非营利性组织的反垄断法问题研究
|
摘要
非营利性组织是社会组织的基本形式之一，进入21世纪以来，一些主要的发达国家如美国、英国以及加拿大等国家越来越重视和保障非营利性组织的发展，非营利性组织在各国的经济、政治、文化以及国际事务中扮演着越来越重要的角色。然而，非营利性组织垄断或限制竞争的问题却往往很少引起社会的关注。
反垄断作为市场经济国家的“经济宪法”，应当而且可以适用于包括非营利性组织在内的所有市场主体。但是，即使是反垄断法相当发达的美国，其反垄断法也并非一开始就适用于非营利性组织。在反垄断法施行的早期，非营利性组织的活动往往从反垄断法的审查中豁免。其基本原因在于，早期反垄断法的出台源于美国社会对经济权力集中的担心，立法的主要目的在于控制企业经济力量的集中以及企业的垄断行为，非营利性组织的活动由于不具有商业性，并不在反垄断法审查的范围之内。同时，美国社会还存在一种传统的“行业豁免”的观念，即大部分的美国人都认同，行业协会作为一个非营利的行业组织，与商业相独立，必须进行自我管理，这种自治比外界的法律更为有效。此外，从反垄断法追求的价值目标来看，促进市场的自由竞争与经济效率、维护社会公平和关注消费者利益都是公共利益的重要内容。反垄断法是公共利益之法，而非营利性组织也代表了一种公共利益，非营利性组织追求的利益与反垄断法追求的价值在某种程度上具有一致性，因此，非营利性组织的活动能得到反垄断法的豁免。
随着经济发展的深入，非营利性组织限制竞争的问题凸显，美国反垄断法才开始关注非营利性组织的活动。从20世纪60年代开始，美国反垄断法适用的范围逐渐扩大，豁免的主体范围也随之缩小。对于非营利性组织从反垄断法中豁免的行为，经济学家和社会学家对其采取了一种批判性的态度并认为，非营利性组织和其他商业人士一样，同样具有追逐利润最大化的特点，不应该从反垄断法中豁免。随后大量的案例也表明，不仅是一些传统的非营利性组织如医院、学校开始走进反垄断的视野，一些职业行业协会的行为甚至州的行政性垄断行为也都纳入反垄断规制范围。
美国反垄断法判断限制竞争行为是否违法的基本依据是《谢尔曼法》第1条，美国的法官们在司法实践中其进行了不同的解释，形成了现今反垄断分析的两种基本方法，即“本身违法”与“合理法则”，这同样成为分析非营利性组织限制竞争的行为的基本方法。基于非营利性组织有不同的类型，本文认为，反垄断法执法机关和法院对不同类型的非营利性组织运用的分析方法也是存在差异的。对于企业型非营利性组织限制竞争的行为，一般要根据行为的性质，适用“本身违法”或“合理法则”进行分析；而对于事业型非营利性组织的限制竞争行为，反垄断法一般适用“合理法则”来分析。除此之外，不以营利性为主的非营利性组织在承担法律责任时，还需要与企业承担法律责任的情况相区别。
回到我国的发展问题上，作为一个发展中国家，我国尚未对非营利性组织做出法律上统一、严格的界定和划分，面对非营利性组织限制竞争的行为，我国法律并无明确规定；加上一些观念的影响，我国《反垄断法》在立法上和实践中都把规制垄断行为的实施主体限定为了企业，大量的非营利性的社会组织如教育、医疗、体育、慈善以及文化机构被《反垄断法》排除在外。随着人们生活水平的提高以及对公共物品需求的不断增加，非营利性组织限制竞争或垄断的问题越来越多，这种状况影响到了我国新一轮事业单位改革的进程，也损害了消费者的权益，因此，本文在借鉴发达国家反垄断法规制非营利性组织的经验上，探讨我国《反垄断法》对非营利性组织的适用具有十分重要的现实意义。
Nonprofit organization (NPO) is one of the basic forms of social organization.Some developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom as well asCanada have paid more and more attention on the development of NPOs in the21stcentury. NPOs are playing an increasingly important role in economy, politics, cultureand international affairs. However, there is little concern of NPO’s monopolization andcompetition restriction.
As the Economic Constitution of market economy country, the antitrust lawshould be applied to all market players, including non-profit organizations andprofit-seeking organizations. However, the antitrust law was not applied to NPOs fromthe very beginning even in United States, where antitrust law was well developed. Thebasic purpose of antitrust law is to control concentration of economic power andmonopolistic behavior of enterprises, and NPOs were exempt from the review of theantitrust law in the early period of the antitrust law for the reason that they were notcommercial. And at the same time, there existed a tradition of industry exemption inAmerican, and most Americans agree industry associations as Nonprofit organizationsare independent from profit seeking organizations and should be self-managed whichwould be more effective than law-governing. In addition, the antitrust law aims topromote competition and economic efficiency, safeguard social fairness and concernfor the interests of consumers, which are important dimensions of public interest. Andthe antitrust law represents public interest which is consistent in the pursuit of theinterests with antitrust NPOs, therefore, NPOs got the antitrust exemption.
With the development of economy, the problem of competition restriction aroseup, and the U S antitrust law started to pay attention to the activities of NPOs. From1960s, the scope of U S antitrust law application was gradually expanded and the scopeof exemption was shrinking. Regarding to the exemption from the antitrust laws forNPOs, economists and sociologists take a critical attitude and believe that NPOs aswell as other business organizations are pursuing profit maximization and thereforeshould not be exempted from the antitrust law. Indicated by a large number of casesfollowed, not only some of the traditional non-profit organizations such as hospitals,schools but also professional industry associations even state administration began toenter the vision of antitrust field.
The fundamental basis of the U S antitrust law to determine illegal restriction ofcompetition is Sherman Act1, while the judges of the United States had differentinterpretations in the judicial practice, which formed two basic methods of modernantitrust analysis, namely Illegal per se rule and the rule of reason, and these methods arethe basic methods in analyzing the behavior of competition restriction of NPOs. Basedon different types of nonprofit organizations, the paper argues that enforcementagencies and courts are using different analysis methods in antitrust problem of NPOs.Competition restriction of entrepreneurial nonprofit organizations should be based onthe nature of the act and apply self-illegal or reasonable rule for analysis whilerestriction of competition for the non-profit organizations should apply reasonable rulefor analysis. In addition, NPOs should be different in judicial liability bearingcompared with that of business enterprises.
