| The continuous development of society has brought about a more prosperous market economy,accompanied by a more brutal market environment.In the means of competition,it has also evolved from the traditional unfair competition method to a more complex model.In the era of big data,the data resources that enterprises possess and want to acquire are called the “oil” of the third industrial revolution.Internet companies have tried to obtain user information held by other enterprises under the banner of thinking for users.Infringement on the legitimate rights and interests of other enterprises.Data wars have evolved widely around the world,and foreign Internet companies have long been in the voice of data abuse and data monopoly.Different from the US courts,the data dispute cases are mostly measured from the perspective of data oligopoly,considering the overall interests of society.Chinese courts have ruled on data disputes in anti-unfair competition and anti-monopoly cases,seeking fairness in individual cases.On the premise of determining whether the two parties have a competitive relationship,the case is analyzed and judged in accordance with the agreement between the two parties or according to Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.There is still controversy on the basis for judging unfair competition cases based on new data acquisition methods at this stage.Uncertainty of the law brought about by the general provisions and the problem of excessive discretion of judges are all problems that have not been clearly determined.How to define the industry practices among Internet companies and the data ownership issues held by Internet companies needs to be discussed in combination with judicial practice.Under this premise,under the newly revised Internet Article,comprehensively analyze the more controversial issues in judicial practice,and put forward appropriate suggestions for the resolution of these issues.In the era of big data,to determine the competitive relationship of Internet companies,it is necessary to take the bilateral market into consideration.The issue of application between the general provisions and the Internet-specific articles needs to clarify the order in which these two articles are applied.This article should be applied to those that have appeared in judicial practice and can be included in the scope of regulation of this article.If there is no enumerated provision in this article,it is necessary to make a comprehensivejudgment in combination with the general provisions of this article and the provisions of the general provisions.In the future,judicial interpretations should also be issued for areas where the Internet special provisions are inadequate,to supplement the imperfections of the enumerative provisions of the Internet special provisions. |
