国际技术贸易合同中限制性条款研究
摘要
本文从限制性条款的含义入手,分析了限制性条款的产生原因与危害,得出必须管制限制性条款的结论。在此基础上,分析了管制限制性条款的法律基础,并介绍了几种典型的限制性条款。在介绍了限制性条款的有关国际立法后,从几个方面对各国的国内立法进行了比较分析,使各国对限制性条款的立法现状及不足之处都清晰的呈现出来,并落脚于我国的实际。
限制性条款的存在阻碍了国际技术贸易的正常发展,极大地损害了作为技术引进方的发展中国家的利益。我国也深受其害。限制性条款是知识产权滥用的一种形式。我国近年来不断提高知识产权的保护标准,对其限制不足。这不利于大量引进技术的我国的当事人,不利于我国技术的发展。因此,研究国际技术贸易合同中的限制性条款有其现实意义。
The Restrictive Clause in the international technology trade is generally defined as the contract clause that the licensor applies to the licensee, restricting his technology’s acquisition, using and improving, taking advantage of the licensor’s superiority in technology. Those clauses have adverse effect towards the market competition in the international technology trade, especially towards developing countries like china, who usually act as licensees in the licensing trade. So it is of particular practical significance for China to explore the restrictive clauses. The Restrictive Clause is a form of the abuse of Intellectual Property Rights, and States generally control it by the anti-monopoly law. Those clauses have reflected the paradoxical relationship between intellectual property and antimonopoly which is that intellectual property constitutes a justified monopoly and therefore is an exception to antimonopoly; nevertheless, an exercise of intellectual property right should not hinder competition, otherwise it is also regulated by antimonopoly.
The restrictive clauses have various types, but there are different classification and provisions in States, and the world has not come to an uniform provision for it. However, several typical restrictive clauses have been widely recognized by countries in the world, for example, clauses about tying provisions, clauses of feedback, clauses of not questioned, technological advances restricted clauses, and clauses of restrictions on exports of technology products.
The problem of restrictive clauses exists in almost all countries, but there are differences on its judging principle, sanctions, and management bodies between countries. Such differences are not conducive to the further development of national economy, and contrary to the Global Unity Movement with the economic and legal. In order to harmonize the divaricator of countries in the restrictive clause, the international society has tried times .In this thesis, a brief introduction is given to the trials of International uniform legislation for the restrictive clause, and the emphases is attached on the relevant rules of TRIPS. But the provisions of these legal documents are too principles, lacking of workable, specific measures. Furthermore, as a regional international organization, EU’s legislation about the restrictive clauses is fairly mature. European Commission promulgated TTBER in 2004.It determined the scope of exemption, the market share datum to exempt, and the core qualifying clause not applying to exemption.
A series of international legal document, which is released by international organization such as United Nations, is not mature; Even TRIPS leaves the problem to the domestic legislation. It makes various countries' domestic law becomes the main basis to control the restrictive clauses. Moreover, the legislative practice of related country and area is changing with each passing day. But, the legislation about restrictive clauses is very different between countries. The difference mainly manifests between the developed countries and the developing countries. First, it is different in legal origin. The developed countries controls the restrictive clauses by the antimonopoly law as a whole, and makes adjustment by the independent regulations or acts according to the technology trade's characteristic simultaneously; But the developing countries makes the restrictive clauses explicitly through the skill transfer law, which focuses on the particularity of the technology trade. Next, it has a different understanding on judging principle about restrictive clauses between countries. The developed countries use the competition standard generally, but the developing countries mostly use the development standard. Third, it’s different in the appraisal rule. Developed countries use the“itself illegal principle”and the“reasonable principle”generally; But the developing countries mostly use the method which enumerates, stipulate each forbids clause explicitly, and also gives Department responsible right for the work of certain or refusal simultaneously. Fourth, it is different in the control measure towards the restrictive clauses. In the developed countries, it has a strict sanction if you violate the antimonopoly law; But the developing countries only request the litigants to amending the restrictive clause usually.
