Google Books計畫所涉之法律問題研析─以反托拉斯法律相關議題為中心

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：84

、訪客IP：18.223.107.178

姓名

劉怡君(Yi-Chun Liu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

產業經濟研究所

論文名稱

Google Books計畫所涉之法律問題研析─以反托拉斯法律相關議題為中心
(A Study on Legal Issues of Google Books: Focused on Antitrust Issues)

相關論文

★ 網路中立原則 - 我國管制可能性之研究	★ 電子投票與民主參與－以英國之實驗經驗為借鏡
★ 智慧財產證券化—法制環境之檢討與建議	★ 開放源碼軟體商業應用之法律爭議及其可能之解決途徑
★ 論債權式新資金引入—以公司重整制度為中心	★ 頻譜資源分配之政策─以開放模式為目標
★ 律師業管理機制與公平交易法衝突之研究─從法易通案談起	★ 專利主張實體問題之研究─以美國經驗為借鏡
★ 論跨媒體合併行為之管制―以民主機能之健全為中心	★ 雲端個人健康資訊系統專法芻議 ─以平衡、有效之隱私保護為核心
★ 離職後競業禁止約款之適法性研究－以人才流動自由化為政策取向	★ 網路環境中之著作權法第一次銷售原則－迷思之化解與困境之突破
★ 非實施專利實體與專利訴訟－美國發明法實施前後之實證分析	★ 美國軟體專利適格性之研究 —談審查之趨勢與我國企業的因應之道
★ 新興市場中之合作與競爭—以U.S. v. Apple案為中心	★ 隱私權於資訊時代中之再思考－以被遺忘權為核心

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

二十一世紀初，引領世界搜尋引擎技術龍頭業者──Google──開始推動Google Books計畫，期能造就世界圖書館。然 Google 的直率作風，使得法律爭議隨之而生，著作權人紛紛對之提出侵權訴訟。雖然雙方當事人在 2008 年時以和解收場，惟問題未因此解決。在和解前討論最為熱烈之議題，即為 Google 利用圖書館館藏是否為合理使用，而不構成侵權？在和解的背後，亦存在其他法律問題，如 Google 是否有實施獨占的嫌疑？著作權人間是否達成水平聯合之共識？以及和解協議對於孤兒著作授權所為的處置是否妥適？等等爭論。
本研究之目的在於，結合法律與經濟理論，藉由不同的思維與觀察角度分析與推演問題本質，並以反托拉斯法律爭議為研究主軸。於論述過程中，首先界定市場範圍與競爭廠商，嘗試援引雙邊市場理論為市場結構分析之論述基礎。筆者將 Google Books 的產品劃分為：非孤兒著作與孤兒著作，並大膽推論，在非孤兒著作產品市場中，現今 Google 的地位係位於擁有少數競爭者的雙邊市場內，競爭者目前實力恐無法與之匹敵；而在孤兒著作產品市場中，Google 則處於具有顯著市場力量的地位。
在明確市場範圍後，進而探討和解協議中主要爭議：是否構成獨占與聯合行為，最後並據此提出對於 Google 最具爭議性之部分──孤兒著作──之解決方案。本文認為基於社會資源有效配置及公共利益考量，應讓這些著作繼續予 Google 利用，然於此同時，由於法院賦予其相對優勢，故 Google 亦應如電信業者提供關鍵設施予其他電信業者利用般，提供這些著作予其他競爭者，以維持市場競爭秩序。至於其他著作權人明確的著作，便由各廠商各憑本事爭取合作，由市場競爭機制決定孰優孰敗。

摘要(英)

In less than a decade, Google, the world’’s leading online search service provider, has quietly built up a digital library that would make available millions of books to anyone with a link, from anywhere around the world. The now famous—and controversial—Google Books project has scanned books from numerous libraries without explicit authorization from the copyright holders. Unsurprisedly, Google drew the ire of authors and publishers; a massive class action ensued. On October 28, 2008, Google reached a tentative settlement agreement with authors and publishers, which is still under review by the court as of this writing.
Other than copyright issues, critics of the deal have voiced concerns over antitruste issues, in particular the possibility that Google Books might become a de facto monopoly over digital books, in both regular works and so-called orphan books alike. Also of suspicion is the potential cartel by copyright holders, facilitated by Google.
This thesis aims to address the above concerns with helps from legal and economics theories, including recent discussions on multi-sided markets. I would try to define the markets, identify relevant market participants, and assess the status of market competiton. I would go on to argue that Google could face substantial competition in the market of non-orphan works, but is likely to become a de facto monopolist in orphan works but for timely intervention. The thesis would also attempt to propose some feasible remedies that could be implemented in various time frames that might help alleviate the concern.

