政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/143815
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 113311/144292 (79%)
造访人次 : 50925883      在线人数 : 946
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/143815


    题名: 科技巨頭資料分享議題—競爭與資料隱私之衝突與調和
    Big Techs‘ data sharing issues - conflict and harmonization between competition and data privacy
    作者: 陳彥丞
    Chen, Yen-Chen
    贡献者: 宋皇志
    Sung, Huang-Chih
    陳彥丞
    Chen, Yen-Chen
    关键词: 科技巨頭
    數位經濟
    數位平台
    資料驅動
    大數據
    競爭法
    資料隱私
    個人資料
    BigTechs
    Digital economy
    Digital platform
    Data-driven
    Big data
    Competition law
    Data privacy
    Personal data
    日期: 2023
    上传时间: 2023-03-09 18:32:52 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 隨著資通訊科技的快速發展，數位經濟開始主導全球的經濟活動，而科技巨頭們，如Facebook、Amazon、Apple、Google，在數位市場中，大多皆以數位平台的方式來開展其商業模式，科技巨頭們不斷地提供創造新的商業模式，不僅滿足消費者們原有的各式需求，甚至是創造出新的需求，數位平台在當代社會中，已滲透到人們社會生活的各個角落，使人們與科技巨頭互相交織而密不可分。
    然而，科技巨頭亦開始利用其市場力量或獨占力量，阻礙其競爭者獲取其所平台上所擁有之資料，而本文從競爭法角度出發，探討在競爭法上科技巨頭拒絕資料取用是否會該當競爭法之責任，進而去分析是否得以課與科技巨頭分享資料予競爭者之義務，以達到回復競爭水平之目的。另一方面，資料分享義務同時也會涉及資料隱私之議題，因此本文將會進一步討論資料隱私之相關爭議。
    With the rapid development of information and communication technology, the digital economy has become dominator in global economy. The BigTechs, such as Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google, in the digital market, most of them use digital platforms to carry out their innovative business models. The BigTechs continue to provide and create unprecedented business models, not only to meet the original demands of consumers, but even to create new demands. In contemporary society, digital platforms have penetrated into every corner of people`s life, making people and unprecedented are inextricably intertwined.
    However, The BigTechs have also begun to use their market power or monopoly power to prevent their competitors from obtaining data on their platforms. The responsibility of the competition law, and then analyze whether it is possible to share data with the The BigTechs to competitors, so as to achieve the purpose of restoring the level of competition. On the other hand, the data sharing obligation also involves the issue of data privacy, so this article will further discuss the related controversies of data privacy.
    參考文獻: 一、中文文獻
    （一）中文專書
    1.王玉葉，歐洲聯盟法研究，頁9，元照出版社，2015 年 5 月初版。
    2.陳威如、余卓軒，平台革命：席捲全球社交、購物、遊戲、媒體的商業模式創新，商周出版，2013年11月。
    3.劉孔中，公平交易法，頁46，元照出版公司，2003年10月1版。

    （二）中文期刊
    1.翁清坤，網路上隱私權政策之效力：以美國法為中心，臺大法學論叢45卷1期， 2016年。
    2.張陳弘，新興科技下的資訊隱私保護：「告知後同意原則」的侷限性與修正方法之提出，臺大法學論叢47卷1期，頁242-44，2018年。
    3.張陳泓， GDPR關於蒐用一般個人資料之合法事由規範──臺灣個人資料保護法遺漏的正當利益權衡條款，月旦法學雜誌No.285，頁181，2019年。
    4.陳志民，大數據與市場力濫用行為初探，公平交易季刊26卷3期，頁12，2018年。
    5.黃章令，重塑大數據時代下的隱私權法理──以隱私權概念為主要內容，月旦民商法雜誌62期， 2016年。
    6.葉俊榮，探尋隱私權的空間意涵：大法官對基本權利的脈絡論證，中研院法學期刊18期，2016年。
    7.顏雅倫，雙邊/多邊市場之競爭與創新，科技法學評論13卷1期，2016年。

    （三）中文譯註
    1.Michael A. Cusumano, Annabelle Gawer & David B. Yoffie著，陳琇玲譯，平台策略：在數位競爭、創新與影響力掛帥的時代勝出，商周出版，2020年。

    （四）中文法律資料
    1.中華人民共和國最高人民法院民事判決書（2013）民三終字第4號。
    2.公平交易委員會對於相關市場界定之處理原則（104.3.6.公資字第 10421600251 號令發布） 第九點