As a developing country, China has made no unified legal and strict definition anddivision of nonprofit organizations, and Chinese law has no explicit statementregarding NPOs’ competition restriction behavior. The implementation body ofcompetition restriction behavior in the legislation and practice in China is confined toenterprises, a large number of NPOs in education, health care, sports, charitable andculture are excluded from the application scope of antitrust law. With the improvementof people's living standards and the increasing demand for public goods, competitionrestriction of NPOs are gaining more attention, which would not only affects theprocess of China's further reform of social institutions but also undermines consumer'sinterests. This article discusses the applicability of antitrust law to China's NPOs fromthe experience of developed countries, which would have important practicalsignificance.
反垄断作为市场经济国家的“经济宪法”，应当而且可以适用于包括非营利性组织在内的所有市场主体。但是，即使是反垄断法相当发达的美国，其反垄断法也并非一开始就适用于非营利性组织。在反垄断法施行的早期，非营利性组织的活动往往从反垄断法的审查中豁免。其基本原因在于，早期反垄断法的出台源于美国社会对经济权力集中的担心，立法的主要目的在于控制企业经济力量的集中以及企业的垄断行为，非营利性组织的活动由于不具有商业性，并不在反垄断法审查的范围之内。同时，美国社会还存在一种传统的“行业豁免”的观念，即大部分的美国人都认同，行业协会作为一个非营利的行业组织，与商业相独立，必须进行自我管理，这种自治比外界的法律更为有效。此外，从反垄断法追求的价值目标来看，促进市场的自由竞争与经济效率、维护社会公平和关注消费者利益都是公共利益的重要内容。反垄断法是公共利益之法，而非营利性组织也代表了一种公共利益，非营利性组织追求的利益与反垄断法追求的价值在某种程度上具有一致性，因此，非营利性组织的活动能得到反垄断法的豁免。
随着经济发展的深入，非营利性组织限制竞争的问题凸显，美国反垄断法才开始关注非营利性组织的活动。从20世纪60年代开始，美国反垄断法适用的范围逐渐扩大，豁免的主体范围也随之缩小。对于非营利性组织从反垄断法中豁免的行为，经济学家和社会学家对其采取了一种批判性的态度并认为，非营利性组织和其他商业人士一样，同样具有追逐利润最大化的特点，不应该从反垄断法中豁免。随后大量的案例也表明，不仅是一些传统的非营利性组织如医院、学校开始走进反垄断的视野，一些职业行业协会的行为甚至州的行政性垄断行为也都纳入反垄断规制范围。
美国反垄断法判断限制竞争行为是否违法的基本依据是《谢尔曼法》第1条，美国的法官们在司法实践中其进行了不同的解释，形成了现今反垄断分析的两种基本方法，即“本身违法”与“合理法则”，这同样成为分析非营利性组织限制竞争的行为的基本方法。基于非营利性组织有不同的类型，本文认为，反垄断法执法机关和法院对不同类型的非营利性组织运用的分析方法也是存在差异的。对于企业型非营利性组织限制竞争的行为，一般要根据行为的性质，适用“本身违法”或“合理法则”进行分析；而对于事业型非营利性组织的限制竞争行为，反垄断法一般适用“合理法则”来分析。除此之外，不以营利性为主的非营利性组织在承担法律责任时，还需要与企业承担法律责任的情况相区别。
回到我国的发展问题上，作为一个发展中国家，我国尚未对非营利性组织做出法律上统一、严格的界定和划分，面对非营利性组织限制竞争的行为，我国法律并无明确规定；加上一些观念的影响，我国《反垄断法》在立法上和实践中都把规制垄断行为的实施主体限定为了企业，大量的非营利性的社会组织如教育、医疗、体育、慈善以及文化机构被《反垄断法》排除在外。随着人们生活水平的提高以及对公共物品需求的不断增加，非营利性组织限制竞争或垄断的问题越来越多，这种状况影响到了我国新一轮事业单位改革的进程，也损害了消费者的权益，因此，本文在借鉴发达国家反垄断法规制非营利性组织的经验上，探讨我国《反垄断法》对非营利性组织的适用具有十分重要的现实意义。
Nonprofit organization (NPO) is one of the basic forms of social organization.Some developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom as well asCanada have paid more and more attention on the development of NPOs in the21stcentury. NPOs are playing an increasingly important role in economy, politics, cultureand international affairs. However, there is little concern of NPO’s monopolization andcompetition restriction.
As the Economic Constitution of market economy country, the antitrust lawshould be applied to all market players, including non-profit organizations andprofit-seeking organizations. However, the antitrust law was not applied to NPOs fromthe very beginning even in United States, where antitrust law was well developed. Thebasic purpose of antitrust law is to control concentration of economic power andmonopolistic behavior of enterprises, and NPOs were exempt from the review of theantitrust law in the early period of the antitrust law for the reason that they were notcommercial. And at the same time, there existed a tradition of industry exemption inAmerican, and most Americans agree industry associations as Nonprofit organizationsare independent from profit seeking organizations and should be self-managed whichwould be more effective than law-governing. In addition, the antitrust law aims topromote competition and economic efficiency, safeguard social fairness and concernfor the interests of consumers, which are important dimensions of public interest. Andthe antitrust law represents public interest which is consistent in the pursuit of theinterests with antitrust NPOs, therefore, NPOs got the antitrust exemption.
With the development of economy, the problem of competition restriction aroseup, and the U S antitrust law started to pay attention to the activities of NPOs. From1960s, the scope of U S antitrust law application was gradually expanded and the scopeof exemption was shrinking. Regarding to the exemption from the antitrust laws forNPOs, economists and sociologists take a critical attitude and believe that NPOs aswell as other business organizations are pursuing profit maximization and thereforeshould not be exempted from the antitrust law. Indicated by a large number of casesfollowed, not only some of the traditional non-profit organizations such as hospitals,schools but also professional industry associations even state administration began toenter the vision of antitrust field.
The fundamental basis of the U S antitrust law to determine illegal restriction ofcompetition is Sherman Act1, while the judges of the United States had differentinterpretations in the judicial practice, which formed two basic methods of modernantitrust analysis, namely Illegal per se rule and the rule of reason, and these methods arethe basic methods in analyzing the behavior of competition restriction of NPOs. Basedon different types of nonprofit organizations, the paper argues that enforcementagencies and courts are using different analysis methods in antitrust problem of NPOs.Competition restriction of entrepreneurial nonprofit organizations should be based onthe nature of the act and apply self-illegal or reasonable rule for analysis whilerestriction of competition for the non-profit organizations should apply reasonable rulefor analysis. In addition, NPOs should be different in judicial liability bearingcompared with that of business enterprises.
