摘 要
基础设施理论是指当独占者控制了基础设施，即其竞争对手进入该市场所必须使用而又无法经过合理的努力复制的资源时，就负有必须和竞争对手交易的义务。该理论中的“基础设施”是指一个设施可以令其他人无法取得，且其他人无法合理地实际复制，同时也是竞争者进入市场参与竞争所必要的设施。
基础设施理论是从美国谢尔曼法第二条发展出来的，它在美国、欧盟和我国台湾地区的反垄断法中有着广泛的适用。基础设施理论最初仅适用于公路、铁路、桥梁等有形物理设施，但随着科技的进步，无形的知识产权领域也有适用的余地。与技术标准相结合的知识产权，借助技术标准的统一性、公开性和普遍适用性使权利人在竞争市场上形成了独占的支配地位，当这些权利人拒绝其所有的知识产权于竞争者时，无异于是将他人逐出相关市场，妨害了公平的竞争秩序，构成了市场支配地位的滥用，形成了垄断。
我国目前还处在以进口知识产权为主的阶段，在经济中的很多领域尤其是IT界，都属于后来跟进者，缺少自己的核心知识产权。但正是这些领域的网络效应尤其强大，特别是某些技术标准已经构成了其市场的进入壁垒，以至于当其所有人拒绝交易时，我国的同类企业根本无法参与竞争。从维护我国产业利益，保护我国市场竞争秩序和我国市场经济持续、快速、健康发展的角度出发，基础设施理论的引入很有必要。另一方面，我国的技术标准体系正在建立之中，知识产权与技术标准的结合是社会经济、技术发展的必然结果，而选择通过技术标准增强我国自有知识产权的影响力也是形势所需，为了避免在我国技术标准体系建设中出现偏差，为了预防知识产权人利用技术标准限制竞争，获得不正当的利益，我们也有必要引入基础设施理论。
我国出台不久的《反垄断法》中规定的滥用市场支配地位的行为和附则中对滥用知识产权行为的规定、专利法中规定的强制许可条款都给我国适用基础设施理论留下了空间。《反垄断法》无法对知识产权滥用的具体行为加以系统而全面的调整或规制,缺乏有效性和可操作性，强制实施许可制度利益的天平都过分倾向了他人利益和社会公共利益，没有严格的限制条件。在反垄断法中以基础设施理论这种具体操作规则来规制滥用市场支配地位的行为，在规制知识产权滥用的条例、规章或指南中用基础设施理论强化专利强制许可条件，让基础设施理论在知识产权反垄断领域更好的发挥作用。在具体司法操作中，借鉴美国第七巡回上诉法院于MCI Communication Corp. V. AT&T, Inc.一案中所确定的四个要件来进行判定即可。
本文采用了比较研究法、规范分析与价值分析法相结合的方法、历史考察的方法、案例分析等研究方法，力求对基础设施理论在知识产权反垄断领域中的适用进行全方位的分析。
关键词：基础设施理论；知识产权；强制许可；反垄断
Abstract
Essential Facility Doctrine claims that when a monopolist has controlled a essential facility which is necessary to a competitor’s access to a market, and the competitor is inability to practically or reasonably duplicate, the monopolist has the duty to deal with the competitor. The “essential facility” is a facility which competitors are not able to access and practically or reasonably duplicate and is necessary to their access to a market.
Essential Facility Doctrine developed from Section 2 of the Sherman Act. It is applied to antitrust laws of America, European Union and Taiwan widely. At first, application of Essential Facility Doctrine was in tangible physical facilities like highway, railroad and bridge, with the development of science and technology, there is still applicable room in intangible intellectual property field. Using unitarity, publicity and universal applicability of technical standard, intellectual property combined with technical standard makes obligee forming market dominant position. When oblige rejects authorizing its intellectual property to other competitors, he does nothing else but excluding them from related market. It hampers fair competition order, abuses market dominant position and constitutes monopoly.
Now our country is in the stage of importing intellectual property, many economic fields especially IT lack their own core intellectual properties. Network effect is particularly strong in these fields, especially when some kinds of technical standard have formed market entry barriers, other enterprises of our country are not able to participate in competition when intellectual property right holders refuse to deal. In order to safeguard industrial interests of our country, protect market competition order and keep the sustained, healthy and rapid development of the national market economy, it’s necessary to introduce Essential Facility Doctrine. On the other side, national technical standard system is in the middle of establishment, intellectual property combined with technical standard is inevitable outcome of development of social economy and technology, situation needs us to increase our intellectual property influence through technical standard, in order to avoid error in the process of technical standard system and prevent intellectual property holders restricting competition and gaining illegal interests by technical standard, Essential Facility Doctrine is also needed.
The regulation of the compulsory license of patent in our country and conducts of abusing dominant position in our antitrust law make the appliance of Essential Facility Doctrine feasible. Antitrust law can’t adjust conduct of abusing intellectual property systematically and completely which lacks effectiveness and maneuverability. According to compulsory lice