關鍵字(中)

★ 雙邊市場
★ 獨占
★ 掠奪性定價
★ 關鍵設施理論
★ 孤兒著作
★ Google 圖書
★ 卡特爾
★ 水平聯合定價
★ 聯合行為
★ 公平交易法
★ 反托拉斯法
★ 市場界定

關鍵字(英)

★ Antitrust Law
★ essential facilities doctrine
★ Competition Law
★ market definition
★ price-fixing
★ monopoly
★ predatory pricing
★ Google Books
★ orphan works
★ cartel
★ two-sided market

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract iii
誌謝 v
目錄 ix
圖目錄 xiv
表目錄 xiv
1 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的與問題意識 3
1.3 研究範圍與限制 5
1.4 研究方法 7
1.5 研究架構 8
2 訴訟案件背景說明與引發之法律爭議 11
2.1 事實背景 11
2.1.1 Google Books 發展沿革 11
2.1.2 Google Books 來源 14
2.1.3 數位化書籍檢索功能 17
2.1.4 著作權人對 Google 之反擊 21
2.2 案件近期發展 27
2.2.1 原始和解協議 (Settlement Agreement, SA) 28
2.2.2 修正和解協議 (Amended Settlement Agreement, ASA) 32
2.2.3 公平聽證會 33
2.2.4 法院駁回和解協議 34
2.2.5 最新動態 35
2.3 引發之法律與其他相關爭議 36
2.3.1 侵害著作權或合理使用？ 36
2.3.2 被遺忘的一角：孤兒著作誰授權？ 38
2.3.3 違反反托拉斯法之疑慮 40
2.3.4 濫用集體訴訟 41
2.3.5 英語帝國主義爭議 42
2.4 小結 42
3 Google Books 相關市場界定與參與廠商 45
3.1 特定市場界定與參與廠商認定概述 45
3.1.1 相關產品市場 46
3.1.2 相關地理市場 50
3.1.3 市場參與廠商之認定 50
3.2 數位化書籍全文檢索市場 52
3.2.1 雙邊市場基本內涵 52
3.2.2 數位化全文檢索雙邊市場運作模式與產品特徵 63
3.3 數位化書籍全文檢索市場與競爭者之界定 67
3.3.1 非孤兒著作 68
3.3.2 孤兒著作 79
4 Google Books 與和解協議構成獨占之爭議 83
4.1 獨占之定義與認定標準 83
4.1.1 獨占之定義 83
4.1.2 獨占事業之認定標準 84
4.1.3 小結 89
4.2 數位化書籍全文檢索市場之交易成本 89
4.3 實施機構訂閱掠奪性定價之疑慮 92
4.4 Google 對於孤兒著作是否擁有市場力量 98
4.4.1 孤兒著作之數量比例 98
4.4.2 孤兒著作之市場價值 99
4.4.3 Google Books 擁有孤兒著作之影響 100
5 著作權人間構成水平聯合之爭議 107
5.1 聯合行為之定義與構成要件 107
5.1.1 聯合行為定義 107
5.1.2 聯合行為之構成要件 109
5.2 著作權人間構成銷售條件水平聯合之疑慮 110
5.2.1 利潤分配比例 110
5.2.2 數位書籍零售價格聯合定價 111
5.2.3 孤兒著作定價 113
5.2.4 小結 115
5.3 機構訂閱較音樂概括授權有利於競爭 115
5.3.1 音樂概括授權背景說明 116
5.3.2 機構訂閱與音樂概括授權之異同 118
5.3.3 機構訂閱價格哄抬之爭議 122
6 解決 Google 利用孤兒著作問題之建議 125
6.1 孤兒著作利用困境之解決 125
6.1.1 透過市場機制運行之不足 127
6.1.2 政府應介入管制之方案 130
6.1.3 建議作法與修法芻議 136
6.2 Google 應提供孤兒著作服務供其他競爭者利用 142
6.2.1 關鍵設施理論概述 142
6.2.2 Google 服務成為關鍵設施之可能性 146
7 結論與未來研究建議 153
7.1 回顧 153
7.1.1 問題分析結果 153
7.1.2 問題解決途徑 155
7.2 研究貢獻 156
7.3 建議後續研究方向 156
參考文獻 159
專書 (依作者姓氏筆劃排序) 159
期刊論文 (依作者姓氏筆劃排序) 159
研究報告 (依作者姓氏筆劃排序) 161
References 161
Cases & Court Filings 173