As a developing country, China has made no unified legal and strict definition anddivision of nonprofit organizations, and Chinese law has no explicit statementregarding NPOs’ competition restriction behavior. The implementation body ofcompetition restriction behavior in the legislation and practice in China is confined toenterprises, a large number of NPOs in education, health care, sports, charitable andculture are excluded from the application scope of antitrust law. With the improvementof people's living standards and the increasing demand for public goods, competitionrestriction of NPOs are gaining more attention, which would not only affects theprocess of China's further reform of social institutions but also undermines consumer'sinterests. This article discusses the applicability of antitrust law to China's NPOs fromthe experience of developed countries, which would have important practicalsignificance.
引文
①参见《北京市海淀区人民法院(2005)海民初字第23663号民事判决书》
[1]李昌麒.经济法学.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001,291-292
[2]王保树.关于经济联合法律制度的探讨.法学研究,1986,(1):55-60
[3]王保树.企业联合与制止垄断.法学研究,1990,(1):1-7
[4]王保树.中国反垄断法研究的现状及其展望.法学评论,1991,(6):1-5
[5]王保树.反垄断法对行政垄断的规制.中国社会科学院研究生学院学报,1998,(5):49-53
[6]曹士兵.反垄断法研究.北京:法律出版社,1996,2-5,38,34-35
[7]孔样俊.反垄断法原理.北京:中国法制出版社,2001,12-15
[8]黄勇.反垄断法经典判例解析.北京:人民法院出版社出版,2002,12-28
[9]王晓晔.企业合并中的反垄断问题.北京:法律出版社,1996,12-15
[10]郑鹏程.行政垄断的法律控制研究.北京:北京大学出版,2002,1-5
[10]时建中.反垄断法—法典释评与学理探源.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2008,2-6
[12]王晓晔.王晓晔论反垄断法.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2010,2-8,108-109
[13]郑鹏程.反垄断法专题研究.北京:法律出版社,2008,1-6
[14]郑鹏程.对政府规制的规制:市场统一法律制度研究.北京:法律出版社,2012,2-6
[15]许光耀.欧共体竞争法经典判例研究.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2008,1-12
[16]黄勇,邓志松.垄断性国有企业价格垄断行为的法律规制.社会科学,2011,(9):58-64
[17]郑鹏程.美国反垄断法“本身违法”与“合理法则”适用范围探讨.河北法学,2005,(5):56-58,59-60
[18]吴汉洪,张晓楹.对反垄断中合理规则的经济学思考.中国人民大学学报,2003,(6):83-88
[19]余东华.转型期中国反行政性垄断中违法判定原则的选择——从本身违法原则到合理原则.天津社会科学,2008,(1):80-82
[20]裴洋.论《谢尔曼法》在体育比赛电视转播权转让中的适用.武汉大学学报,2008,(4):125-130
[21]裴洋.论反垄断法在运动员流动制度上的适用.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2006,78-82
[22]裴洋.“请公平竞争！”欧共体法在体育领域适用的最新发展.见：民商法论丛.北京:法律出版社,2006,128-134
[23]裴洋.反垄断法视野下的体育产业.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2009,1-6,47-51
[24]盛杰民,焦海涛.我国《反垄断法》对行业协会的规制及其完善.重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2008,(4):94-95,97-98
[25]鲁篱.公用企业垄断问题研究.中国法学,2000,(5):72-78
[26]鲁篱.行业协会限制竞争法律规制研究.北京:北京大学出版社,2009,2-8
[27]曾晨柯,余文杰.论我国医疗领域垄断的反垄断法规制.科技创业,2008,52-56
[28]荣国权,王学芳.对我国《反不正当竞争法》中“经营者”概念的分析.北方工业大学学报,2007,(4):77-79
[29]马长山.国家、市民社会与法治.北京:商务印书馆,2002,110-118
[30]王建芹.非政府组织的理论阐释:兼论我国现行非政府组织法律的冲突与选择.北京:中国方正出版社,2010,18-28
[31]谢海定.中国民间组织的合法性困境.法学研究,2004,(2):68-71
[32]余凌云.第三部门的勃兴对行政法意味着什么.浙江学刊,2007,(2):38-42
[33]蔡磊.非营利性组织基本法律制度研究.厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005,10-18
[34]应松年.非政府组织的若干法律问题.北京联合大学学报,2003,(9):21-28
[35]沈岿.谁还在行使权力.北京:清华大学出版社,2003,101-102
[36]孟戈戈.非政府组织、非营利性组织与中国法下概念之比较:[华东师范大学大学硕士论文].上海:华东师范大学法学院,2009,1-6
[37]秦晖.政府与企业以外的现代化——中西公益事业史比较研究.杭州:浙江人民出版社,1999,12-18
[38]刘兴波.中西方非政府组织的比较发展.传承,2007,(5):76-79
[39]李桂鑫.论我国非政府组织的立法现状及其完善.中山大学学报论丛,2007,(8):28-33
[40]姬广刚.我国非政府组织行政法律责任构建初探,暨南学报,2010,(6)36-39
[41]安蓉泉.中国民间组织研究中的概念矛盾分析.国家行政学院学报,2003,(2):48-51
[42]柯岚.波斯纳法律经济分析书评.财经,2005,(13):34-36
[43]赫伯特·霍温坎普.联邦反托拉斯法政策——竞争法律及实践.许光耀,江山,王晨译.北京:法律出版社,2009,1-10,113-115,283-289
[44] Srikanth Srinivasan. Applying the Sherman Act to Collaborative NonprofitActivity. The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University StanfordLaw Review,1994,(4):288-292
[45] Joseph J. Mcmahon, John P. Rossi. A History And Analysis of Baseball's ThreeAntitrust Exemptions. Vill. Sports&Ent. L. Forum,1995,(2):213-218
[46] William C. Dunning. Antitrust Law Baseball. Seton Hall J. Sports,2000,(10):167-172