The restrictive clauses are controlled by Contract Law, Foreign Trade Law, Antimonopoly Law, mainly the Antimonopoly Law. The progress of the Antimonopoly Law mainly manifests in the following three aspects. Firstly, it forbids two kind of behaviors in the 14th article, which similar to“the itself illegal principle”in the American antimonopoly law; Other types should use“reasonable principle”, because they have the rationality in many situations. Moreover, the third section in the 14th article is a all in all provisions. This legislation made major progress compared with before. Secondly, Article 15 provides for exemption of seven cases, and the seventh section is a all in all provisions. These not only increased the legal stability and predictability, but also cope with the new situation at any time, without losing flexibility. Thirdly, it’s made great progress in the law enforcement system. It draws on committed system in European Union competition law, and the forgiveness policies in United States antitrust law, which improving the efficiency of the anti-monopoly law enforcement; In the legal responsibility, the Anti-monopoly Law increased penalties, greatly improved the legal deterrent. But, even if our country has released Antimonopoly Law newly, the legislation related to the restrictive clauses still had its deficiency. This is mainly manifested in the following aspects: in the building of the agencies for anti-monopoly enforcement, a number of agencies enforces the law separately, which will undoubtedly affect the effectiveness and authority of the law; Lacks the review and monitoring mechanism, also lacks judicial relief system to the subject and the victim.
For repairing shortages of law and perfecting legislation system as for international technique exchanges in China, according to analyzing domestic state of legislation and legislative experience of other countries, we may improve our countries' relevant legislation from the following aspects: First, adopt the“competition standards”and the“development standard”together on the judging principle. Because the two parties of developed countries and developing countries do not make compromise easily under the present situation, and double standard is unrealistic, also not inconsistent with developing countries’interests. Second, instituting a operable accreditation rule for the restrictive clauses .Such accreditation rule may include, but not limited to the following aspects: whether the contents of the restrictions subjects to legal protection of the rights of the technology transfer parties, whether the contents of the restriction is helpful in sustaining and improving development of international technology transfer, and whether the contents of the restriction is harmful to the free competition. Third, The State Council should establish a unified and independent agency for carrying Anti-Monopoly Law out, and giving it more independence, quasi-judicial powers and more responsibilities; Fourth, aggravating legal liability of restrictive behavior in the set of the legal responsibility, including specific provisions in civil damages standards, introducing punitive damages system, increasing amount of administrative fine, imposing criminal liability to serious illegal restrictive behavior. In addition, the relevant regulations of the anti-monopoly law should be established as soon as possible.
限制性条款的存在阻碍了国际技术贸易的正常发展,极大地损害了作为技术引进方的发展中国家的利益。我国也深受其害。限制性条款是知识产权滥用的一种形式。我国近年来不断提高知识产权的保护标准,对其限制不足。这不利于大量引进技术的我国的当事人,不利于我国技术的发展。因此,研究国际技术贸易合同中的限制性条款有其现实意义。
The Restrictive Clause in the international technology trade is generally defined as the contract clause that the licensor applies to the licensee, restricting his technology’s acquisition, using and improving, taking advantage of the licensor’s superiority in technology. Those clauses have adverse effect towards the market competition in the international technology trade, especially towards developing countries like china, who usually act as licensees in the licensing trade. So it is of particular practical significance for China to explore the restrictive clauses. The Restrictive Clause is a form of the abuse of Intellectual Property Rights, and States generally control it by the anti-monopoly law. Those clauses have reflected the paradoxical relationship between intellectual property and antimonopoly which is that intellectual property constitutes a justified monopoly and therefore is an exception to antimonopoly; nevertheless, an exercise of intellectual property right should not hinder competition, otherwise it is also regulated by antimonopoly.
The restrictive clauses have various types, but there are different classification and provisions in States, and the world has not come to an uniform provision for it. However, several typical restrictive clauses have been widely recognized by countries in the world, for example, clauses about tying provisions, clauses of feedback, clauses of not questioned, technological advances restricted clauses, and clauses of restrictions on exports of technology products.