參考文獻

專書 (依作者姓氏筆劃排序)
1. Eric G. Furubotn & Rudolf Richter 著，顏愛靜、郭冠宏、劉籐、黃名義、王本壯、楊國柱、陳柏廷、陳錫鎮、廖仲仁譯，《制度與經濟理論：新制度經濟學之貢獻》，台北：五南，第二版，2009年10月。
2. 行政院公平交易委員會，《認識公平交易法》，台北：公平會，2011年3月，增訂 13 版。
3. 汪渡村，《公平交易法》，台北：五南，第四版，2010年4月。
4. 張清溪、許嘉棟、劉鶯釧、吳聰敏，《經濟學：理論與實際》，台北：翰蘆，第六版，2010年8月。
5. 張順教，《高科技產業經濟分析：半導體、通訊、平面顯示器、網路經濟學》，台北：雙葉書廊，第二版，2006年7月。
6. 許振邦，《採購與供應管理》，台北：智勝文化，再版，2007年2月。
7. 羅明通，著作權法概論 (I)，台北：台英商務法律，第七版，2009年9月。
期刊論文 (依作者姓氏筆劃排序)
1. 王明禮，〈著作財產權存續期間之經濟分析〉，《科技法學評論》，第 4 卷 2 期，2007 年 10 月。
2. ──，〈著作權存續期間的憲法界限─試評 Eldred v. Ashcroft〉，收錄於焦興鎧主編，《美國最高法院重要判決之研究：2000-2003》，台北：中央研究院歐美所，初版，2007 年 2 月。
3. 石瑾睦，〈Google 與美國作家/出版商協會以 1.25 億美金和解的真相？〉，《數位出版觀察家》，第三期，2008年11月15日，http://www.wordpedia.com/b2bepaper/no003/index.htm。
4. 呂宗龍、潘治良、詹益鑑、劉姿吟、蘇慧瑄，〈Google 圖書館數位化爭議案〉，收錄於劉江彬主編，《智慧財產法律與管理：案例分析（四）》，台北：政大科技政策與法律研究中心，初版，2006年9月。
5. 洪勝毅，〈從GOOGLE與美國MCGRAW-HILL等五大書商之著作權訴訟分析GOOGLE圖書館計畫與合理使用之法律疑義〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，第121期，2009年1月。
6. 章忠信，〈世界圖書館的大未來〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，第124期，2009年4月。
7. 莊春發，〈市場壟斷力的研究─兼論其在公平交易法應用的合理性〉，收錄於氏著《反托拉斯經濟學論集(上)》，台北：瑞興圖書，初版，2002年9月。
8. ──，〈掠奪性訂價的研究〉，收錄於氏著《反托拉斯經濟學論集(下)》，台北：瑞興圖書，初版，2002年9月。
9. ──，〈論市場範圍之界定〉，收錄於氏著《反托拉斯經濟學論集(上)》，台北：瑞興圖書，初版，2002年9月。
10. 陳志民、吳秀明，〈事業以聯合行為或濫用市場地位調漲價格經處分後，要求回復原價之探討〉，《公平交易法季刊》，第 11 卷第 2 期，2003 年 4 月。
11. 陳敦源，〈透明之下的課責：台灣民主治理中官民信任關係的重要基礎〉，《文官制度季刊》，第1卷第2期，2009年4月。
12. 陳櫻琴，〈管制革新之法律基礎與政策調適〉，收錄於劉孔中、施俊吉主編，《管制革新》，台北：中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所，初版，2001年4月。
13. 廖賢洲，〈從 Verizon v. Trinko 案看電信市場之管制與競爭〉，《公平交易季刊》，第 13 卷第 3 期，2005 年 7 月。
14. 趙世俊，〈從藍海戰略到長尾理論〉，《網際網路周刊》，2006年06月14日，http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/tech/2006-06/14/content_4695090.htm。
15. 劉孔中，〈以關鍵設施理論限制專利強制授權之範圍〉，《公平交易季刊》，第 15 卷第 1 期，2007年 1 月。
16. ──，〈專利強制授權之革新〉，收錄於氏著《智慧財產法制的關鍵革新》，台北：元照，初版，2007年6月。
17. 簡資修，〈物權法：共享與排他之調和〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第 97 期，2003 年 6 月。
18. 龐文真，〈三大危機撼動亞馬遜寶座〉，《數位時代》，2006年3月1日，http://www.bnext.com.tw/article/view/cid/0/id/3096。
研究報告 (依作者姓氏筆劃排序)
1. 產業情報研究所數位生活研究群，《閱讀情境與內容消費者偏好分析》，財團法人資訊工業策進會，2010年2月。
2. 黃銘傑，《數位內容產業發展條例草案第 18 條著作權人不明著作之許可利用及使用報酬率等應遵行事項之研擬》，經濟部智慧財產局委託，2008年。
3. 蔡明誠、陳柏如，《國際著作權仲介團體之研究》，經濟部智慧財產局研究報告，2003年6月。
4. 汪貫中，〈Google 電子書平台12月上架亞馬遜主導地位再受挑戰〉，《DIGITIMES Research》，2010年12月31日，http://www.digitimes.com.tw/tw/rpt/rpt_show.asp?CnlID=3&v=20101231-634&n=1。
5. ──，〈北美電子書產業結構水平化電子書閱讀器、Andriod平板與電子紙業者接受益〉，《DIGITIMES Research》，2011年1月5日，http://www.digitimes.com.tw/tw/rpt/rpt_show.asp?cnlid=3&cat=PCE&n=1&v=20110105-642。
6. 郭明錤，〈剖析 Barnes & Noble 電子書事業策略思維與產業趨勢啟示(上)〉，《DIGITIMES Research》，2009年8月6日，http://www.digitimes.com.tw/tw/rpt/rpt_show.asp?cnlid=3&v=20090806-266&n=1。
7. 產業情報研究所數位生活研究群，《閱讀情境與內容消費者偏好分析》，財團法人資訊工業策進會，2010年2月。
8. 黃銘傑，《數位內容產業發展條例草案第 18 條著作權人不明著作之許可利用及使用報酬率等應遵行事項之研擬》，經濟部智慧財產局委託，2008年。
9. 蔡明誠、陳柏如，《國際著作權仲介團體之研究》，經濟部智慧財產局研究報告，2003年6月。
10. 汪貫中，〈Google 電子書平台12月上架亞馬遜主導地位再受挑戰〉，《DIGITIMES Research》，2010年12月31日，http://www.digitimes.com.tw/tw/rpt/rpt_show.asp?CnlID=3&v=20101231-634&n=1。
11. ──，〈北美電子書產業結構水平化電子書閱讀器、Andriod平板與電子紙業者接受益〉，《DIGITIMES Research》，2011年1月5日，http://www.digitimes.com.tw/tw/rpt/rpt_show.asp?cnlid=3&cat=PCE&n=1&v=20110105-642。
12. 郭明錤，〈剖析 Barnes & Noble 電子書事業策略思維與產業趨勢啟示(上)〉，《DIGITIMES Research》，2009年8月6日，http://www.digitimes.com.tw/tw/rpt/rpt_show.asp?cnlid=3&v=20090806-266&n=1。
References
1. Alaoui, Hicham, What’s in a Logo?, INSIDE GOOGLE BOOKS, 1 June 2009. Web. 7 Dec. 2010. .
2. Albanese, Andrew, Google Status Conference Is Delayed. PUBLISHERS WEEKLY, 25 Apr. 2011. Web. 26 Apr. 2011. .
3. Andrews, Ryan, Note, Contracting Out of the Orphan Works Problem: How the Googlebook Search Settleme3nt Serves as a Private Solution to the Orphan Works Problem and Why It Should Matter to Policy Makers, 19 S. CAL. INTERDISC. L.J. 97 (2009).
4. ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (2007), available at .
5. Areeda, Phillip & Donald F. Turner, Predatory Pricing and Related Practices under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 88 HARV. L. REV. 697 (1975).
6. Areeda, Phillip, Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles, 58 ANTITRUST L.J. 841 (1989).
7. AREEDA, PHILLIP, LOUIS KAPLOW & AARON EDLIN, ANTITRUST ANALYSIS: PROBLEMS, TEXTS, CASES (6th ed. 2004).
8. Argentesi, Elena & Lapo Filistrucchi, Estimating market power in a two-sided market: the case of newspapers, 22 J. APPLIED ECONOMETRICS 1247 (2007).
9. Armstrong, Mark & Julian Wright, Two-sided Markets, Competitive Bottlenecks and Exclusive Contracts, ECON. THEORY, Aug. 2007.
10. Armstrong, Mark, Competition in Two-Sided Markets, 37 RAND J. ECON. 668 (2006), available at .
11. Band, Jonathan , Google and Fair Use, 3 J. BUS. & TECH. L. 1 (2008).
12. Baxter, William F., Bank Interchange of Transactional Paper: Legal and Economic Perspectives, 26 J.L. & ECON. 541 (1983).