[47] James D. Weinberger. Baseball Trademark Licensing and The AntitrustExemption: An Analysis of New York Yankees Partnership V. Major LeagueBaseball Enterprises. Colum.-VLA J. L&Arts,1999,(23):112-119
[48] Martin M. Tomlinson. The Commissioner's New Clothes: The Myth of MajorLeague Baseball's Antitrust Exemption. St. Thomas L. Rev,2008,(2):255-261
[49] Peter James Kolovos. The Law School Accredition Case. New York UniversityLaw Review,1996,(4):123-126
[50] Tara Norgard. How Charitable is The Sherman Act. Minnesota Law Review,1999,(4):221-228
[51] Aimee M. W. Pollak. Should The Exemption from The Robinson-Patman ActApply to Pharmaceutical Purchases by Nonprofit HMOS. New York UniversityLaw Review,1998,(7):40-51
[52] Sander P. Greemblatt. Vicarious Liability Equalizes The Treatment of BusinessEnterprises and Nonprofit Associations Under Antitrust Laws. University ofMiami Law Review,1984,(5):28-36
[53] Olivia S. Choe. Nonprofit Antitrust Liability in Virginia Vermiculite, Ltd. vHistoric Green Springs. Yale Law Journal,2003,(11):123-135
[54]杰伊·皮尔·乔伊.反垄断研究新进展:理论与证据.张曼,崔文杰译.大连:东北财经大学出版社,2008,1-2
[55]赛拉蒙.非营利性领域及其存在的原因.李亚平,于海译.上海:复旦大学出版社,1998,31-32
[56]彼得·F·德鲁克.组织的管理.王伯言,沈国华译.上海:上海财经大学出版社,2006,5-6,12-13
[57]李培林,徐崇温,李林.当代西方社会的非营利性组织.河北学刊,2006,（2）:71-72
[58]刘鹏,黄蓓蓓.非营利性组织发展与中国治理变革初探.中国发展,2010,(4):42-43
[59]李红艳.非政府组织的基本理论探讨.武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009,(3):62-63
[60]托马斯·西尔克.亚洲公益事业及其法规.中国科学基金研究会译.北京:科学出版社,2000,27
[61]王绍光.多元与统一:第三部门国际比较研究.杭州:浙江人民出版社,2000,13-15,28-33
[62]彼得罗·彭梵得.罗马法教科书.黄凤译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1992,29-30
[63]史柏年.全球结社性革命及其启示.中国青年政治学院学报,2000,(3):55-56
[64]沈荣华.民间组织的潜力有多大.中国社会导刊,2006,(27):26-30
[65]王名.德国非营利性组织.北京:清华大学出版社,2005,23-25
[66]钟广静.美国非营利性组织在社区发展中的作用及其启示.探求,2009,(1):25-26
[67]马颖.政府治理视角下的非营利性组织.通化师范学院学报,2012,(3):19-21
[68]付广军.日本非营利性组织考察报告.社团管理研究,2008,(4):33-35
[69]范丽珠.全球化下的社会变迁与非政府组织.上海:上海人民出版社,2003,89-102
[70]何振华.非营利性组织在公民社会建设中的地位和作用.赤子,2009,(8):36-37,38
[71]蔡薇.居民社区公共服务供给制度改革研究.改革与战略,2007,(1):61-62
[72]章平.演化博弈理论与应用.未来与发展,2010,(3):51-53
[73]李晓琛.我国非政府组织参与社会治理的路径选择.传承,2011,(1):68-69
[74]周昀.反垄断法论:[中国政法大学博士论文].北京:中国政法大学法学院,2001,28-35
[75]松尼曼.美国和德国的经济与经济法.南京大学中德经济法研究所译.北京:法律出版社,1991,169-172
[76]钱满素.美国自由主义的历史变迁.上海:上海三联书店,2006,78-88
[77]黄安年.美国完善垄断和公平竞争立法的历史演变.见:美国历史问题新探——杨生茂教授八十寿辰纪念论文集.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1996,81-94
[78]刘庆莲.战后初期美国对日经济政策探讨.林区教学,2012,(1):11-13
[79]谢国旺.国际反垄断法豁免研究:[中国政法大学博士论文].北京:中国政法大学法学院,2009,90-93
[80]周昀.国外反垄断法对垄断状态的规制.法制日报.2004-04-08
[81]商务部.欧盟竞争法律制度.http://www.antimonopolylaw.org/article/default.asp?id=69,2009-12-11
[82]王晓晔.欧洲共同体竞争法及其新发展.环球法律评论,1993,(3):72-82
[83]王晓晔.多元化目的——欧共体竞争法目的和任务评述.国际贸易,2001,(8):65-71
[84]全淑英.韩国反垄断法上的宽恕制度研究.商场现代化,2009,(8):266-267
[85]王君如.反垄断法视野下的经济法价值.法商论坛,2011,(1):53-54
[86]路德维希·威廉·艾哈德.来自竞争的繁荣.曾斌译.北京:商务印书馆,1983,11-12.
[87]陈秀山.现代竞争理论与竞争政策.北京:商务印书馆,1997,8-10
[88]邱本.自由竞争与秩序调控——经济法的基础建构与原理阐析.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001,368-369
[89]王晓晔.欧洲竞争法.北京:中国法制出版社,2001,29-30
[90]赵军,任亮.市场经济体制下消费者权益保护新探.成都电子机械学校学报,2004,(2):63-64
[91]王全兴.经济法基础理论专题研究.北京:中国检察出版社,2002,432-433
[92] Eunice A. Moon. Redefining Relrvent Markets Under The Sherman Antitrust Act:The New York District Court Finds Mastercard And Visa in a Class of TheirOwn. Rutgers Law Journal,2003,(3):5-6
[93] Marjorie Webster Junior College v. Middle States Association.432F.2d650.139U.S.App（1969）
[94] Sugar Institute Inc. Etal v. United States.297U.S.553.56S.Ct (1936)
[95] National League of Professional Baseball Club v. Federal Baseball Club269F.681D. C. Cir.(1920)
[96] Toolson v. New York Yankeers346U.S.356(1953)
[97] Flood v. Kuhn407U.S.269.282(1972)
[98] Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists Ass'n.425U.S.1(1976).
[99] De Modena v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.743F.2d1388(1984).
