| The rapid development of Internet technology not only improves people’s quality of life,but also promotes the breadth and depth of Internet economic development.Traffic hijacking is an act of inserting links on other people’s web pages for target jumps to attract traffic.In recent years,traffic hijacking cases have occurred frequently,and it has aroused great controversy both in practice and in theory.Based on the analysis,this paper proposes the main problems in the identification of traffic hijacking in my country at this stage and proposes relevant solutions.There are four chapters in this paper.First,the theoretical overview of traffic hijacking is presented,and analyzing the composition and theory of traffic hijacking.Secondly,through the research and analysis of relevant laws and regulations and judicial cases of traffic hijacking,the dilemma of identifying traffic hijacking in judicial practice in my country is put forward.Firstly,is subject identification,there are difficulties in determining the competitive relationship,and the scope of rights protection subjects is small;secondly,the identification of the means of traffic hijacking is ambiguous,and the application of various rules is confusing;and then analyze the judgment of the subjective state The lack of relevant norms leads to different standards for the determination of subjective maliciousness.Finally,it is proposed that the determination of the damage result of traffic hijacking cannot only measure the damage of a single benefit.Next,by means of the analysis and sorting out of traffic cases outside the territory,it is concluded that the reference experience of related traffic hijacking cases in my country can be analyzed from the degree of protection of consumers’ interests and the degree of obstruction of other operators’ behaviors that will cause them to fail to operate.the illegality of its conduct.Finally,the specific criteria for identifying traffic hijacking are proposed.In terms of the subject,the broad competition relationship should be used as the standard,the narrow competition relationship standard should be abandoned,and consumers should be given relevant litigation rights;for the determination of behavioral means,it can be determined from whether it exceeds the avoidance limit,whether it is compulsory freerider behavior,whether it is mandatory In line with the principle requirements of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law;the judgment of subjective maliciousness can be determined from whether the perpetrator has remedial actions afterwards,whether there is differential treatment of competitors,and the applicable standards for technological innovation;In terms of traffic hijacking,it should fully measure the interests of consumers,operators and social competition order,and finally determine whether it conforms to the damage caused by traffic hijacking. |