13. Bolt, Wilko & Alexander F. Tieman, Heavily Skewed Pricing in Two-Sided Markets, 26 INT. J. IND. ORGAN. 1250 (2008).
14. Bosman, Julie, Google Opens Doors to E-Bookstore, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 7, 2010, at B1, available at .
15. BOYLE, JAMES, THE PUBLIC DOMAIN: ENCLOSING THE COMMONS OF THE MIND (2008).
16. ──. The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain, 66-SPG LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 33 (2003).
17. Brynjolfsson, Erik, Yu (Jeffrey) Hu & Michael D. Smith, Consumer Surplus in the Digital Economy: Estimating the Value of Increased Product Variety, 49 MANAGEMENT SCIENCE 1580 (2003), available at .
18. Bunnell, Ben, The Bodleian's Treasures, Available to All, THE OFFICIAL GOOGLE BLOG, 26 Mar. 2009. Web. 2 Feb. 2011. .
19. Burke, Taylor & Sara Rosenbaum, Aligning Health Care Market Incentives in an Information Age: The Role of Antitrust Law, 5 J. HEALTH & BIOMEDICAL L. 151 (2009).
20. Caillaud, Bernard & Bruno Jullien, Chicken & Egg: Competition Among Intermediation Service Providers, 34 RAND J. ECON. 309 (2003), available at .
21. Calabresi, Guido & A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, 85 HARV. L. REV. 1089 (1972).
22. Chen, Yuxin & Jinhong Xie, Cross-Market Network Effect with Asymmetric Customer Loyalty: Implications for Competitive Advantage, 26 MARKETING SCI. 52 (2007).
23. Coase, Ronald H., The Problem of Social Cost, 3 J.L. & ECON.1 (1960).
24. Coate, Malcolm B. & Jeffrey H. Fischer, A Practical Guide to the Hypothetical Monopolist Test for Market Definition, 4 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 1031 (2008).
25. Cohen, Noam, A Google Search of a Distinctly Retro Kind, N.Y. TIMES, 4 Mar. 2009. Web. 23 Nov. 2010. .
26. Competition and Commerce in Digital Books: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 64 & 73 (2009) (statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights), available at .
27. Courant, Paul N., On Being in Bed with Google, PAUL COURANT BLOG. 4 Nov. 2007. Web. 10 May. 2010. .
28. ──. What’s at Stake in the Google Book Search Settlement?, THE ECON. VOICE, Oct. 2009.
29. Darnton, Robert, Google & the Future of Books, NYBOOKS.COM, 12 Feb. 2009. Web. 26 May. 2011. .
30. ──. THE CASE FOR BOOKS: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE (2009).
31. Derclaye, Estelle & Marcella Favale, Copyright and Contract Law: Regulating User Contracts: The State of the Art and A Research Agenda, 18 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 65 (2010).
32. Doane, Michael J. & Daniel F. Spulber, Open Access and the Evolution of the U.S. Spot Market for Natural Gas, 37 J.L. & ECON. 477 (1994).
33. Durantaye, Katharina de la, Finding a Home for Orphans: Google Book Search and Orphan Works Law in the United States and Europe, 21 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 229 (2011).
34. Easterbrook, Frank H., Predatory Strategies and Counterstrategies, 48 U. CHI. L. REV. 263 (1981).
35. Eaton, Nick, Google Starting to Threaten Microsoft’s Market Cap, SEATTLEPI BLOG 15 Oct. 2010. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. .
36. Economics of Book Digitization, Open Content Alliance.org, 22 Mar. 2009. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. .
37. ELHAUGE, EINER R., UNITED STATES ANTITRUST LAW AND ECONOMICS (2008).
38. ──. Why the Google Books Settlement Is Procompetitive, 2 J. LEGAL ANALYSIS 1 (2010).
39. Emch, Eric & T. Scott Thompson, Market Definition and Market Power in Payment Card Networks, 5 REV. NETWORK ECON. 45 (2006), available at .
40. EPSTEIN, RICHARD A., ANTITRUST CONSENT DECREES IN THEORY AND PRACTICE: WHY LESS IS MORE (2007).
41. EVANS, DAVID S. & RICHARD SCHMALENSEE, CATALYST CODE: THE STRATEGIES BEHIND THE WORLD’S MOST DYNAMIC COMPANIES (2007).
42. ──. The Industrial Organization of Markets with Two-Sided Platforms, COMPETITION POL’Y INT’L, Spring 2007.
43. Evans, David S.& Michael Noel, Defining Antitrust Markets When Firms Operate Two-Sided Platforms, 2005 COLUM. BUS. L. REV. 667.
44. ──. The Analysis of Mergers That Involve Multisided Platform Businesses, 4 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 663 (2008).
45. Evans, David S., The Antitrust Economics of Multi-sided Platform Markets, 20 YALE J. ON REG. 325 (2003).
46. ──. Two-Sided Market Definition, in MARKET DEFINITION IN ANTITRUST: THEORY AND CASE STUDIES (forthcoming 2011).
47. Feldman, Jamie, Note, Compulsory Licenses: The Dangers Behind The Current Practice, 8 J. INT'L BUS. & L. 137 (2009).
48. Fraser, Eric M., Note, Antitrust and the Google Books Settlement: The Problem of Simultaneity, 2010 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 1, available at .
49. Gamble, Aundrea, Google's Book Search Project: Searching for Fair Use or Infringement, 9 TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. 365 (2007).