[100] Federal Trade Commission v. Butterworth Health Corp.946F. Supp.1285(1996)
[101]何增科.公民社会与第三部门.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000,69,268-278
[102]卢梭.社会契约论.何兆武译.北京:商务出版社,2008,35-36
[103] Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar.421U.S.773(1975)
[104] National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States.435U.S.679(1978)
[105] Hdrolevel v. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.635F.2d118（1980）
[106]鲁篱.标准化与反垄断问题研究.中国法学,2003,(1):175,173
[107] National Ass'n of Review Appraisers&Mortgage Underwriters v. AppraisalFoundation.64F.3d1130(1995).
[108] The United States of America v. Brown Univeisity.5F.3d658. U.S.App (1993)
[109]焦海涛.论《反垄断法》中经营者的认定标准.东方法学,2008,(5):146-148
[110] Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. INC v. The American Bar Association.142F.3d26（1993）
[111] Hamilton Chapter of Alpha Delta Phi. Inc v. Hamilton College.128F.3d59（1997）
[112] American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Inc v. Hydrolevel Corp.456U.S.556.576.102S.Ct.1935.1948.72L. Ed2d330(1982)
[113] Arizona v. Maricopa County medical societ y.457U.S.332(1982)
[114] Blue Cross&Blue Shield v. Marshfield Clinic.65. F.3d1406(1995)
[115]陈培元.美国的蓝十字与蓝盾医疗保险.国外医学,2001,(1):2-6
[116] Santa Cruz Medical Clinic v. Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital. C93-20613.WL150089(1995)
[117]饶粤红.美国反垄断法对医院合并的适用分析.政法学刊,2005,(2):73-75
[118] Philadelphia World Hockey Club. Inc v. Philadelphia Hockey Club. Inc.351F.Supp.462（1972）
[119] John Mackey v. National Football League.407F. Supp.1000（1975）
[120] NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma.468U.S.85（1984）
[121] Maurice Clarett v. NFL.369F.3d124（2004）
[122]梁上上.论行业协会的反竞争行为.法学研究,1998,(4):65-68
[123]曾军,梁琴.非营利性组织的营利行为有效性判断.西南政法大学学报,2009,(6):98-99
[124]陈嘉良.自然垄断行业引入竞争政策的价值分析.山西财经大学学报,2011,(11):29-32
[125] United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association.166U.S.290(1897)
[126] United States v. Addyston Pipe&Steel Co.175U.S.211(1899)
[127] Dr. Miles Medical Co v. John D. Park&Sons Co.220U.S.373(1911)
[128] United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. Inc.310U.S.150(1940)
[129] Northern Pac. Ry v. United States.356U.S.1.4（1958）
[130]许光耀.欧共体竞争法通论.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2006,122-144
[131] Klor.s. Inc v. Broadway-hale Stores. Inc.359U.S.207(1959)
[132] FTC v. Superior Court Trial Law ers Assn.493U.S.411(1990)
[133]刘静.论反垄断法的违法判定原则.科教导刊,2009,(21):29-31
[134] Palmer v. BRG of Georgia. Inc.498U.S.46.(1990)
[135] The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey etal v. United States.221U.S.1(1911)
[136] Chicago Board of Trade v. United States.246U.S.231(1918).
[137]李钟斌.反垄断法合理原则研究:[西南政法大学博士学位论文].重庆:西南政法大学法学院,2002,26-27
[138] White Motor Co v. United States.372U.S.253(1963)
[139] Broadcast Music. Inc v. CBS.441U.S.1(1979)
[140] Jefferson Parish Hospital District No.2v. Hyde.466U.S.2(1984).
[141] Monsanto Company v. Spray-rite service Corporation.465U.S.752(1984)
[142] Leegin Creative leather product. Inc v. PSKS.551U.S.87(2007)
[143]陈兵,丁寰翔.美国反托拉斯法中本身违法原则早期适用之特征考.广西社会科学,2006,(2):86-87
[144] Amerieca Column&Lumber Co v. United States.257U.S.377(1921)
[145] United States v. Topco.405U.S.596.612(1972)
[146]叶明.行业协会限制竞争行为的反垄断法规制[西南政法大学博士论文].重庆:西南政法大学法学院,2008,56-59
[147]余东华.从“本身违法”到“合理推定”——美国反垄断违法判定原则的演进.华东经济管理,2008,(9):156-157
[148]王名扬.法国行政法.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1988,526-528
[149] Bodicker v. Arizona Skate Dental Association.416U.S.347,232(1981)
[150] California Dental Assn v. Federal Trade Commission.128F.3d720.U.S.App.（1997）
[151]蔡俊峰.反垄断法法律责任问题研究:[北京大学博士学位论文].北京:北京大学法学院,2005,79-83
[152]丁国峰.我国反垄断法律责任体系的完善和适用.安徽大学学报,2012,(2):143-146
[153]陈军.我国社会组织发展迅猛.http://www.workercn.cn/c/2011/03/08/110308153652534440625.html,2011-03-08
[154]陈秋.我国社会管理组织发展研究综述.现代商贸工业,2010,(4):22-24
[155]王仁富.论我国行业协会限制竞争行为的反垄断法规制.商业时代,2012,(3):90-92
[156]肖建生.株洲市米粉行业协会垄断价格受查处.湖南日报,2004-10-06
[157]鲁篱,周道树.行业协会价格卡特尔反垄断法规制的比较研究.河北法学,2007,(9):65-68
[158]尚明.反垄断法理论与中外案例评析.北京:北京大学出版社,2008,107-108
