China's current laws prohibit the abuse of monopoly position, which specifically include the following?

I. Necessity of Formulating the Regulations Article 55 of China's Anti-monopoly Law stipulates that "this law does not apply to the acts of business operators exercising intellectual property rights in accordance with laws and administrative regulations on intellectual property rights; However, this Law shall apply to the acts of business operators who abuse intellectual property rights and exclude or restrict competition ". This clause shows the basic attitude of China in implementing the anti-monopoly law in the field of intellectual property rights, that is, it does not deny the legitimacy of intellectual property rights holders to exercise their rights according to the intellectual property law, but regulates the abuse of intellectual property rights with the consequences of excluding and restricting competition. In view of the principle of this article, it is urgent to formulate relevant regulations or guidelines, clarify the boundaries between the exercise of legitimate rights and the abuse of exclusion and restriction of competitive behavior, better guide the practice of anti-monopoly law enforcement, and enhance the expectations of operators for their own business activities. Two. Drafting process of the Regulations At the end of 20 12, SAIC started the drafting of the Regulations while studying and formulating the Guidelines for Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement in the Intellectual Property Field (Draft for Comment). Previously, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce set up a research group in 2009 to study and formulate the Guide (draft for comments). The work mainly includes three aspects: First, collect and sort out the materials and documents of foreign competition agencies' law enforcement practices and related guidelines and regulations, systematically study their basic positions, behavior types, analysis methods and main law enforcement targets in the field of intellectual property rights, and at the same time conduct comparative studies to summarize the * * * understanding and different views of law enforcement agencies in these countries and regions on some issues. 2. In 12 Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing, Liaoning, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Hubei, Guangdong, Sichuan, Gansu and other provinces and cities. Conduct research work by visiting intellectual property-intensive industries and enterprises, issuing questionnaires, holding expert symposiums, and listening to the opinions of administrative and judicial departments. To understand and master the overall situation, behavior forms and behavior patterns of China's abuse of intellectual property rights to exclude and restrict competition at this stage. The third is to draft guidelines (draft for comments) and listen to opinions widely. In addition to soliciting opinions in writing, six symposiums and seminars were held, and many suggestions were put forward by the industrial and commercial system, relevant departments of the State Council, experts and scholars, various enterprises and foreign competition law enforcement agencies. Make a systematic study of these opinions. During the formulation of the Guide (draft for comment), the overall situation of China's abuse of intellectual property rights to exclude and restrict competition was gradually grasped. We believe that the implementation of anti-monopoly law in the field of intellectual property rights is not only a hot issue in theory, but also an important, complex and sensitive issue in the implementation of anti-monopoly law in various countries and regions. China's anti-monopoly law has not been implemented for a long time, and its practical experience in implementing anti-monopoly law in the field of intellectual property is even limited. At this time, it is premature to promote the introduction of an anti-monopoly law enforcement guide in the field of intellectual property that is in line with China's reality, comprehensive in content and complete in system, and needs to be accumulated in practice. Considering the suspicion of abusing intellectual property rights to exclude and restrict competition in practice, it is necessary to regulate it. On the basis of formulating the Guide, SAIC initiated the formulation of Regulations on Regulating Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights, Exclusion and Restriction of Competition. Since March 20 13, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce has conducted two rounds of written comments on the first draft of the Regulations and held five symposiums, involving provincial and sub-provincial city industrial and commercial bureaus, the National People's Congress, the Supreme People's Court, the Legislative Affairs Office, the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and the Intellectual Property Office, and other two departments related to anti-monopoly and intellectual property work in the State Council 12. China Telecom, Huawei, Qualcomm, Samsung and other 19 knowledge-intensive enterprises at home and abroad, foreign-funded chambers of commerce and institutions such as the American Chamber of Commerce and the American Bar Association, foreign competition law enforcement agencies such as the EU General Administration of Competition, the US Department of Justice, the US Federal Trade Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau, as well as domestic competition law experts and scholars. Since soliciting opinions, * * * has received more than 300 opinions and suggestions, and put forward opinions and suggestions to all parties. SAIC has systematically combed, studied, revised and improved the contents of the Regulations. Three. The main contents of the provisions (1) In order to clarify the purpose and basis of its formulation, that is, to protect competition, encourage innovation, and