50. Gasaway, Laura N., A Defense of the Public Domain: A Scholarly Essay, 101 LAW LIBR. J. 451 (2009).
51. Gershman, Dave, University of Michigan, Amazon Announce Book-Printing Deal, ANN ARBOR NEWS, 21 July, 2009. Web. 27 Dec. 2010. .
52. Gillerman, Jonathan D., Note, Calling Their Shots: Miffed Minor Leaguers, the Steroid Scandal, and Examining the Use of Section 1 of the Sherman Act to Hold MLB Accountable, 73 ALB. L. REV. 541 (2010).
53. Givler, Peter, A letter to Google, AAUP, American Association of University Professors.org, 20 May 2005. Web. 26 Mar. 2011. .
54. Glorios, Alessandra, Note, Google Books: An Orphan Works Solution?, 38 HOFSTRA L. REV. 971 (2010).
55. Goldstein, Jessica L., Note, Single Firm Predatory Pricing in Antitrust Law: The Rose Acre Recoupment Test and the Search for an Appropriate Judicial Standard, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 1757 (1991).
56. Google Books Agreement Torpedoed by US Court, BBC.NEWS, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. .
57. Google Press Release, Authors, Publishers, and Google Reach Landmark Settlement, GOOGLE.COM, 28 Oct. 2008. Web. 11 Mar. 2010. .
58. Grant, Jen, Judging Book Search By Its Cover, THE OFFICIAL GOOGLE BLOG, 17 Nov. 2005. Web. 28 July 2010. .
59. Grimmelmann, James, GBS Status Conference: Opt-in Settlement in the Works?, LABORATORIUM.NET, 19 July, 2011, Web. 22 July. 2011. .
60. ──. How To Fix The Google Book Search Settlement, 12 NO. 10 J. INTERNET L. 1 (2009).
61. ──. The Amended Google Books Settlement Is Still Exclusive, COMPETITION POL’Y INT’L ANTITRUST J., Jan. 2010, available at .
62. Hausman, Jerry A. & J. Gregory Sidak, Google and the Proper Antitrust Scrutiny of Orphan Books, 5 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 411 (2009).
63. Helft, Miguel, Google Book-Scanning Pact to Give Libraries Input on Price, N.Y. TIMES, 21 May 2009, at B3, available at .
64. ──. Google’s Plans for Out-of-Print Books Is Challenged, N.Y. TIMES, 3 Apr. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2011. .
65. Helft, Miguel, Judge Rejects Google’s Deal to Digitize Books, N.Y. TIMES, 23 Mar. 2011, at B1, available at .
66. ──. Viacom Sees a Concession in Google Settlement, N.Y. TIMES, 29 Oct. 2008. Web. 6 Dec. 2010. .
67. Hesse, Renata B., Two-Sided Platform Markets and the Application of the Traditional Antitrust Analytical Framework, COMPETITION POL’Y INT’L, Spring 2007.
68. HILL, CHARLES W. L. & GARETH R. JONES, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT THEORY: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH (9th ed. 2009).
69. Hirtle, Peter, Why the Google Books Settlement is better than orphan works legislation, LIBRARYLAW BLOG, 27 May 2009. Web. 14 Jan. 2011. .
70. HOLMES, WILLIAM C. & MELISSA H. MANGIARACUNA, ANTITRUST LAW HANDBOOK 2010-2011 EDITION (2010).
71. HOSKINS, COLIN, STUART MCFADYEN, & ADAM FINN, MEDIA ECONOMICS: APPLYING ECONOMICS TO NEW AND TRADITIONAL MEDIA (2004).
72. Hovenkamp, Herbert & Christopher R. Leslie, The Firm as Cartel Manager, 64 VAND. L. REV. 813 (2011).
73. Huang, Olive, Note, U.S. Copyright Office Orphan Works Inquiry: Finding Homes for the Orphans, 21 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 265 (2006).
74. Ji, Yuan, Comment, Why the Google Book Search Settlement Should Be Approved: A Response to Antitrust Concerns and Suggestions for Regulation, 21 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 231 (2011).
75. Kaiser, Ulrich & Julian Wright, Price structure in two-sided markets: Evidence from the magazine industry, 24 INT’L J. INDUS. ORG. 1 (2006).
76. Kooster, Amanda, Google to Scan 250,000 Old British Library Books, CNET NEWS, 20 June 2011, Web. 30 June 2011. .
77. Lang, John Temple , Defining Legitimate Competition: Companies' Duties to Supply Competitors and Access to Essential Facilities, 18 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 437 (1994).
78. Lemley, Mark A., An Antitrust Assessment of the Google Book Search Settlement, July 2009, available at .
79. LESSIG, LAWRENCE, CODE: VERSION 2.0 (2006).
80. ──. FREE CULTURE (2004).
81. ──. On the Google Book Search Agreement, LESSIG BLOG, 29.Oct. 2008. Web. 16 May. 2011. .
82. ──. REMIX：MAKING ART AND COMMERCE THRIVE IN THE HYBRID ECONOMY (2008).
83. Levinson, Bruce, Understanding Marginal Costs In A Two-Sided Market: Implications For Debit Card Interchange Regulation, THECRE.COM (2010), .
84. Levitin, Adam J., Priceless? The Economic Costs of Credit Card Merchant Restraints, 55 UCLA L. REV. 1321 (2008).
85. Mackaay, Ejan, History of law and Economics, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW AND ECONOMICS (Boudewijn Bouckaert ＆ Gerrit De Geest eds., 2000), available at .
86. MAGNUSSON, LARS & JAN OTTOSSON, THE EVOLUTION OF PATH DEPENDENCE (2009).