    （五）中文政府機關報告
    1.公平交易委員會，數位經濟競爭政策白皮書，公平交易委員會，頁102，2022年 12月。
    2.廖義男、何之邁、范建得、黃銘傑、石世豪、劉華美，公平交易法之註釋研究系列（一）－第一條至第十七條，行政院公平交易委員會九十二年度委託研究報告七，頁133，2003年 12月。

    （六）中文學術論文
    1.邱映曦，競爭法的數位紀元－論數位平台資訊力對競爭法適用之影響，國立政治大學法律學系博士論文，頁63，2019年1月。

    （七）中文網路文獻
    1.Anny，Google 宣布 Fitbit 併購完成！但美司法部表示仍在調查是否壟斷，INSIDE，https://www.inside.com.tw/article/22258-google-fitbit-acquisition-amid-ongoing-u-s-doj-review（最後瀏覽日：2023/01/17）。
     
    二、英文文獻
    （一）英文專書
    1.DANIEL J. SOLOVE, UNDERSTANDING PRIVACY (2008).
    2.INGE GRAEF, EU COMPETITION LAW, DATA PROTECTION AND ONLINE PLATFORMS: DATA AS ESSENTIAL FACILITY: DATA AS ESSENTIAL FACILITY (Kluwer Law International BV. 2016).
    3.MAURICE E STUCKE & ALLEN P GRUNES, BIG DATA AND COMPETITION POLICY (2016).

    （二）英文期刊
    1.Abbott B Lipsky Jr & J Gregory Sidak, Essential Facilities, 51 STAN. L. REV. 1187, 1212 (1999).
    2.Alfonso Lamadrid & Sam Villiers, Big Data, Privacy and Competition Law: Do Competition Authorities Know How To Do It, COMPETITION POLICY INTERNATIONAL, ANTITRUST CHRONICLE, 4 (2017).
    3.Allen P Grunes & Maurice E Stucke, No Mistake About It: The Important Role of Antitrust in the Era of Big Data, ANTITRUST SOURCE (APR. 2015), ONLINE, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER, 4 (2015).
    4.Anja Lambrecht & Catherine E Tucker, Can Big Data Protect a Firm from Competition?, AVAILABLE AT SSRN 2705530, 5(2015).
    5.Benjamin R. Dryden & Shankar (Sean) Iyer, Privacy Fixing and Predatory Privacy: The Interaction of Big Data, Privacy Policies and Antitrust, 1(3) ANTITRUST CHRONICLE, 54-55 (2017).
    6.Daniel J. Solove & Woodrow Hartzog, The FTC and the New Common Law of Privacy, 114 COLUM. L. REV. 583, 661 (2014).
    7.David Balto & Robert Pitofsky, Antitrust and High-Tech Industries: The New Challenge, 43 THE ANTITRUST BULLETIN 583, 584-86 (1998).
    8.Doug Laney, 3D Data Management: Controlling Data Volume, Velocity and Variety, 6 META GROUP RESEARCH NOTE (2001).
    9.Elizabeth K. Brill, Privacy and Financial Institutions: Current Developments Concerning the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, 21 ANN. REV. BANKING L. 167, 188 (2002).
    10.Erika M Douglas, Monopolization Remedies and Data Privacy, 24 VA. JL & TECH, 71-72 (2020).
    11.Erika M Douglas, The New Antitrust/Data Privacy Law Interface, 130 YALE LJF 647, 655-66 (2020).
    12.Erling J Hjelmeng, Competition Law Remedies: Striving for Coherence or Finding New Ways?, 50 COMMON MARKET LAW REVIEW 1007, 1022(2013).
    13.Federal Trade Commission, Statement of Federal Trade Commission Concerning Google, DOUBLECLICK FTC FILE (2007).
    14.Frank Pasquale, Privacy, Antitrust, and Power, 20 GEO. MASON L. REV. 1009 (2013).
    15.Geoffrey A Manne & Ben Sperry, The Problems and Perils of Bootstrapping Privacy and Data Into an Antitrust Framework, CPI ANTITRUST CHRONICLE, MAY, 5-6 (2015).
    16.Giuseppe Colangelo & Mariateresa Maggiolino, Big Data As Misleading Facilities, 13 EUROPEAN COMPETITION JOURNAL 249, 275 (2017).
    17.Gregory J Werden, The Law And Economics of The Essential Facility Doctrine, 32. LOUIS ULJ 433, 452-53 (1987).
