【作者】 刘阳；

【导师】 郭宗杰；

【作者基本信息】 暨南大学 ， 经济法， 2023， 博士

【摘要】 用以维护企业商业秘密和防止“搭便车”的竞业限制协议,随着商业模式的变迁在社会层面产生了失范的隐忧,其可能被滥用而构成对劳动力要素的不当锁定,进而异化为排除、限制竞争行为。但劳动法内部的规则调整无法抵消协议的反竞争效果,反不正当竞争法也难以单独发挥维护自由竞争的基础性作用,且当前缺乏取缔竞业限制制度的实践基础与学理支撑。相比之下,反垄断法的介入有其正当性:公共利益理念构成竞业限制协议反垄断规制的法理基础,同等准用于劳动力市场竞争秩序的维护阐释了反垄断法适用的实践基础。竞业限制协议的反垄断规制有其功能限度,反垄断法在个案中对竞争损益的合理分析,不会构成对企业信赖利益的不当剥夺。竞业限制协议反垄断规制的价值目标问题备受争议,而相关利益诉求能否上升为价值目标,离不开对于价值目标确立标准的提炼。利益诉求的重要性、独立性、合理性与合法性,是价值目标生成的内在条件;利益诉求与既有价值目标的衔接及对实体制度的统摄,为价值目标生成的外在条件。劳动者福利并不符合反垄断价值目标确立的一般标准,竞业限制协议的反垄断规制目标可以寄生于消费者福利标准之共识之中,且通过对竞争过程的保护实现对劳动者福利的关照。作为劳动力市场的限定交易行为,竞业限制协议被涵摄到禁止滥用市场支配地位和禁止纵向垄断协议的传统规制路径之内。但问题在于,既有以相关商品市场为基础搭建的反垄断分析框架,在适用于竞业限制协议时存在理论论争和现实障碍。从域外视角来看,美国监管者创新性地探索将竞业限制协议纳入横向垄断协议的认定范畴,但该主张有违垄断协议认定体系的类型化标准,并可能构成对竞业限制制度本身的实质否认。对此,应在不改革传统反垄断分析框架和步骤的基础上,对竞业限制协议的特殊性问题予以妥适回应。在总体构设上,将无效竞业限制协议作为滥用市场支配地位行为的表面证据主张,并将竞业限制协议解释为纵向垄断协议兜底条款的适用情形,由此实现对竞业限制协议的体系性规制。在具体适用上,应修正相关劳动力市场的界定方法、丰富市场力量认定的考虑因素、综合竞争损害的分析指标以及明晰正当理由的判断标准。更多还原

【Abstract】 Non-compete agreements used to maintain the trade secrets of enterprises and prevent "free riding",may be abused,and alienated into monopsony conducts.However,the internal improvement of labor law cannot correct the anti-competitive effect of the agreements,and the anti-unfair competition law alone cannot assume the basic role of maintaining free competition.Currently,there is no theoretical support for banning noncompete agreements.The antitrust regulation on the abuse of non-compete agreements is justified: on the one hand,public interests constitute the legal basis of antitrust enforcement;on the other hand,the logic of the application of antitrust law is that it is equally applicable to the maintenance of competition order in the labor market.Notwithstanding,there are functional limitations in the antitrust regulation of noncompete agreements,and the reasonable analysis of competition gains and losses in individual cases by antitrust Law will not constitute improper deprivation of corporate trust interests.There is controversy over the goal of antitrust law regulating non-compete agreements.There is a general standard for the generation of a goal.The internal conditions for the establishment of a goal are the importance,independence,rationality and legitimacy of interests.The external condition for the establishment of a goal is that the interests can be connected with other goals and can guide the entity system.At present,the goal of antitrust law does not encompass worker welfare,and worker welfare is the content of consumer welfare standards.In addition,worker welfare can also be protected by maintaining the competition process.As a type of exclusive dealing in the labor market,the abuse of non-compete agreements is often included in the traditional regulatory path of prohibiting the abuse of dominant market position and prohibiting vertical monopsony agreements.However,the problem is that there are many theoretical disputes and practical dilemmas in the abuse of non-compete agreements applicable to the labor market due to the existing antitrust analysis framework based on the relevant product market.Therefore,the regulator has innovatively explored to include the non-compete agreement into the identification scope of the horizontal monopsony agreement,but this claim violates the classification standard of the identification system of the monopsony agreement,and may in fact deny the non-compete system.In the overall structure,the invalid noncompete agreement should be regarded as the surface evidence of the abuse of market dominance,and the application of the bottom clause of the vertical monopsony agreement,so as to realize the systematic regulation of the non-compete agreement.In terms of specific regulatory standards,we should revise the definition method of relevant markets,enrich the considerations of market power identification,analyze the indicators of comprehensive competition damage,and clarify the criteria for judging legitimate reasons.更多还原