87. Manne, Geoffrey A. & Joshua D. Wright, Google And The Limits Of Antitrust: The Case Against The Case Against Google, 34 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 171 (2011).
88. McCullagh, Declan & Anne Broache, On Antitrust, Is Google the next Microsoft?, CNET NEWS, 23 July 2007. Web. 24 June 2011. .
89. McGee, John S., Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case, 1 J.L. & ECON. 137 (1958), available at .
90. MOTTA, MASSIMO, COMPETITION POLICY: THEORY AND PRACTICE (2004).
91. Murray, Abraham, posted. Discover More Than 3 Million Google Ebooks from Your Choice of Booksellers and Devices. THE OFFICIAL GOOGLE BLOG, 6 Dec, 2010. Web. 8 Jan. 2011. .
92. Nielsen, Jakob, iPad and Kindle Reading Speeds, USEIT.COM, 2 July 2010. Web. 2 June 2011. .
93. OECD, THE OECD REPORT ON REGULATORY REFORM: SYNTHESIS (1997), available at .
94. Page, William H., Facilitating Practices and Concerted Action Uner Section 1 of Sherman Act, in ANTITRUST LAW AND ECONOMICES (Keith N. Hylton ed., 2010).
95. Parker, Geoffrey G. & Marshall W. Van Alstyne, Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design, MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, Oct. 2005, pp. 1494–1504.
96. Patry, William, The United States and International Copyright Law: From Berne to Eldred, 40 HOUS. L. REV. 749 (2003).
97. PEPALL, LYNNE, DAN RICHARDS & GEORGE NORMAN, INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION: CONTEMPORARY THEORY AND EMPIRICAL APPLICATIONs (4th ed. 2008).
98. Picker, Randal C., Assessing Competition Issues in the Amended Google Book Search Settlement (Chicago Law & Econ. Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 499, 2009), available at .
99. Picker, Randal C., The Google Book Search Settlement: A New Orphan-Works Monopoly?, 5 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 383 (2009).
100. Pitofsky, Robert, The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under United States Antitrust Law, . (Last visited 31 May 2011).
101. POSNER, RICHARD A., ANTITRUST LAW (2d ed. 2001).
102. ──. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW (7th ed. 2007).
103. Price, Gary D., Google Book Settlement Status Conference Begins and Ends in a Matter of Minutes, INFODOCKET.COM, 1 June 2011. Web. 2 June 2011. .
104. Reisinger, Markus, Note, Three Essays on Oligopoly: Product Bundling, Two-Sided Markets, and Vertical Product Differentiation, ECONPAPERS, 21 July 2004. Web. 11 Mar. 2011. .
105. Rich, Motoko, Barnes & Noble Plans an Extensive E-Bookstore. N.Y. TIMES, 20 July 2009. Web. 16 Dec. 2010. .
106. ──. Judge Hears Arguments on Google Book Settlement, N.Y. TIMES, 18 Feb. 2010, at B4, available at .
107. Rochet, Jean-Charles & Jean Tirole, Two-Sided Markets: An Overview, 12 Mar. 2004. Web. 10 June 2011. .
108. ──. Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets, 1 J. EUR. ECON ASS’N 990 (2003).
109. ──. Two-Sided Market: A Progress Report, 37 RAND J. ECON. 645 (2006), available at .
110. Samuelson, Pamela, Google Book Search and the Future of Books in Cyberspace, 94 MINN. L. REV. 1308 (2010).
111. ──. Google Book Settlement: Brilliant but Evil?, CISCO DISTINGUISHED LECTURE, 13 May 2010, available at .
112. ──. Is the Proposed Google Book Settlement “Fair”?, 2010 AMI: TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR AUTEURS, MEDIA & INFORMATIERECHT 50.
113. ──. Legally Speaking: The Dead Souls of the Google Book Search Settlement, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, July 2009.
114. ──. The Google Book Settlement as Copyright Reform, 2011 WIS. L. REV. 479-562 (2011).
115. Scheffman, David T. & Joseph J. Simons, The State of Critical Loss Analysis: Let's Make Sure We Understand the Whole Story, ANTITRUST SOURCE, Nov. 2003. Web. 19 Jan. 2011. available at .
116. Schonfeld, Erick, Facebook’s Market Cap on SecondMarket Is Now $25 Billion (Bigger Than Yahoo’s), TECHCRUNCH.COM, 4 June 2010. Web. 6 Mar. 2011. .
117. Semeraro, Steven, Credit Card Interchange Fees: Three Decades of Antitrust Uncertainty, 14 GEO. MASON L. REV. 941 (2007).
118. SHEPHERD, WILLIAM G. & JOANNA M. SHEPHERD, THE ECONOMICS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION (5th ed. 2004).
119. Sidak, J. Gregory & David J. Teece, Dynamic Competition in Antitrust Law, 5 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 581 (2009).
120. Siy, Sherwin, Google Book Search Lawsuit Settled, Fair Use Questions Remain: Settlement Proposes Book Rights Registry, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.ORG, 28 Oct. 2008. .
121. Smith, Adam M., Making Books Easier to Find. THE OFFICIAL GOOGLE BLOG, 12 Aug. 2005. Web. 8 Jan. 2011. .
122. Stamkos, Melissa A., Note, Should The Orphans Be Released?, 87 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 455 (2010).