    18.Han Hu, et al., Toward Scalable Systems for Big Data Analytics: A Technology Tutorial, 2 IEEE ACCESS 652, 654-55 (2014).
    19.Inge Graef, et al., Assessing Data Access Issues In Online Platforms, 39 TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY 375, 379 (2015).
    20.James C. Cooper, Privacy and Antitrust: Underpants Gnomes, the First Amendment, and Subjectivity, 20 GEO. MASON L. REV. 1129, 1143 (2013).
    21.Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets, 1 JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION 990,993 (2003).
    22.Jim Isaak & Mina J Hanna, User Data Privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and Privacy Protection, 51 COMPUTER 56, 57-58 (2018).
    23.John E Lopatka & William H Page, Devising a Microsoft Remedy That Serves Consumers, 9 GEO. MASON L. REV. 691, 700(2000).
    24.John M Newman, Antitrust in Digital Markets, 72 VAND. L. REV. 1497,1514 (2019).
    25.Joseph Farrell & Paul Klemperer, Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects, 3 HANDBOOK OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, 1972 (2007).
    26.Julie Brill, The Intersection of Consumer Protection and Competition in the New World of Privacy, 7 COMPETITION POLICY INTERNATIONAL 7, 8-10 (2011).
    27.Lisa M. Austin, Is Consent the Foundation of Fair Information Practices? Canada’s Experience under Pipeda, 56 U. TORONTO L.J. 181, 186-187 (2006).
    28.Marina Lao, Networks, Access, and “Essential Facilities” from Terminal Railroad to Microsoft, 62 SMU L. REV. 557, 559 (2009).
    29.Maureen K Ohlhausen & Alexander P Okuliar, Competition, Consumer Protection, and the Right [Approach] to Privacy, 80 ANTITRUST LJ 121, 151-52 (2015).
    30.Maurice E Stucke & Allen P Grunes, Introduction: Big Data and Competition Policy, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS (2016), 277 (2016).
    31.Nathan Newman, The Costs of Lost Privacy: Comsumer Harm and Rising Economic Inequality in the Age of Google, 40 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 849, 856 (2014).
    32.Paul D. Marquardt & Mark Leddy, The Essential Facilities Doctrine and Intellectual Property Rights: A Response to Pitofsky, Patterson, and Hooks, 70 ANTITRUST L.J. 847, 856 (2003).
    33.Per Hellström, et al., Remedies in European Antitrust Law, 76 ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 43, 48 (2009).
    34.Raymond Hartman, et al., Assessing Market Power in Regimes of Rapid Technological Change, 2 INDUSTRIAL AND CORPORATE CHANGE 317, 339 (1993).
    35.Remedies OECD, Sanctions in Abuse of Dominance Cases, 19 DAF/COMP19, 20 (2006).
    36.Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson & Jonathan Hooks, The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under U.S. Antitrust Law, 70 ANTITRUST L.J. 443, 443 (2002).
    37.Samuel Warren & Louis Barandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (1890).
    38.Thomas Eisenmann, et al., Strategies for Two-Sided Markets, 84 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, 7 (2006).
    39.Vikas Kathuria & Jure Globocnik, Exclusionary Conduct in Data-Driven Markets: Limitations of Data Sharing Remedy, 8 JOURNAL OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT 511, 521-22(2020).

