與公平交易法之互動關係，律師雜誌，第315期， 2005年12月

KENNETH ARROW, ECONOMIC WELFARE AND THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES FOR INVENTION, THE RATE AND DIRECTION OF INVENTIVE ACTIVITY: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FACTORS (1962)

ROBERT. H. BORK, THE ANTITRUST PARADOX─ A POLICY AT WAR WITH ITSELF, Basik books, Inc. New York (1978)

國際替代計量

從法律經濟分析觀點論公平交易法第四十五條

全文下載

主題瀏覽