[159]杨明.论高等教育中的市场失灵及其矫正.浙江大学学报,2006,(4):51-53
[160]第一财经日报.天价医药费案全记录.http://www.storychina.cn/main2.asp?id=29354&tablename=sitesearch,2011-04-27
[161]吴飞.足协的“封杀令”与媒体的采访权.http://www.cddc.net/shownews.asp?newsid=5682,2009-03-10
[162]刘顾.解析凤铝事件. http://news.9ask.cn/bdjz/fld/fldfl/200904/167801_3.html,2006-04-06
[163]国家法官学院.中国审判案例要览.http://www.linklaw.com.cn/chinacase/al_content. asp?id=2895,2010-05-03
[164]杨洁.乌鲁木齐市新市区人民政府二工街道办事处滥用行政权力限制竞争案.中国工商行政管理,2001,(4):35-37
[165]三农直通车.雀巢垄断黑龙江双城奶源克扣奶农.http://www.gdcct.gov.cn/politics/headline/201110/t20111024_607847. html#text,2011-10-24
[166]国家工商总局.工商机关第一起予以行政处罚垄断案件结案.http://www.cicn.com. cn/content/2011-01/26/content_94788. htm,2011-01-26
[167]丁淑娟.新医改框架下的医疗服务质量监管体系研究.卫生软科学.2010,(1):88-89
[168]吴宏伟,吴长军.行政垄断的规制与反思.河北法学,2011,(6):2-6
[169]王旭耀.关于我国反垄断法执行机构设置.现代商贸工业,2008,(10):28-31
[170]毕金平.我国反垄断程序法之重塑.学术界,2010,(6):76-79
[1]李昌麒.经济法学.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001,291-292
[2]王保树.关于经济联合法律制度的探讨.法学研究,1986,(1):55-60
[3]王保树.企业联合与制止垄断.法学研究,1990,(1):1-7
[4]王保树.中国反垄断法研究的现状及其展望.法学评论,1991,(6):1-5
[5]王保树.反垄断法对行政垄断的规制.中国社会科学院研究生学院学报,1998,(5):49-53
[6]曹士兵.反垄断法研究.北京:法律出版社,1996,2-5,38,34-35
[7]孔样俊.反垄断法原理.北京:中国法制出版社,2001,12-15
[8]黄勇.反垄断法经典判例解析.北京:人民法院出版社出版,2002,12-28
[9]王晓晔.企业合并中的反垄断问题.北京:法律出版社,1996,12-15
[10]郑鹏程.行政垄断的法律控制研究.北京:北京大学出版,2002,1-5
[10]时建中.反垄断法—法典释评与学理探源.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2008,2-6
[12]王晓晔.王晓晔论反垄断法.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2010,2-8,108-109
[13]郑鹏程.反垄断法专题研究.北京:法律出版社,2008,1-6
[14]郑鹏程.对政府规制的规制:市场统一法律制度研究.北京:法律出版社,2012,2-6
[15]许光耀.欧共体竞争法经典判例研究.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2008,1-12
[16]黄勇,邓志松.垄断性国有企业价格垄断行为的法律规制.社会科学,2011,(9):58-64
[17]郑鹏程.美国反垄断法“本身违法”与“合理法则”适用范围探讨.河北法学,2005,(5):56-58,59-60
[18]吴汉洪,张晓楹.对反垄断中合理规则的经济学思考.中国人民大学学报,2003,(6):83-88
[19]余东华.转型期中国反行政性垄断中违法判定原则的选择——从本身违法原则到合理原则.天津社会科学,2008,(1):80-82
[20]裴洋.论《谢尔曼法》在体育比赛电视转播权转让中的适用.武汉大学学报,2008,(4):125-130
[21]裴洋.论反垄断法在运动员流动制度上的适用.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2006,78-82
[22]裴洋.“请公平竞争！”欧共体法在体育领域适用的最新发展.见：民商法论丛.北京:法律出版社,2006,128-134
[23]裴洋.反垄断法视野下的体育产业.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2009,1-6,47-51
[24]盛杰民,焦海涛.我国《反垄断法》对行业协会的规制及其完善.重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2008,(4):94-95,97-98
[25]鲁篱.公用企业垄断问题研究.中国法学,2000,(5):72-78
[26]鲁篱.行业协会限制竞争法律规制研究.北京:北京大学出版社,2009,2-8
[27]曾晨柯,余文杰.论我国医疗领域垄断的反垄断法规制.科技创业,2008,52-56
[28]荣国权,王学芳.对我国《反不正当竞争法》中“经营者”概念的分析.北方工业大学学报,2007,(4):77-79
[29]马长山.国家、市民社会与法治.北京:商务印书馆,2002,110-118
[30]王建芹.非政府组织的理论阐释:兼论我国现行非政府组织法律的冲突与选择.北京:中国方正出版社,2010,18-28
[31]谢海定.中国民间组织的合法性困境.法学研究,2004,(2):68-71
[32]余凌云.第三部门的勃兴对行政法意味着什么.浙江学刊,2007,(2):38-42
[33]蔡磊.非营利性组织基本法律制度研究.厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005,10-18
[34]应松年.非政府组织的若干法律问题.北京联合大学学报,2003,(9):21-28
[35]沈岿.谁还在行使权力.北京:清华大学出版社,2003,101-102
[36]孟戈戈.非政府组织、非营利性组织与中国法下概念之比较:[华东师范大学大学硕士论文].上海:华东师范大学法学院,2009,1-6
[37]秦晖.政府与企业以外的现代化——中西公益事业史比较研究.杭州:浙江人民出版社,1999,12-18
[38]刘兴波.中西方非政府组织的比较发展.传承,2007,(5):76-79
[39]李桂鑫.论我国非政府组织的立法现状及其完善.中山大学学报论丛,2007,(8):28-33
[40]姬广刚.我国非政府组织行政法律责任构建初探,暨南学报,2010,(6)36-39
[41]安蓉泉.中国民间组织研究中的概念矛盾分析.国家行政学院学报,2003,(2):48-51
[42]柯岚.波斯纳法律经济分析书评.财经,2005,(13):34-36
[43]赫伯特·霍温坎普.联邦反托拉斯法政策——竞争法律及实践.许光耀,江山,王晨译.北京:法律出版社,2009,1-10,113-115,283-289
[44] Srikanth Srinivasan. Applying the Sherman Act to Collaborative NonprofitActivity. The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University StanfordLaw Review,1994,(4):288-292
[45] Joseph J. Mcmahon, John P. Rossi. A History And Analysis of Baseball's ThreeAntitrust Exemptions. Vill. Sports&Ent. L. Forum,1995,(2):213-218
[46] William C. Dunning. Antitrust Law Baseball. Seton Hall J. Sports,2000,(10):167-172
[47] James D. Weinberger. Baseball Trademark Licensing and The AntitrustExemption: An Analysis of New York Yankees Partnership V. Major LeagueBaseball Enterprises. Colum.-VLA J. L&Arts,1999,(23):112-119
[48] Martin M. Tomlinson. The Commissioner's New Clothes: The Myth of MajorLeague Baseball's Antitrust Exemption. St. Thomas L. Rev,2008,(2):255-261