    （三）英文法律資料
    1.15 U.S.C. § 2 (2000).
    2.Aspen Skiing v. Aspen Highlands Skiing, 472 U.S. 585, 611 (1985).
    3.Authenticom, Inc. v. CDK Glob., LLC (In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig.), 313 F. Supp. 3d 931, 940 (N.D. Ill. 2018).
    4.Authenticom, Inc. v. CDK Glob., LLC, 17-cv-318-jdp, 2-3 (W.D. Wis. Jul. 28, 2017).
    5.Authenticom, Inc. v. CDK Glob., LLC, 874 F.3d 1019, 1024-26 (7th Cir. 2017).
    6.Ball Mem`l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338 (7th Cir. 1986). (Easterbrook, J.)
    7.Colo. Interstate Gas Co. v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 885 F.2d 683, 695­96 (10th Cir. 1989).
    8.Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 1995 O.J. (L 281) 31, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31995L0046
    9.European Commission, “Microsoft/LinkedIn”, Case M.8124, Dated 06/12/2016, C(2016) 8404 final.
    10.Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 252 F.Supp.3d 765, 787(2017).
    11.Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F.3d 1058, 1062(2016).
    12.Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972).
    13.GDPR, Article 4(1).
    14.GDPR, Article 4(11).
    15.GDPR, Article 4(2).
    16.GDPR, Article 5.
    17.GDPR, Article 6.
    18.GDPR, Article 9 (1).
    19.GDPR, Article 9 (2).
    20.GDPR, Recital 32.
    21.GDPR, Recital 45.
    22.GDPR, Recital 47.
    23.Great Western Directories, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 63 F.3d 1378, 1384-86 (5th Cir. 1995).
    24.Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
    25.GWB, §18 “(3a)
    26.Hatley v. American Quarter Horse Ass`n C. A. Tex1977, 552 F.2d 646, 654 (5th. Cir. 1977).
    27.HIQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 273 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1103(N.D. Cal. 2017).
    28.HIQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 31 F.4th 1180, 1200(9th Cir. 2022).
    29.HIQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 938 F.3d 985, 991 (9th Cir. 2019).
    30.Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967).
    31.LinkedIn Corp. v. HIQ Labs, Inc., No. 19-1116, 593 U.S. ___ (GVR Order June 14, 2021).
    32.Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corp., 373 F.3d 1199, 1243 (D.C. Cir. 2004). (en banc).
    33.MCI Commc`ns Corp. v. AT&T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1132­33 (7th Cir. 1983).
    34.Nat`l Soc`y of Prof`l Eng`rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 695 (1978).
    35.NCAA v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85, 109 n.38 (1984).
    36.New York v. Microsoft Corp., 224 F. Supp. 2d 76, 94 (D.D.C. 2002).
    37.Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 4 (1958).
    38.Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973).
    39.PeopleBrowsr, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., No. C--12-6120 EMC, 2013 WL 843032, at 1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013).
    40.Re/Max Int`l, Inc. v. Realty One, Inc., 173 F.3d 995, 1016 (6th Cir. 1999).
    41.Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 899 F.2d 951, 967 (10th Cir. 1990).
    42.Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1, [hereinafter the General Data Protection Regulations or GDPR], available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
    43.Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973).
    44.United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 430 (2d Cir. 1945).
    45.United States v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 391 (1956).
    46.United States v. Grinnell Corp, 384 US 563, 570-71 (1966).
    47.United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012).
    48.United States v. Microsoft Corp., 231 F. Supp. 2d 144, 195-96 (D.D.C. 2002).
    49.United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 51 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
    50.United States v. Microsoft, No. 98-1232 (CKK), 2009 WL 1348218, 6 (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2009). (originally entered Nov. 12, 2002; modified Sept. 7, 2006; further modified Apr.22, 2009).
    51.United States v. Terminal R. R. Ass`n of St. Louis, 224 U.S. 383 (1912).
    52.Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 408(2004).
    53.Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977).