123. Stone, Brad, Sony Reaches Deal to Share in Google’s E-Book Library. N.Y. TIMES, 18 Mar. 2009. Web. 11 May 2011. .
124. STROSS, RANDALL E., PLANET GOOGLE: ONE COMPANY’S AUDACIOUS PLAN TO ORGANIZE EVERYTHING WE KNOW (2009).
125. Suarez, Christopher A., Note, Continued DOJ Oversight of the Google Book Search Settlement: Defending Our Public Values and Protecting Competition, 55 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 175 (2010/2011).
126. The British Library and Google to make 250,000 books available to all, BRITISH LIBRARY, 20 June 2011. Web. 30 June 2011. .
127. U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, COMPETITION AND MONOPOLY: SINGLE-FIRM CONDUCT UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT (2008), available at .
128. US COPYRIGHT OFFICE, REPORT ON ORPHAN WORKS (2006), available at .
129. Vaidhyanathan, Siva, My initial on the Google-Publishers Settlement, in THE GOOGLIZATION OF EVERYTHING, 28 Oct. 2008. .
130. Waller, Spencer Weber & William Tasch, Harmonizing Essential Facilities, 76 ANTITRUST L.J. 741 (2010).
131. Wang, Laura J.J., Note, An Antitrust Analysis of the Google Book Search Settlement, BEPRESS.COM (2010), http://works.bepress.com/jianji_wang/2.
132. Weiser, Benjamin, Appeals Court Judge and U.S. Attorney Are Confirmed, N.Y. TIMES, 23 Apr. 2010. Web. 25 Mar. 2011. available at .
133. Werden, Gregory J., Assigning Market Shares, 70 ANTITRUST L.J. 67 (2002).
134. Wilson, Dean, Judge Sets a Deadline for Gok Book Deal, THE INQUIRER NEWS, 20 July 2011. Web. 25 July 2011. .
135. Wright, Julian, One-Sided Logic in Two-Sided Markets, 3 REV. NETWORK ECON. 44 (2004), available at .
136. Wyatt, Edward, Googling Literature: The Debate Goes Public, N.Y. TIMES, 19 Nov. 2005. Web. 14 May. 2011. .
137. Zimmerman, Diane Leenheer, Copyrights as Incentives: Did We Just Imagine That?, 12 THEORETICAL INQUIRIES L. 29 (2011).
Cases & Court Filings
1. Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 948 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1991).
2. Am. Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781 (1946).
3. Amicus Brief of Antitrust Law and Economics Professors in Support of the Settlement, Authors Guild v. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136, 2009 WL 2980740 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009).
4. Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Defendant Google Inc. to the First Amended Complaint, Author's Guild v. Google, No. 05-CV-8136, 2006 WL 4058867 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2006).
5. Answer, Jury Demand, and Affirmative Defenses of Defendant Google Inc., McGraw-Hill v. Google, No. 05-CV-8881, 2005 WL 3655631 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2005).
6. Author's Guild v. Google, No. 05-CV-8136, 2005 WL 2463899 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2005).
7. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisc. v. Marshfield Clinic, 65 F.3d 1406 (7th Cir. 1995).
8. Brief of Google Inc. in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Amended Settlement Agreement, Authors Guild V. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136, 2010 WL 563049 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2010).
9. Broad. Music, Inc. v. Columbia Borad. Sys., Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979).
10. Buffalo Broad, Co., Inc. v. American Soc’y of Composers, Authors & Publishers, 744 F.2d 917 (2d. Cir. 1984).
11. City of Anaheim v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 955 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1992).
12. Continental T.V., Inc., et al. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977).
13. Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984).
14. Court Opinion, Authors Guild v. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136, 2011 WL 986049 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2011).
15. Covad Communications Co. v. BellSouth Corp., 299 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 904 (2005).
16. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).
17. Fineman v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 980 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1992).
18. First Amended Class Action Complaint, Author's Guild v. Google, No. 05-CV-8136, 2006 WL 1749512 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2006).
19. Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940).
20. Image Technical Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997).
21. In re Masters Mates & Pilots Pension Plan and IRAP Litigation, 957 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1992).
22. Jack Russell Terrier Network of N. Cal. v. Am. Kennel Club, Inc., 407 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2005).
23. Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. CSX Transp., Inc., 924 F.2d 539 (4th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 814 (1991).
24. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007).
25. Letter Addressed to J. Michael McMahon from Members of the University of California Academic Council, Authors Guild v. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2009), available at http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/134/0.pdf.
26. Letter Addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Pamela Samuelson, Authors Guild v. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2009), available at http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/336/0.pdf.
27. Library Association Comments on the Proposed Settlement, Authors Guild v. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2009).
28. Library Associations Ask Judge to Assert Vigorous Oversight of Proposed Google Book Search Settlement (May 4, 2009), http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-book-search-pr-4may09.pdf.
29. McGraw-Hill v. Google, No. 05-CV-8881, 2005 WL 2778878 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2005).
30. MCI Communications Corp. v. AT&T Co., 708 F. 2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1983).
31. Memorandum of Amicus Curiae Open Book Alliance in Opposition to the Proposed Settlement, Authors Guild v. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136, 2009 WL 2980747 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009).
32. Memorandum of Amicus Curiae the Internet Archive in Opposition to Settlement Agreement, Authors Guild v. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136, 2009 WL 2980750 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009).
33. Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Settlement Proposal on Behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany, Authors Guild v. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136 (DC), 2009 WL 2823706 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2009).
34. Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Settlement Agreement, Authors Guild V. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136, 2009 WL 4093055 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2009).
35. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984).
36. nSight, Inc. v. PeopleSoft, Inc., 296 Fed.Appx. 555 (9th Cir. 2008).
37. Objection of Amazon.com, Inc., To Proposed Amended Settlement, Authors Guild v. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136, 2010 WL 451143 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2010).
38. Objections of Microsoft Corporation to Proposed Amended Settlement and Certification of Proposed Settlement Class and Sub-Classes, Authors Guild v. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2010).
39. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973).
40. Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc'ns, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1109 (2009).
41. Paladin Associates, Inc. v. Montana Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2003).
42. Statement of Interest of the United States of America Regarding Proposed Class Settlement, Authors Guild v. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136, 2009 WL 3045979 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2009).
43. Statement of Interest of the United States of America Regarding Proposed Amended Settlement Agreement, Authors Guild v. Google, No. 05 Civ 8136, 2010 WL 979111 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2010).
44. Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594 (1953).
45. Twin Labs Inc v Weider Health & Fitness, 900 F. 2d 566 (2th Cir. 1990).
46. United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945).
47. United States v. Am. Soc’y of Composers, Authors and Publishers, 1940-43 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 56,104 (S.D.N.Y. 1941).
48. United States v. Am. Soc'y of Composers, Authors & Publishers, No. 41-1395 (WCC), 2001 WL 1589999 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2001).
49. United States v. Broad. Music, Inc., 1940-43 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 56,096 (E.D. Wis. 1941).
50. United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956).
51. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966).
52. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150 (1940).
53. United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass’n of St. Louis, 224 U.S. 383 (1912).
54. Verizon Communications Inc. v. Trinko, LLP., 540 U.S. 398 (2004).
55. Walker Process Equip. Co. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965).

指導教授

王明禮(Ming-Li Wang)

審核日期

2011-7-27

推文