臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：歐盟競爭法下之忠誠折扣--從Intel v. Commission案重新啟航
書刊名：公平交易季刊
作者：張維哲
作者(外文)：Chang, Wei-che
出版日期：2022
卷期：30:4
頁次：頁57-118
主題關鍵詞：歐盟競爭法；忠誠折扣；基於形式的檢視法；以形式作為依據之研究途徑；基於效果的檢視法；以效果作為依據之研究途徑、更經濟的檢視法；同等效率競爭者測試；AEC測試；Intel案；EU Competition Law；Loyalty rebates；Fidelity rebates；Loyalty discounts；Fidelity discounts；Form-based approach；Formalistic approach；Effects-based approach；More economic approach；As-efficient competitor test；AEC test；Intel
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:12
  • 點閱點閱:2
期刊論文
1.Hamilton, James L.、Mqasqas, Ibrahim(1996)。Double Marginalization and Vertical Integration: New Lessons from Extensions of the Classic Case。Southern Economic Journal，62(3)，567-584。  new window
2.魏杏芳(20141000)。以歐盟規範與實踐論電信業價格擠壓的管制。公平交易季刊，22(4)，1-32。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.楊宏暉(20190100)。歐盟競爭法關於垂直協議規範之沿革、現狀及展望。公平交易季刊，27(1)，113-167。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.Geradin, Damien(2015)。Loyalty Rebates after Intel: Time for the European Court of Justice to Overrule Hoffman-La Roche。Journal of Competition Law and Economics，11(3)。  new window
5.王文宇(20070100)。濫用獨占地位之判斷標準--法律概念或經濟觀點？。公平交易季刊，15(1)，1-23。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.謝長江(20190400)。從比較法論法院在競爭法案件中的經濟分析取徑--以歐盟與美國之獨家交易協議案件為例。公平交易季刊，27(2)，99-144。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.Wils, Wouter P. J.(2014)。The Judgement of the EU General Court in Intel and the So-called 'More Economic Approach' to Abuse of Dominance。World Competition，37(4)。  new window
8.Van Wijck, Peter(2021)。Loyalty Rebates and the More Economic Approach to EU Competition Law。European Competition Journal，17(1)。  new window
9.Whish, Richard(2015)。Intel v Commission: Keep Calm and Carry on!。Journal of European Competition Law and Practice，6(1)。  new window
10.Sher, Brian(2015)。Keep Calm--Yes; Carry on--No! A Response to Whish on Intel。Journal of European Competition Law and Practice，6(4)。  new window
11.Scott Morton, Fiona M.、Abrahamson, Zachary(2017)。A Unifying Analytical Framework for Loyalty Rebates。Antitrust Law Journal，81(3)。  new window
12.Robertson, Viktoria H. S. E.(2018)。Rebates under EU Competition Law after the 2017 Intel Judgement: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly。Market and Competition Law Review，11(1)。  new window
13.Petit, Nicolas(2015)。Intel, Leveraging Rebates and the Goals of Article 102 TFEU。European Competition Journal，11(1)。  new window
14.Peeperkorn, Luc、Viertiö, Katja(2009)。Implementing an Effects-based Approach to Article 82。Competition Policy Newsletter，2009(1)。  new window
15.Özkan, Ahmet Fatih(2015)。The Intel Judgement: The Commission Threw the First Stone but the EU Courts will Throw the Last。European Competition Journal，11(1)。  new window
16.Nihoul, Paul(2014)。The Ruling of the General Court in Intel: Towards the End of an Effects-based Approach in European Competition Law?。Journal of European Competition Law and Practice，5(8)。  new window
17.Lundqvist, Björn(2016)。Post Danmark II, Now Concluded by the ECJ: Clarification of the Rebate Abuse, but how do we Marry Post Danmark I with Post Danmark II?。European Competition Journal，11(2/3)。  new window
18.Kadar, Massimiliano(2019)。Article 102 and Exclusivity Rebates in a Post-Intel World: Lessons from the Qualcomm and Google Android Cases。Journal of European Competition Law and Practice，10(7)。  new window
19.Hsieh, Kuo-Lien(2019)。The 2018 Qualcomm Decision and the EU Regulation of Dominant Firm Behaviour。Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics，47。  new window
20.謝國廉(20121200)。The Intel Decision and the EU's New Standards for Behaviours by Dominant Firms。智慧財產評論，10(2)，1-32。new window  new window
21.Friend, Mark(2018)。Loyalty Rebates and Abuse of Dominance。Cambridge Law Journal，77(1)。  new window
22.Fišer-Šobot, Sandra(2018)。A New Approach to Rebates after Intel Case。LeXonomica，10(2)。  new window
23.De Coninck, Raphaël(2018)。The As-efficient Competitor Test: Some Practical Considerations Following the ECJ Intel Judgement。Competition Law and Policy Debate，4(2)。  new window
24.許祐寧(20180800)。標準必要專利與反托拉斯之成果運用法制--以高通案為例。科技法律透析，30(8)，42-69。  延伸查詢new window
25.陳志民(2018)。從2017年歐盟法院Intel案判決，談公平法審理折扣（讓）案件之法律經濟分析架構及政策啟示。公平交易通訊，83。  延伸查詢new window
26.吳佳蓁(2018)。Intel案與審理原則之轉變？！。公平交易通訊，79。  延伸查詢new window
27.李俊峰(2019)。「忠誠折扣」的壟斷違法性判定--以利樂公司行政處罰案為材料。當代法學，2019(2)。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.陳志民、林益裕(2013)。非價格垂直限制適用「合理原則」之違法考量因素。  延伸查詢new window
2.陳和全、周振鋒(2013)。經濟分析方法於競爭法議題應用之研究。  延伸查詢new window
3.牛曰正、吳秀明(2018)。公平交易法上「安全港(safe harbor)條款」之研究。  延伸查詢new window
4.廖義男、莊弘鈺、黃銘傑、謝國廉(2020)。公平交易法國內重要案例之評析--以獨占及其他（非聯合）限制競爭行為為中心。  延伸查詢new window
5.Colomo, Pablo Ibáñez(2014)。Intel and Article 102 TFEU Case Law: Making Sense of a Perpetual Controversy。  new window
學位論文
1.Lampinen, Toni(2019)。The Assessment of Rebate Schemes under Article 102 TFEU(碩士論文)。University of Helsinki。  new window
2.Johansson, Eddie(2017)。Assessing Rebates under Article 102 TFEU: A Path Towards Legal Certainty(碩士論文)。Uppsala Universitet。  new window
3.許芝菡(2019)。從歐盟英特爾案看忠誠折扣的合理性(碩士論文)。國立清華大學。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.王立達(20181128)。魔鬼藏在細節裡：高通案和解筆錄透露的真實訊息，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/IPNC_181128_0702.htm。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.陳靜慧(2015)。歐盟法院之組織與功能。歐盟法之基礎原則與實務發展。臺北：臺大出版中心。  延伸查詢new window
2.洪德欽(2015)。歐盟法的淵源。歐盟法之基礎原則與實務發展。臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。  延伸查詢new window
3.Robertson, Viktoria H. S. E.(2023)。Loyalty Rebates under EU Competition and US Antitrust Law。Research Handbook on Abuse of Dominance and Monopolization。Edward Elgar Publishing。  new window
4.Lianos, Ioannis、Genakos, Christos(2013)。Econometric Evidence in EU Competition Law: An Empirical and Theoretical Analysis。Handbook on European Competition Law。Elgar Publishing。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：878（臺灣：866，外國：12） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1780212 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67596501
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上