    （四）英文報告
    1.Big Data and Innovation: Implications for Competition Policy in Canada. pt. 14 (2018).
    2.The Antitrust Analysis of Multi-Sided Platform Businesses. pt. 2 (2013).

    （五）英文網路文獻
    1.Alexis C. Madrigal, Reading the Privacy Policies You Encounter in a Year Would Take 76 Work Days, THE ATLANTIC, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/reading-theprivacy-policies-you-encounter-in-a- year-would-take-76-work-days/253851 (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    2.Andrew Grill, PeopleBrowsr and Twitter Settle Firehose Dispute, PEOPLEBROWSR, https://www.peoplebrowsr.com/blog/2013/04/peoplebrowsr-and-twitter-settle-firehose-dispute (last visited Oct. 19, 2022).
    3.Apple Inc., Addressing Spotify’s Claims, APPLE, https://nr.apple.com/dE0c0p3G3A (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    4.Apple Inc., App Store Stopped More Than $1.5 Billion in Potentially Fraudulent Transactions in 2020, APPLE NEWSROOM, https://nr.apple.com/dm3a4Z4x6n (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    5.Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 06/2014 on the Notion of Legitimate Interests of the Data Controller under Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 19-20(Apr. 9, 2014) https://www.tahr.org.tw/sites/default/files/u5/zheng_wu_5.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    6.Autorité De La Concurrence & Bundeskartellamt, Competition Law and Data, 27, https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/DE/Berichte/Big%20Data%20Papier.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 (last visited Oct. 15, 2022).
    7.D. Bruce Hoffman, Director, Bureau of Competition, Fed. Trade Comm`n, Technology and Its Discontents: Taking Stock of Antitrust and Technological Change in the Early 21st Century, Remarks Before the Capitol Forum`s Fifth Annual Technology, Media, & Telecom Competition Conference, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION PROTECTING AMERICA’S CONSUMERS, 13, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1433988/capitol_forum_remarks_bh.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    8.David Cicillin, House Lawmakers Release Anti-Monopoly Agenda for “A Stronger Online Economy: Opportunity, Innovation, Choice”, CONGRESSMAN DAVID CICILLINE, https://cicilline.house.gov/press-release/house-lawmakers-release-anti-monopoly-agenda-stronger-online-economy-opportunity (last visited Oct. 15, 2022).
    9.Department of Justice Press Release, Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation Reach Effective Settlement on Antitrust Lawsuit, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, https://www.justice.gov/archive/atr/public/press_releases/2001/9463.htm (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    10.Drew Olanoff, Twitter Settles With PeopleBrowsr, Gives the Company Firehose Access Until the End of The Year, TECHCRUNCH, https://techcrunch.com/2013/04/25/twitter-settles-with-peoplebrowsr-gives-the-company-firehose-access-until-the-end-of-the-year/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2022).
    11.Erick Schonfeld, You Might Have Klout, But What’s Your Kred?, TECHCRUNCH, https://techcrunch.com/2011/09/29/kred/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2022).
    12.European Commission Press Release IP/20/1073, Antitrust: Commission Opens Investigations into Apple`s App Store Rules, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1073 (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    13.Federal Trade Commission, Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION PROTECTING AMERICA’S CONSUMERS, 12-13, https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-report-protecting-consumer-privacy-era-rapid-change-recommendations/120326privacyreport.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    14.Jessica L. Rich, Former Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Letter from Jessica Rich, Dir., Bureau of Consumer Protection, Fed. Trade Comm`n, to Erin Egan, Chief Privacy Officer, Facebook, Inc., and Anne Hoge, Gen. Counsel, WhatsApp Inc., FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION PROTECTING AMERICA’S CONSUMERS, http:// www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/297701/ 140410facebookwhatappltr.pdf. (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    15.Jon Leibowitz, Former Chairman, Introductory Remarks at the FTC Privacy Roundtable, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION PROTECTING AMERICA’S CONSUMERS, 3, https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/introductory-remarks-ftc-privacy-roundtable/091207privacyremarks.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    16.Monica Chin, Apple Comes Out Swinging Against Tile After EU Complaint, THEVERGE, https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/29/21274709/apple-tile-european-commission-eu-complaint-app-store-iphone-response (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    17.Nuala O’Connor, Council on Foreign Relations, Reforming the U.S. Approach to Data Privacy, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, https://www.cfr.org/report/reforming-us-approach-data-protection (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    18.OECD, Big Data: Bringing Competition Policy to the Digital Era- Background Note by the Secretariat, OECD, 12-13, https://www.brattle.com/insights-events/publications/big-data-bringing-competition-policy-to-the-digital-era/ (last visited Oct. 16, 2022).
    19.OECD, Data-Driven Innovation for Growth and Well-being: INTERIM SYNTHESIS REPORT, OECD, 7, http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/data-driven-innovation-interim-synthesis.pdf. (last visited Oct. 15, 2022).
    20.OECD, The Role and Measurement of Quality in Competition Analysis, OECD, https://www.oecd.org/competition/Quality-in-competition-analysis-2013.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    21.OECD, TWO-SIDED MARKET, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/44445730.pdf (last visited Oct. 15, 2022).
    22.Perry Rotella, Is Data the New Oil?, FORBES, https://www.forbes.com/sites/perryrotella/2012/04/02/is-data-the-new-oil/#2bd9dcd 97db3 (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    23.President`s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Big Data and Privacy: A Technological Perspective, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, 38, https://bigdatawg.nist.gov/pdf/pcast_big_data_and_privacy_-_may_2014.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    24.Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Commissioner, Remarks of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter on the Near Future of U.S. Privacy Law, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION PROTECTING AMERICA’S CONSUMERS, 1, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1543396/slaughter_silicon_flatirons_remarks_9-6-19.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    25.Ryan Tate, Twitter Settles High-Profile Legal Fight Over Data Access-Twitter Has Agreed to Give Data-Mining Startup Peoplebrowsr Access to Its "Firehose" Through the End of This Year. After That, Peoplebrowsr Can Acquire Similar Data Through an Authorized Reseller, WIRED, https://www.wired.com/2013/04/twitter-settles-with-peoplebrowsr/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2022).
    26.Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets, https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/competition_in_digital_markets.pdf?utm_campaign=4493-519 (last visited Oct. 15, 2022).
    27.U.K. Competition Expert Panel, Unlocking Digital Competition-Report of the Digital Competition Expert Panel, GOV.UK, ¶ 2.81, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/785547/unlocking_digital_competition_furman_review_web.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    28.U.S. Dep`t of Justice, Competition and Monopoly: Single--Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARCHIVES, 158, https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act (last visited Oct. 27, 2022).
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    科技管理與智慧財產研究所
    106364203
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106364203
    数据类型: thesis
    显示于类别:[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 描述 大小格式浏览次数
    420301.pdf1836KbAdobe PDF20检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