The problem of restrictive clauses exists in almost all countries, but there are differences on its judging principle, sanctions, and management bodies between countries. Such differences are not conducive to the further development of national economy, and contrary to the Global Unity Movement with the economic and legal. In order to harmonize the divaricator of countries in the restrictive clause, the international society has tried times .In this thesis, a brief introduction is given to the trials of International uniform legislation for the restrictive clause, and the emphases is attached on the relevant rules of TRIPS. But the provisions of these legal documents are too principles, lacking of workable, specific measures. Furthermore, as a regional international organization, EU’s legislation about the restrictive clauses is fairly mature. European Commission promulgated TTBER in 2004.It determined the scope of exemption, the market share datum to exempt, and the core qualifying clause not applying to exemption.
A series of international legal document, which is released by international organization such as United Nations, is not mature; Even TRIPS leaves the problem to the domestic legislation. It makes various countries' domestic law becomes the main basis to control the restrictive clauses. Moreover, the legislative practice of related country and area is changing with each passing day. But, the legislation about restrictive clauses is very different between countries. The difference mainly manifests between the developed countries and the developing countries. First, it is different in legal origin. The developed countries controls the restrictive clauses by the antimonopoly law as a whole, and makes adjustment by the independent regulations or acts according to the technology trade's characteristic simultaneously; But the developing countries makes the restrictive clauses explicitly through the skill transfer law, which focuses on the particularity of the technology trade. Next, it has a different understanding on judging principle about restrictive clauses between countries. The developed countries use the competition standard generally, but the developing countries mostly use the development standard. Third, it’s different in the appraisal rule. Developed countries use the“itself illegal principle”and the“reasonable principle”generally; But the developing countries mostly use the method which enumerates, stipulate each forbids clause explicitly, and also gives Department responsible right for the work of certain or refusal simultaneously. Fourth, it is different in the control measure towards the restrictive clauses. In the developed countries, it has a strict sanction if you violate the antimonopoly law; But the developing countries only request the litigants to amending the restrictive clause usually.
The restrictive clauses are controlled by Contract Law, Foreign Trade Law, Antimonopoly Law, mainly the Antimonopoly Law. The progress of the Antimonopoly Law mainly manifests in the following three aspects. Firstly, it forbids two kind of behaviors in the 14th article, which similar to“the itself illegal principle”in the American antimonopoly law; Other types should use“reasonable principle”, because they have the rationality in many situations. Moreover, the third section in the 14th article is a all in all provisions. This legislation made major progress compared with before. Secondly, Article 15 provides for exemption of seven cases, and the seventh section is a all in all provisions. These not only increased the legal stability and predictability, but also cope with the new situation at any time, without losing flexibility. Thirdly, it’s made great progress in the law enforcement system. It draws on committed system in European Union competition law, and the forgiveness policies in United States antitrust law, which improving the efficiency of the anti-monopoly law enforcement; In the legal responsibility, the Anti-monopoly Law increased penalties, greatly improved the legal deterrent. But, even if our country has released Antimonopoly Law newly, the legislation related to the restrictive clauses still had its deficiency. This is mainly manifested in the following aspects: in the building of the agencies for anti-monopoly enforcement, a number of agencies enforces the law separately, which will undoubtedly affect the effectiveness and authority of the law; Lacks the review and monitoring mechanism, also lacks judicial relief system to the subject and the victim.
For repairing shortages of law and perfecting legislation system as for international technique exchanges in China, according to analyzing domestic state of legislation and legislative experience of other countries, we may improve our countries' relevant legislation from the following aspects: First, adopt the“competition standards”and the“development standard”together on the judging principle. Because the two parties of developed countries and developing countries do not make compromise easily under the present situation, and double standard is unrealistic, also not inconsistent with developing countries’interests. Second, instituting a operable accreditation rule for the restrictive clauses .Such accreditation rule may include, but not limited to the following aspects: whether the contents of the restrictions subjects to legal protection of the rights of the technology transfer parties, whether the contents of the restriction is helpful in sustaining and improving development of international technology transfer, and whether the contents of the restriction is harmful to the free competition. Third, The State Council should establish a unified and independent agency for carrying Anti-Monopoly Law out, and giving it more independence, quasi-judicial powers and more responsibilities; Fourth, aggravating legal liability of restrictive behavior in the set of the legal responsibility, including specific provisions in civil damages standards, introducing punitive damages system, increasing amount of administrative fine, imposing criminal liability to serious illegal restrictive behavior. In addition, the relevant regulations of the anti-monopoly law should be established as soon as possible.