[49] Peter James Kolovos. The Law School Accredition Case. New York UniversityLaw Review,1996,(4):123-126
[50] Tara Norgard. How Charitable is The Sherman Act. Minnesota Law Review,1999,(4):221-228
[51] Aimee M. W. Pollak. Should The Exemption from The Robinson-Patman ActApply to Pharmaceutical Purchases by Nonprofit HMOS. New York UniversityLaw Review,1998,(7):40-51
[52] Sander P. Greemblatt. Vicarious Liability Equalizes The Treatment of BusinessEnterprises and Nonprofit Associations Under Antitrust Laws. University ofMiami Law Review,1984,(5):28-36
[53] Olivia S. Choe. Nonprofit Antitrust Liability in Virginia Vermiculite, Ltd. vHistoric Green Springs. Yale Law Journal,2003,(11):123-135
[54]杰伊·皮尔·乔伊.反垄断研究新进展:理论与证据.张曼,崔文杰译.大连:东北财经大学出版社,2008,1-2
[55]赛拉蒙.非营利性领域及其存在的原因.李亚平,于海译.上海:复旦大学出版社,1998,31-32
[56]彼得·F·德鲁克.组织的管理.王伯言,沈国华译.上海:上海财经大学出版社,2006,5-6,12-13
[57]李培林,徐崇温,李林.当代西方社会的非营利性组织.河北学刊,2006,（2）:71-72
[58]刘鹏,黄蓓蓓.非营利性组织发展与中国治理变革初探.中国发展,2010,(4):42-43
[59]李红艳.非政府组织的基本理论探讨.武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009,(3):62-63
[60]托马斯·西尔克.亚洲公益事业及其法规.中国科学基金研究会译.北京:科学出版社,2000,27
[61]王绍光.多元与统一:第三部门国际比较研究.杭州:浙江人民出版社,2000,13-15,28-33
[62]彼得罗·彭梵得.罗马法教科书.黄凤译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1992,29-30
[63]史柏年.全球结社性革命及其启示.中国青年政治学院学报,2000,(3):55-56
[64]沈荣华.民间组织的潜力有多大.中国社会导刊,2006,(27):26-30
[65]王名.德国非营利性组织.北京:清华大学出版社,2005,23-25
[66]钟广静.美国非营利性组织在社区发展中的作用及其启示.探求,2009,(1):25-26
[67]马颖.政府治理视角下的非营利性组织.通化师范学院学报,2012,(3):19-21
[68]付广军.日本非营利性组织考察报告.社团管理研究,2008,(4):33-35
[69]范丽珠.全球化下的社会变迁与非政府组织.上海:上海人民出版社,2003,89-102
[70]何振华.非营利性组织在公民社会建设中的地位和作用.赤子,2009,(8):36-37,38
[71]蔡薇.居民社区公共服务供给制度改革研究.改革与战略,2007,(1):61-62
[72]章平.演化博弈理论与应用.未来与发展,2010,(3):51-53
[73]李晓琛.我国非政府组织参与社会治理的路径选择.传承,2011,(1):68-69
[74]周昀.反垄断法论:[中国政法大学博士论文].北京:中国政法大学法学院,2001,28-35
[75]松尼曼.美国和德国的经济与经济法.南京大学中德经济法研究所译.北京:法律出版社,1991,169-172
[76]钱满素.美国自由主义的历史变迁.上海:上海三联书店,2006,78-88
[77]黄安年.美国完善垄断和公平竞争立法的历史演变.见:美国历史问题新探——杨生茂教授八十寿辰纪念论文集.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1996,81-94
[78]刘庆莲.战后初期美国对日经济政策探讨.林区教学,2012,(1):11-13
[79]谢国旺.国际反垄断法豁免研究:[中国政法大学博士论文].北京:中国政法大学法学院,2009,90-93
[80]周昀.国外反垄断法对垄断状态的规制.法制日报.2004-04-08
[81]商务部.欧盟竞争法律制度.http://www.antimonopolylaw.org/article/default.asp?id=69,2009-12-11
[82]王晓晔.欧洲共同体竞争法及其新发展.环球法律评论,1993,(3):72-82
[83]王晓晔.多元化目的——欧共体竞争法目的和任务评述.国际贸易,2001,(8):65-71
[84]全淑英.韩国反垄断法上的宽恕制度研究.商场现代化,2009,(8):266-267
[85]王君如.反垄断法视野下的经济法价值.法商论坛,2011,(1):53-54
[86]路德维希·威廉·艾哈德.来自竞争的繁荣.曾斌译.北京:商务印书馆,1983,11-12.
[87]陈秀山.现代竞争理论与竞争政策.北京:商务印书馆,1997,8-10
[88]邱本.自由竞争与秩序调控——经济法的基础建构与原理阐析.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001,368-369
[89]王晓晔.欧洲竞争法.北京:中国法制出版社,2001,29-30
[90]赵军,任亮.市场经济体制下消费者权益保护新探.成都电子机械学校学报,2004,(2):63-64
[91]王全兴.经济法基础理论专题研究.北京:中国检察出版社,2002,432-433
[92] Eunice A. Moon. Redefining Relrvent Markets Under The Sherman Antitrust Act:The New York District Court Finds Mastercard And Visa in a Class of TheirOwn. Rutgers Law Journal,2003,(3):5-6
[93] Marjorie Webster Junior College v. Middle States Association.432F.2d650.139U.S.App（1969）
[94] Sugar Institute Inc. Etal v. United States.297U.S.553.56S.Ct (1936)
[95] National League of Professional Baseball Club v. Federal Baseball Club269F.681D. C. Cir.(1920)
[96] Toolson v. New York Yankeers346U.S.356(1953)
[97] Flood v. Kuhn407U.S.269.282(1972)
[98] Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists Ass'n.425U.S.1(1976).
[99] De Modena v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.743F.2d1388(1984).
[100] Federal Trade Commission v. Butterworth Health Corp.946F. Supp.1285(1996)
[101]何增科.公民社会与第三部门.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000,69,268-278
[102]卢梭.社会契约论.何兆武译.北京:商务出版社,2008,35-36
[103] Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar.421U.S.773(1975)
[104] National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States.435U.S.679(1978)
[105] Hdrolevel v. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.635F.2d118（1980）
[106]鲁篱.标准化与反垄断问题研究.中国法学,2003,(1):175,173
[107] National Ass'n of Review Appraisers&Mortgage Underwriters v. AppraisalFoundation.64F.3d1130(1995).