stop operators from abusing intellectual property rights to exclude and restrict competition, these provisions are formulated in accordance with the Anti-Monopoly Law. At the same time, the related concepts are explained. Firstly, the relationship between anti-monopoly law and intellectual property protection, which operators are generally concerned about, is clarified. The objectives of anti-monopoly law and intellectual property protection are the same, that is, to promote innovation and competition, improve efficiency and safeguard the interests of consumers and the public. Second, according to the anti-monopoly function undertaken by SAIC, it is clear that the abuse of intellectual property rights to exclude and restrict competition as mentioned in these Provisions refers to monopolistic behaviors such as the operator's violation of the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law and other laws and administrative regulations related to intellectual property rights, the exercise of intellectual property rights, the implementation of monopoly agreements, and the abuse of market dominance. The third is to clarify the relevant markets mentioned in these regulations, define them according to the Anti-Monopoly Law and the Guidelines for Defining Relevant Markets of the State Council Anti-Monopoly Committee, and consider the influence of intellectual property rights, innovation and other factors. (2) It is forbidden for business operators to reach monopoly agreements in the process of exercising intellectual property rights. It not only generally prohibits operators from reaching monopoly agreements in the process of exercising intellectual property rights, but also stipulates the safe haven rule. The provisions of the safe harbor are conducive to cracking down on the exercise of rights that have obvious adverse effects on competition, helping intellectual property rights holders to judge the consequences of related actions in the anti-monopoly law according to their own market forces and other factors, and guiding operators to avoid exercising rights that have obvious adverse effects on competition and gradually move towards reasonable competition. (3) It is forbidden for operators with dominant market position to abuse their dominant market position and exclude or restrict competition in the process of exercising intellectual property rights. It is clear that in anti-monopoly law enforcement, law enforcement agencies treat intellectual property rights equally with other property rights, and the determination and presumption of market dominance are based on the provisions of Articles 18 and 19 of the Anti-Monopoly Law. The ownership of intellectual property rights by operators can be a factor that determines their market dominance, but operators are directly presumed to have market dominance in relevant markets just because they own intellectual property rights. At the same time, it stipulates several specific abuses that are common in practice, such as refusing intellectual property license, restricting transactions, tying, attaching unreasonable restrictions and discriminating treatment. Among them, it is a very sensitive issue to prohibit operators with dominant market position from refusing intellectual property license without justifiable reasons. Various parties have put forward some opinions and suggestions. Most of them advocate keeping it, but clarifying its components, while others advocate deleting it. After careful study, according to China's Anti-monopoly Law and the actual situation of China's market, the provisions in this regard are retained, but the provisions that operators with dominant market position refuse to trade without justifiable reasons are restricted, only when intellectual property rights constitute the necessary facilities for production and business activities, and the applicable conditions are strictly limited, so as to strike a balance between encouraging innovation and protecting competition. (4) It is stipulated whether four specific types of acts of exercising intellectual property rights, such as patent pool, the act of exercising patent rights in the formulation and implementation of standards, the collective management organization of copyright, and the indiscriminate issuance of warning letters on intellectual property infringement, constitute related monopolistic acts. These behaviors may constitute monopoly agreements and abuse of market dominance respectively or simultaneously, but mainly involve the latter. (5) The analytical principles and framework of anti-monopoly law enforcement by industrial and commercial authorities in the field of intellectual property rights are stipulated. The analysis and determination of the abuse of intellectual property rights to exclude and restrict competition shows that the industrial and commercial authorities have followed the general steps of analyzing and determining monopoly behavior on the basis of considering the particularity of intellectual property rights. When analyzing and determining that the operator is suspected of violating the anti-monopoly law to exercise intellectual property rights, it is necessary to analyze the effect of excluding or restricting competition that this behavior has or may have. This regulation clarifies the law enforcement methods of industrial and commercial organs to operators and relevant institutions, which can not only increase the operability of law enforcement, but also help to improve the transparency of law enforcement, provide reference for operators' self-evaluation, and encourage operators to popularize and disseminate technology. (six) the legal responsibility of abusing intellectual property rights to exclude or restrict competition. Article 19 of the Regulations, according to the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law, clarifies the legal liability of operators for abusing intellectual property rights to exclude or restrict competition.