引文
1. 参见许雪卫:《论知识产权许可中的限制性条款的法律规制》,苏州大学 2005 年硕士学位论文,第 4 页。
2. 古祖雪:《论国际技术贸易中的知识产权限制》,《当代法学》2005 年第 2 期,第 24 页。
3. 参见陈鲸宇:《试析国际技术转让中限制性商业条款与反限制》,http://ielaw.com.cn/article/default.asp?id=5220,2007 年 12 月 9 日。
4. 张丽娜:《论国际许可合同中的限制性条款》,《河北法学》2003 年第3 期,第 135 页。
5. 参见韩永强:《国际技术转让合同中的限制性条款及其法律规制》,广东外语外贸大学 2006 年硕士学位论文,第 3 页。
6. 参见韩永强:《国际技术转让合同中的限制性条款及其法律规制》,广东外语外贸大学 2006 年硕士学位论文,第 6 页。
7. 郑成思:《知识产权与反垄断法》,法律出版社 2001 年第 1 版,第 83页。
8. 王源扩:《试论与知识产权有关的反竞争行为及其法律控制》,《政法论坛》1996 年第 4 期,第 67 页。
9. 参见王先林:《知识产权与反垄断法的冲突和协调》,《法制日报》2002年 12 月 17 日第 4 版。
10. 参见王先林:《从微软垄断案看知识产权滥用的反垄断控制》,《法学家》2001 年第 3 期,第 98 页。
11. 参见欧阳萍萍:《知识产权许可协议限制竞争行为及其规制研究》,西南交通大学 2007 年硕士学位论文,第 14 页。
12. 参见刘亚军:《国际技术转让中的限制性商业惯例及其法律管制》,《宁夏社会科学》2004 年第 5 期,第 15 页。
13. 陈绍蓉:《国际技术转让法理论与实践》,人民出版社 1999 年第 1 版,第 249 页。
14. 黄权伟:《浅析国际技术引进中的限制性条款》,《商场现代化》2005年第 28 期,第 320 页。
15. 参见乔生:《中国限制外国企业对知识产权滥用的立法思考》,《法律科学》2004 年第 1 期,第 112 页。
16. 参见白莹:《国际技术贸易中的限制性商业条款及对我国相关立法建议》,华东政法学院 2004 年硕士学位论文,第 27 页。
17. 孔祥俊:《反垄断法原理》,中国法制出版社 2001 年第 1 版,第 166页。
18. 王晓晔:《反垄断法——中国经济体制改革的里程碑》,《法制日报》2007 年 9 月 2 日第 10 版。
19. 参见丁磊:《浅议<反垄断法>中的几个问题》,《黑龙江省社会主义学院学报》2007 年第 4 期,第 49 页。
20. 参见白莹:《国际技术贸易中的限制性商业条款及对我国相关立法建议》,华东政法学院 2004 年硕士学位论文,第 39—40 页。
21. 但美国人并不认为这是一个好经验。因为管辖权重合的两个联邦机构执行反托拉斯法与一个执法机构相比,肯定是成本高而效率低。参见王晓晔:《我国反垄断行政执法机构多元化的难题》,《中国发展观察》2006 年第 9 期,第 58 页。
22. 参见刘晓农、李忠青、刘英生:《我国<反垄断法>的立法完善》,《江西社会科学》2007 年第 11 期,第 159 页。
1. 郑成思:《知识产权与反垄断法》,法律出版社 2001 年版。
2. 古祖雪:《国际知识产权法》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
3. 郑成思:《知识产权法》,法律出版社 2001 年版。
4. 孔祥俊:《反垄断法原理》,中国法制出版社 2001 年版。
5. 杨帆:《国际知识产权贸易法》,高等教育出版社 2005 年版。
6. 沈四宝、王秉乾:《中国对外贸易法》,法律出版社 2006 年版。
7. 郑曙光:《产权交易法》,中国检察出版社 2005 年版。
8. 王先林:《规制知识产权的权利行使》,知识产权出版社 2004 年版。
9. 马忠勤:《公平交易执法》,北京工业大学出版社 2003 年版。
10. 王先林:《知识产权与反垄断法》,法律出版社 2001 年版。