[108] The United States of America v. Brown Univeisity.5F.3d658. U.S.App (1993)
[109]焦海涛.论《反垄断法》中经营者的认定标准.东方法学,2008,(5):146-148
[110] Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. INC v. The American Bar Association.142F.3d26（1993）
[111] Hamilton Chapter of Alpha Delta Phi. Inc v. Hamilton College.128F.3d59（1997）
[112] American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Inc v. Hydrolevel Corp.456U.S.556.576.102S.Ct.1935.1948.72L. Ed2d330(1982)
[113] Arizona v. Maricopa County medical societ y.457U.S.332(1982)
[114] Blue Cross&Blue Shield v. Marshfield Clinic.65. F.3d1406(1995)
[115]陈培元.美国的蓝十字与蓝盾医疗保险.国外医学,2001,(1):2-6
[116] Santa Cruz Medical Clinic v. Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital. C93-20613.WL150089(1995)
[117]饶粤红.美国反垄断法对医院合并的适用分析.政法学刊,2005,(2):73-75
[118] Philadelphia World Hockey Club. Inc v. Philadelphia Hockey Club. Inc.351F.Supp.462（1972）
[119] John Mackey v. National Football League.407F. Supp.1000（1975）
[120] NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma.468U.S.85（1984）
[121] Maurice Clarett v. NFL.369F.3d124（2004）
[122]梁上上.论行业协会的反竞争行为.法学研究,1998,(4):65-68
[123]曾军,梁琴.非营利性组织的营利行为有效性判断.西南政法大学学报,2009,(6):98-99
[124]陈嘉良.自然垄断行业引入竞争政策的价值分析.山西财经大学学报,2011,(11):29-32
[125] United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association.166U.S.290(1897)
[126] United States v. Addyston Pipe&Steel Co.175U.S.211(1899)
[127] Dr. Miles Medical Co v. John D. Park&Sons Co.220U.S.373(1911)
[128] United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. Inc.310U.S.150(1940)
[129] Northern Pac. Ry v. United States.356U.S.1.4（1958）
[130]许光耀.欧共体竞争法通论.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2006,122-144
[131] Klor.s. Inc v. Broadway-hale Stores. Inc.359U.S.207(1959)
[132] FTC v. Superior Court Trial Law ers Assn.493U.S.411(1990)
[133]刘静.论反垄断法的违法判定原则.科教导刊,2009,(21):29-31
[134] Palmer v. BRG of Georgia. Inc.498U.S.46.(1990)
[135] The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey etal v. United States.221U.S.1(1911)
[136] Chicago Board of Trade v. United States.246U.S.231(1918).
[137]李钟斌.反垄断法合理原则研究:[西南政法大学博士学位论文].重庆:西南政法大学法学院,2002,26-27
[138] White Motor Co v. United States.372U.S.253(1963)
[139] Broadcast Music. Inc v. CBS.441U.S.1(1979)
[140] Jefferson Parish Hospital District No.2v. Hyde.466U.S.2(1984).
[141] Monsanto Company v. Spray-rite service Corporation.465U.S.752(1984)
[142] Leegin Creative leather product. Inc v. PSKS.551U.S.87(2007)
[143]陈兵,丁寰翔.美国反托拉斯法中本身违法原则早期适用之特征考.广西社会科学,2006,(2):86-87
[144] Amerieca Column&Lumber Co v. United States.257U.S.377(1921)
[145] United States v. Topco.405U.S.596.612(1972)
[146]叶明.行业协会限制竞争行为的反垄断法规制[西南政法大学博士论文].重庆:西南政法大学法学院,2008,56-59
[147]余东华.从“本身违法”到“合理推定”——美国反垄断违法判定原则的演进.华东经济管理,2008,(9):156-157
[148]王名扬.法国行政法.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1988,526-528
[149] Bodicker v. Arizona Skate Dental Association.416U.S.347,232(1981)
[150] California Dental Assn v. Federal Trade Commission.128F.3d720.U.S.App.（1997）
[151]蔡俊峰.反垄断法法律责任问题研究:[北京大学博士学位论文].北京:北京大学法学院,2005,79-83
[152]丁国峰.我国反垄断法律责任体系的完善和适用.安徽大学学报,2012,(2):143-146
[153]陈军.我国社会组织发展迅猛.http://www.workercn.cn/c/2011/03/08/110308153652534440625.html,2011-03-08
[154]陈秋.我国社会管理组织发展研究综述.现代商贸工业,2010,(4):22-24
[155]王仁富.论我国行业协会限制竞争行为的反垄断法规制.商业时代,2012,(3):90-92
[156]肖建生.株洲市米粉行业协会垄断价格受查处.湖南日报,2004-10-06
[157]鲁篱,周道树.行业协会价格卡特尔反垄断法规制的比较研究.河北法学,2007,(9):65-68
[158]尚明.反垄断法理论与中外案例评析.北京:北京大学出版社,2008,107-108
[159]杨明.论高等教育中的市场失灵及其矫正.浙江大学学报,2006,(4):51-53
[160]第一财经日报.天价医药费案全记录.http://www.storychina.cn/main2.asp?id=29354&tablename=sitesearch,2011-04-27
[161]吴飞.足协的“封杀令”与媒体的采访权.http://www.cddc.net/shownews.asp?newsid=5682,2009-03-10
[162]刘顾.解析凤铝事件. http://news.9ask.cn/bdjz/fld/fldfl/200904/167801_3.html,2006-04-06
[163]国家法官学院.中国审判案例要览.http://www.linklaw.com.cn/chinacase/al_content. asp?id=2895,2010-05-03
[164]杨洁.乌鲁木齐市新市区人民政府二工街道办事处滥用行政权力限制竞争案.中国工商行政管理,2001,(4):35-37
[165]三农直通车.雀巢垄断黑龙江双城奶源克扣奶农.http://www.gdcct.gov.cn/politics/headline/201110/t20111024_607847. html#text,2011-10-24
[166]国家工商总局.工商机关第一起予以行政处罚垄断案件结案.http://www.cicn.com. cn/content/2011-01/26/content_94788. htm,2011-01-26
[167]丁淑娟.新医改框架下的医疗服务质量监管体系研究.卫生软科学.2010,(1):88-89
[168]吴宏伟,吴长军.行政垄断的规制与反思.河北法学,2011,(6):2-6
[169]王旭耀.关于我国反垄断法执行机构设置.现代商贸工业,2008,(10):28-31
[170]毕金平.我国反垄断程序法之重塑.学术界,2010,(6):76-79