A Rebuttal To The "Per Se Illegal" Principle Of The Release Price Maintenances

For the regulation of release price maintenance,the Anti-Monopoly Law only provides a principled provision in Article 14.The release price maintenance behavior is illegally recognized and adopts the principle of“self?discrimination”,which dominates the practice and theoretical circles in China.Considering the double competitive effect of release price maintenances,this view is debatable.The criteria for the identification of modern monopoly agreements have evolved from a dichotomy to a structurally sound principle.The practice community supports the principle of "Per se Illegal" completely ignoring the effect of release price maintenances on promoting competition,over-emphasizing its anti-competitiveness,and easily causing the generalization of release price maintenances and anti-monopoly regulations.The academic community supports the principle of "Per se Illegal" or comes from the wrong interpretation of article 14.The reason may come from the misreading of the relationship between articles or the judicial and law enforcement misunderstanding of problems in practice or misunderstandings of practices in the United States and the European Union.A reasonable principle should be adopted for release price maintenances.The criteria for the identification of modem monopoly agreements have evolved from the dichotomy to the principle of structural rationality.We should look for typical proof factors for vertical price restraint behavior based on the research results of economics and relevant foreign practices,and formalize the investigation of competitive effect.We also identify and regulate such behavior with minimum resources as far as possible.The first chapter is "Introduction." This part puts forward the problems to be solved in this paper and sorts out the research status of the problem at home and abroad in order to provide suggestions for China's regulation of release price maintenances.The second chapter is "The Basic Theory of Release price maintenances." This part is the introduction of theoretical knowledge.It mainly defines the connotation and extension of the resale price maintenance,determines the research object of this article,and analyzes the effect of resale price maintenance.The expectation is to lay the theoretical foundation for applying vertical violations to the resale price maintenance.The third chapter is "The Status Quo of China's the Resale Price Maintenance Judgment Criteria M.This section mainly sorts out the typical cases in the practice sector and the manifestations of the principles advocated by academic circles to analyzes that the principle of its own violation of law is dominant in the practice and academic circles.The fourth chapter is "The Resale Price Maintenance Judgment Standard And its Evolution".This part clears two criteria for judgment—the three types of expressions and trends in the traditional civil law,the US anti-monopoly law,and the European Union's anti-monopoly law,and points out that the principle of illegality is gradually abandoned.The principle of rationality has become the basic principle for the analysis of the resale price maintenance.After long-term exploration of judicial practice,it has formed two kinds of regulatory methods that are unified under the pedigree of rational principles.The fifth chapter is "The Rebuttal to The Principle of 'Per Se Illegal' in China" In practice,we will reflect on the irrationality of the illegal cases in the seven typical cases.Reflections on Academic Theory,Reflection I:"The wording of the "prohibition" of the following monopoly agreement in Article 14 shall impose its own principle of illegality on vertical price limits." This kind of understanding is caused by the lack of understanding of the rules of law and the law of anti-monopoly law.Reflection ?:The definition of a monopoly agreement is under section 13 and does not apply to section 1.This article uses legal interpretation to rationally interpret the law and correct it.Reflection ?:"If a reasonable principle is applied to Article 14,Article 15 will not have any meaning of existence." On the one hand,this kind of error is due to the scholars'unified understanding of the reasons for the restriction of competition——internal balance and external balance.The content of the regulation is different;On the other hand,they have misunderstood the standards for restricting competition in monopoly agreements.Reflection ?:"The principle of Ter se Illegar is more deterministic and conducive to law enforcement and judicial implementation".The operability and certainty are not the only goals pursued by the legal rules.Through the EU,U.S.,and China's judicial practice,it can be seen that the operability and low cost of its own violation of the principle are doubtful.Reflection V:"The principle of violation of the law itself is more in line with China's EU anti-monopoly law,which is conducive to learning and learning,and the rational principle is the United States' method of regulating antitrust." Due to the misunderstanding of the EU model,it is believed that there is a fundamental difference between the EU and the United States in the analysis model of monopoly agreements.Reflection V:"The principle of 'Per se Illegal'conforms to our country legislation blueprint " Due to the misunderstanding of the EU model,it is believed that there is a fundamental difference between the EU and the United States in the analysis model of monopoly agreements.The sixth chapter " The Release Price Maintenance Should Apply the Reasonable Principle,This part discusses the applieation of reasonable price restriction from three aspects:reasonable principle conforms to the legislative idea and development process of anti-monopoly law;reasonable principle conforms to international judicial practice and is operable;reasonable principle conforms to the research results of economics and is beneficial to learning and reference.The seventh chapter is the conclusion part of this article.