11. 吴宏伟:《竞争法有关问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社 2000 年版。
12. 包锡妹:《反垄断法的经济分析》,中国社会科学出版社 2003 年版。
13. 蔡四青:《国际技术贸易与知识产权》,中国社会科学出版社 2007 年版。
14. 徐士英:《竞争法新论》,北京大学出版社 2006 年版。
15. 王玉清、赵承壁:《国际技术贸易——技术贸易与知识产权》,对外经济贸易大学出版社 2005 年版。
15. 饶友玲:《国际技术贸易》,南开大学出版社 2003 年版。
16. 饶友玲:《国际技术贸易理论与实务》,南开大学出版社 2006 年版。
17. 陈绍蓉:《国际技术转让法理论与实践》,人民出版社 1999 年版。
18. 王晓哗:《欧共体竞争法》,中国法制出版社 2001 年版。
19. 曹士兵:《反垄断法研究》,法律出版社 1996 年版。
20. 姚梅镇:《比较外资法》,武汉大学出版社 1993 年版。
21. 陶鑫良主编:《上海知识产权论坛(第二辑)》,知识产权出版社2004 年版。
22. 唐安邦主编:《中国知识产权保护前沿问题与 WTO 知识产权》,法律出版社 2004 年版。
23. 郑胜利主编:《北大知识产权评论》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
24. [日]富田彻男:《市场竞争中的知识产权》,商务印书馆 2000 年版。
25. [美]德雷特勒:《知识产权许可》,王春燕等译,清华大学出版社 2003年版。
1. 古祖雪:《论国际技术贸易中的知识产权限制》,载《当代法学》2005年第 2 期。
2. 张丽娜:《论国际许可合同中的限制性条款》,载《河北法学》2003年第 3 期。
3. 王先林:《从微软垄断案看知识产权滥用的反垄断控制》,载《法学家》2001 年第 3 期。
4. 刘亚军:《国际技术转让中的限制性商业惯例及其法律管制》,载《宁夏社会科学》2004 年第 5 期。
5. 乔生:《中国限制外国企业对知识产权滥用的立法思考》,载《法律科学》2004 年第 1 期。
6. 丁磊:《浅议<反垄断法>中的几个问题》,载《黑龙江省社会主义学院学报》2007 年第 4 期。
7. 刘晓农、李忠青、刘英生:《我国<反垄断法>的立法完善》,载《江西社会科学》2007 年第 11 期。
8. 刘天君:《知识产权滥用行为与反垄断法的调控》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》2006 年第 6 期。
9. 王晓晔:《反垄断法——中国经济体制改革的里程碑》,载《法制日报》2007 年 9 月 2 日第 10 版。
10. 王晓晔:《我国反垄断行政执法机构多元化的难题》,载《中国发展观察》2006 年第 9 期。
11. 陈婷、冯都:《国际技术贸易合同中的限制性条款及其处理》,载《黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报》2007 年第 4 期。
12. 黄权伟:《浅析国际技术引进中的限制性条款》,载《商场现代化》2005年第 28 期。
13. 王先林:《知识产权与反垄断法的冲突和协调》,载《法制日报》2002年 12 月 17 日第 4 版。
14. 胡充寒:《国际专利许可合同的限制性条款探析》,载《河北法学》2002年第 3 期。
15. 沈鸿:《国际技术贸易中的限制性条款及其法律管制》,载《广东商学院学报》2005 年第 5 期。
16. 叶昌富:《国际技术转让中对限制性商业行为的法律调整》,载《广东外语外贸大学学报》2002 年第 1 期。
17. 赵小平:《国际许可协议中的限制性条款研究》,载《山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004 年第 1 期。
18. 王俭:《限制性惯例的国际对策比较》,载《北方经贸》2000 年第 6期。
19. 禹华英:《国际技术贸易中的限制性商业条款》,载《现代法学》1998年第 4 期。
