標準市場的競爭，近年來已成為知識型產業中、引發各式運用智慧財產、施行商業競爭的重要議題。「標準」乃是集合眾人知識的結晶，目的在有效率的集中發展產品，以促進產業的快速進步。然而，在龐大經濟利益的誘使之下，使智慧財產不但成為鼓勵創新的動力，同時也產生了違反公平競爭的誘因。由於標準制訂所產生之標準關鍵智慧財產，擁有專利法所賦予的排他權利，而且也因為必定實施在標準產品之上，具有改變市場之力量。因此，創造與實施標準關鍵智慧財產的行為，便引發了專利法與競爭法之競合與衝突問題。
本文藉由整理知識型產業中，運用智慧財產之商業行為，來分析標準市場之獨占力量，並深入檢討標準競爭行為之背景與發生原因。同時也試圖藉由討論知識型產業之商業化行為與其影響力，來分析標準市場之獨占力量，並從專利法與競爭法之本質出發，來討論標準關鍵智慧財產的管制。本研究發現，標準市場內部分別存在著技術與產品之競爭，兩種競爭的行為與結果也實質上相互影響著。在標準研發階段，標準發展需求具有影響技術競爭之力量；而在標準實施階段，標準關鍵智財則是直接影響產品在市場上之競爭。
本研究從競爭法之角度，藉由產業案例來討論運用標準市場力量之競爭行為，並藉此整理出判斷違反公平競爭之分析方法。期盼能為現今知識型產業、競爭日益激烈的標準市場，提供一個研究方向與管制的思維。

The competition in standard market will introduce kinds of commercial issues for exercising intellectual properties and has drawn increasing attention in knowledge-based industry. “Standard” not only motivates innovation with economic benefits by collecting the knowledge of people to facilitate the industry progress, but also induces the incentive of anti-competition. The exclusive rights originating from patent law shall equip standard essential patents with monopoly power, and introduce anti-competition issues. In the consequence, the conflict issues between patent law and competition law raised when innovating and exercising standard essential patents.
This study discusses the background of anti-competition in standard market and provides systematical analysis for commercial behaviors. Furthermore, the equity is discussed through examining the originality of patent law and competition law so as to analyze the standard market power. Through the analysis of competition practices, it is found that there can be two kinds of monopoly power in a standard market. The demand will shape the competition in developing a standard while the standard essential patent shall impact the competition in implementing a standard.
This study also discusses some empirical cases applying standard market power for competition analysis. It is expected that the proposed methodology can provide new aspects of thinking to research and administrate the urgent competition issue of standard market in knowledge-based industry.

第一節 中文期刊
劉孔中 (2004年1月)。〈公平法與智慧財產權法的衝突與調和〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第一零四期，頁93-111。
劉孔中 (2004年9月)。〈專題研討 : 瓶頸設施理論、專利強制授權與公平交易法〉，《理律文教基金會》，頁1-12。
范建得 (2004年10月)。〈有關事業共同研發之聯合行為例外許可申請審查原則之研究〉，《行政院公平交易季刊》，第十二卷第四期，頁33-77。
楊智傑 (2005年1月)。〈專利侵權之不正行為抗辯與行使詐欺取得專利之反托拉斯法制裁〉，《行政院公平交易季刊》，第二十三卷第一期，頁101-152。
廖賢州 (2005年7月)。〈從Verizon v. Trinko案看電信市場之管制與競爭〉，《行政院公平交易季刊》，第十三卷第三期，頁133-166。
范建得、莊春發、錢逸霖 (2007年4月)。〈管制與競爭：論專利權的濫用〉，《行政院公平交易季刊》，第十五卷第二期，頁1-39。
范建得、鄭緯綸 (2010年1月)。〈論資訊軟體產業市場力量之管制—以微軟案為主軸〉，《行政院公平交易季刊》，第十八卷第一期，頁1- 42。
周柏翰 (2012年12月)。〈技術標準制定與競爭法規範及專利濫用之檢討〉，《科技法律評析》，第五期，頁39-91。
吳盈德 (2016年6月)。〈論競爭法上對共同事業之規範—以美國、我國競爭法為中心〉，《中華國際法與超國界法評論》，第十二卷第一期，頁162-186。
黃惠敏 (2016年6月)。〈標準必要專利與競爭法之管制—以違反FRAND/RAND承諾為中心〉，《中原財經法學》，第三十六期，頁171-243。

 
第二節 英文專書與期刊論文
Acemoglu, D., Gancia, G., & Zilibotti, F. (2012). Competing Engines of Growth: Innovation and Standardization. Journal of Economic Theory, 147(2), 1-48. doi:10.3386/w15958.
Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069-1085. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00184-6.
Aslani, A., Eftekhari, H., Hamidi, M., & Nabavi, B. (2015). Commercialization Methods of a New Product/service in ICT Industry: Case of a Science & Technology Park. Organizacija, 48(2), 131-139. doi:10.1515/orga-2015-0007.
Baker, J. (2007). Market Definition: An Analytical Overview. Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals. Paper 275, 129-173.
Bessen, J. E., Meurer, M. J., & Ford, J. L. (2011). The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-35. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1930272.
Easterbrook, F. H. (1985). The limits of antitrust. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Law School.
Layne-Farrar, A., & Padilla, A. J. (2010). Assessing the Link between Standard Setting and Market Power. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-40. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1567026.
Lemley, M. A. (2002). Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations. California Law Review, 90(6), 1889. doi:10.2307/3481437.
Kurz, H. D. (2015). Adam Smith on markets, competition and violations of natural liberty. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 40(2), 615-638. doi:10.1093/cje/bev011.
Pitofsky, R. (2001). Challenges of the New Economy: Issues at the Intersection of Antitrust and Intellectual Property. Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. 314. 913-924.
Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting. SSRN Electronic Journal, 119-150. doi:10.2139/ssrn.273550.
Spulber, D. F. (2018). Standard setting organisations and standard essential patents: Voting and markets. The Economic Journal, 1-63. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12606.
Thorne, J. (2005). A Categorical Rule Limiting Section 2 of the Sherman Act: Verizon v Trinko, University of Chicago Law Review 72(1)15, 289.
TORTI, V. (2018). INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND COMPETITION IN STANDARD SETTING: Objectives and tensions. S.l.: ROUTLEDGE.