20. 王源扩:《试论与知识产权有关的反竞争行为及其法律控制》,载《政法论坛》1996 年第 4 期。
2. 古祖雪:《论国际技术贸易中的知识产权限制》,《当代法学》2005 年第 2 期,第 24 页。
3. 参见陈鲸宇:《试析国际技术转让中限制性商业条款与反限制》,http://ielaw.com.cn/article/default.asp?id=5220,2007 年 12 月 9 日。
4. 张丽娜:《论国际许可合同中的限制性条款》,《河北法学》2003 年第3 期,第 135 页。
5. 参见韩永强:《国际技术转让合同中的限制性条款及其法律规制》,广东外语外贸大学 2006 年硕士学位论文,第 3 页。
6. 参见韩永强:《国际技术转让合同中的限制性条款及其法律规制》,广东外语外贸大学 2006 年硕士学位论文,第 6 页。
7. 郑成思:《知识产权与反垄断法》,法律出版社 2001 年第 1 版,第 83页。
8. 王源扩:《试论与知识产权有关的反竞争行为及其法律控制》,《政法论坛》1996 年第 4 期,第 67 页。
9. 参见王先林:《知识产权与反垄断法的冲突和协调》,《法制日报》2002年 12 月 17 日第 4 版。
10. 参见王先林:《从微软垄断案看知识产权滥用的反垄断控制》,《法学家》2001 年第 3 期,第 98 页。
11. 参见欧阳萍萍:《知识产权许可协议限制竞争行为及其规制研究》,西南交通大学 2007 年硕士学位论文,第 14 页。
12. 参见刘亚军:《国际技术转让中的限制性商业惯例及其法律管制》,《宁夏社会科学》2004 年第 5 期,第 15 页。
13. 陈绍蓉:《国际技术转让法理论与实践》,人民出版社 1999 年第 1 版,第 249 页。
14. 黄权伟:《浅析国际技术引进中的限制性条款》,《商场现代化》2005年第 28 期,第 320 页。
15. 参见乔生:《中国限制外国企业对知识产权滥用的立法思考》,《法律科学》2004 年第 1 期,第 112 页。
16. 参见白莹:《国际技术贸易中的限制性商业条款及对我国相关立法建议》,华东政法学院 2004 年硕士学位论文,第 27 页。
17. 孔祥俊:《反垄断法原理》,中国法制出版社 2001 年第 1 版,第 166页。
18. 王晓晔:《反垄断法——中国经济体制改革的里程碑》,《法制日报》2007 年 9 月 2 日第 10 版。
19. 参见丁磊:《浅议<反垄断法>中的几个问题》,《黑龙江省社会主义学院学报》2007 年第 4 期,第 49 页。
20. 参见白莹:《国际技术贸易中的限制性商业条款及对我国相关立法建议》,华东政法学院 2004 年硕士学位论文,第 39—40 页。
21. 但美国人并不认为这是一个好经验。因为管辖权重合的两个联邦机构执行反托拉斯法与一个执法机构相比,肯定是成本高而效率低。参见王晓晔:《我国反垄断行政执法机构多元化的难题》,《中国发展观察》2006 年第 9 期,第 58 页。
22. 参见刘晓农、李忠青、刘英生:《我国<反垄断法>的立法完善》,《江西社会科学》2007 年第 11 期,第 159 页。
1. 郑成思:《知识产权与反垄断法》,法律出版社 2001 年版。
2. 古祖雪:《国际知识产权法》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
3. 郑成思:《知识产权法》,法律出版社 2001 年版。
4. 孔祥俊:《反垄断法原理》,中国法制出版社 2001 年版。
5. 杨帆:《国际知识产权贸易法》,高等教育出版社 2005 年版。
6. 沈四宝、王秉乾:《中国对外贸易法》,法律出版社 2006 年版。
7. 郑曙光:《产权交易法》,中国检察出版社 2005 年版。
8. 王先林:《规制知识产权的权利行使》,知识产权出版社 2004 年版。
9. 马忠勤:《公平交易执法》,北京工业大学出版社 2003 年版。
10. 王先林:《知识产权与反垄断法》,法律出版社 2001 年版。
11. 吴宏伟:《竞争法有关问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社 2000 年版。
12. 包锡妹:《反垄断法的经济分析》,中国社会科学出版社 2003 年版。
13. 蔡四青:《国际技术贸易与知识产权》,中国社会科学出版社 2007 年版。
14. 徐士英:《竞争法新论》,北京大学出版社 2006 年版。
15. 王玉清、赵承壁:《国际技术贸易——技术贸易与知识产权》,对外经济贸易大学出版社 2005 年版。
15. 饶友玲:《国际技术贸易》,南开大学出版社 2003 年版。
16. 饶友玲:《国际技术贸易理论与实务》,南开大学出版社 2006 年版。
17. 陈绍蓉:《国际技术转让法理论与实践》,人民出版社 1999 年版。
18. 王晓哗:《欧共体竞争法》,中国法制出版社 2001 年版。
19. 曹士兵:《反垄断法研究》,法律出版社 1996 年版。
20. 姚梅镇:《比较外资法》,武汉大学出版社 1993 年版。
21. 陶鑫良主编:《上海知识产权论坛(第二辑)》,知识产权出版社2004 年版。
22. 唐安邦主编:《中国知识产权保护前沿问题与 WTO 知识产权》,法律出版社 2004 年版。
23. 郑胜利主编:《北大知识产权评论》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
24. [日]富田彻男:《市场竞争中的知识产权》,商务印书馆 2000 年版。
25. [美]德雷特勒:《知识产权许可》,王春燕等译,清华大学出版社 2003年版。
1. 古祖雪:《论国际技术贸易中的知识产权限制》,载《当代法学》2005年第 2 期。
2. 张丽娜:《论国际许可合同中的限制性条款》,载《河北法学》2003年第 3 期。
3. 王先林:《从微软垄断案看知识产权滥用的反垄断控制》,载《法学家》2001 年第 3 期。
4. 刘亚军:《国际技术转让中的限制性商业惯例及其法律管制》,载《宁夏社会科学》2004 年第 5 期。
5. 乔生:《中国限制外国企业对知识产权滥用的立法思考》,载《法律科学》2004 年第 1 期。
6. 丁磊:《浅议<反垄断法>中的几个问题》,载《黑龙江省社会主义学院学报》2007 年第 4 期。
7. 刘晓农、李忠青、刘英生:《我国<反垄断法>的立法完善》,载《江西社会科学》2007 年第 11 期。
8. 刘天君:《知识产权滥用行为与反垄断法的调控》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》2006 年第 6 期。
9. 王晓晔:《反垄断法——中国经济体制改革的里程碑》,载《法制日报》2007 年 9 月 2 日第 10 版。
10. 王晓晔:《我国反垄断行政执法机构多元化的难题》,载《中国发展观察》2006 年第 9 期。
11. 陈婷、冯都:《国际技术贸易合同中的限制性条款及其处理》,载《黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报》2007 年第 4 期。
12. 黄权伟:《浅析国际技术引进中的限制性条款》,载《商场现代化》2005年第 28 期。
13. 王先林:《知识产权与反垄断法的冲突和协调》,载《法制日报》2002年 12 月 17 日第 4 版。
14. 胡充寒:《国际专利许可合同的限制性条款探析》,载《河北法学》2002年第 3 期。
15. 沈鸿:《国际技术贸易中的限制性条款及其法律管制》,载《广东商学院学报》2005 年第 5 期。
16. 叶昌富:《国际技术转让中对限制性商业行为的法律调整》,载《广东外语外贸大学学报》2002 年第 1 期。
17. 赵小平:《国际许可协议中的限制性条款研究》,载《山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004 年第 1 期。
18. 王俭:《限制性惯例的国际对策比较》,载《北方经贸》2000 年第 6期。
19. 禹华英:《国际技术贸易中的限制性商业条款》,载《现代法学》1998年第 4 期。
20. 王源扩:《试论与知识产权有关的反竞争行为及其法律控制》,载《政法论坛》1996 年第 4 期。