第三節 美國判決與相關法律文獻
Allied Tube v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492 (1988).
Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 17-CV-00220-LHK, (N.D. Cal, 2017).
FTC Decision and Order, In the Matter of Robert Bosch GmbH – Decision and Order, Docket No. C-4377 (2013).
FTC Decision and Order, In the Matter of Motorola Mobility LLC, a limited liability company, and Google Inc, Docket No. C-4410 (2013).
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 243 F. Supp. 500 (S.D.N.Y. 1965).
Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Grp., Inc., 362 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
Innovatio IP. Ventures, LLC, 921 F. Supp. 2d 903 (N.D. Ill. 2013).
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. et al., 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012).
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 14-35393, (9th Cir. 2015).
NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128 (1998)
Rambus Incorporated v. FTC, No. 07-1086 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
USM Corp. v. SPS Technologies., 694 F.2d 505 (7th Cir. 1982).
Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004).
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982).
Windsurfing International, Inc. v. AMF Inc., 828 F.2d 755 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 437 (E.D.Tex.2006).

 
第四節 歐盟判決與相關法律文獻
Case AT. 39985, Motorola-Enforcement of GPRS Standard Essential Patents, Commission Decision, C92014)2892 (2014).
Case C-170/13 Huawei Technologies Co. Limited v. ZTE Corp. (Fifth Chamber, 16 July 2015).
Case C-27/76, United Brands v. Commission, E.C.R I-207 (1978).
Case C-3/39.939, Samsung Elec. Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents, (27th Sep. 2013).
Case C-418/01, IMS Health GmbH v. NDC Health GmbH, E.C.R. I-5039 (2004).
Case C-7/97, Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co. KG v. Mediaprint, E.C.R I-7791 (1998).
Case C-T-201/04, Microsoft v. Commission, E.C.R. II-3601 (2007).
Orange-Book-Standard, BGH, Urt. V. 6.5 – KRZ 39/06, GRUR 2009, 694 (2009).
 
第五節 其他外文文獻
Abbott, A. F. (2015). Standard Setting, Patents, and Competition Law Enforcement – The need for U.S. Policy Reform, in CPI Antitrust Chronicle, 1-16.
British Standards Institution [BSI] (2015). How Standard Benefit business and the UK Economy, report summary. Retrieved from https://www.bsigroup.com/ LocalFiles/en-GB/standards/BSI-standards-brochure-how-standards-benefit-businesses-and-the-UK-economy-UK-EN.pdf, last visited 05/16/2018.
Centre for Economics and Business Research [CEBR] (2015). The Economic Contribution of Standard to the UK Economy, British Standards Institution [BSI] Report, 1-108. Retrieved from https://www.bsigroup.com/LocalFiles/en-GB/standards/BSI-The-Economic-Contribution-of-Standards-to-the-UK-Economy-UK-EN.pdf, last visited 05/16/2018.
Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee (2014). Intellectual Property and Standard Setting – Note by Unite States, Report NO. DAF/COMP/WD(2014)116, 1-16.
ETSI Mobile Competence Centre [MCC] (2011). Report for 3GPP TSG RAN meeting #53, 3GPP RP-111723, Fukuoka, Japan, 13 -16 September.
ETSI MCC (2014). Report for 3GPP TSG RAN meeting #66, 3GPP RP-150060, Maui, USA, 8-11 December.
ETSI MCC (2015). Report for 3GPP TSG RAN meeting #67, 3GPP RP-150615, Shanghai, China, 9-12 March.
ETSI MCC (2018). Report for 3GPP TSG RAN meeting #78, 3GPP RP-180516, Lisbon, Portugal, 18-21 December.
European Commission (2004). Guidelines on the application of Article 101(3) TFEU, Official Journal of the European Union, Journal No C 101 of 27.4.2004.
GreenbergTrauring (2011). EU competition: Industry standards and antitrust compliance, GREENBERG TRAURIG MAHER LLP. Retrieved from http://www.gtmlaw.com, last visited 05/16/2018.
KDDI, Sprint, CMCC, Huawei, HiSilicon, Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia Corporation, Nokia Networks, Samsung (2015). Way forward on new UE categories in Rel-12, 3GPP RP-150489, Shanghai, China, 9-12 March.
Metric mishap caused loss of NASA orbiter. (1999, September 30). CNN News. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/, last visited 05/16/2018.
Nikolich (2006). IEEE 802.20 Appeals Update, C802.20-06/30, IEEE 802.20 Session 21, 12-17 November.
NTT DOCOMO, INC., AT&T, MediaTek, ACER, ASUS, CHT, HTC, ITRI, LGE, Panasonic, Sharp, Hitachi (2015). Way forward on new UE categories in Rel-12 and 13, 3GPP RP-150367, Shanghai, China, 9 - 12 March.
OECD (2017). Inequality: A hidden cost of market power, Reference No. DAF/COMP(2015)10, 1-58.
OECD (2008). Competition, Patents and Innovation, Reference NO. DAF/COMP(2007)40, 1-370.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] Science (1999). Technology and Industry Scoreboard. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard.htm, last visited 05/16/2018.
Qualcomm (2015). Introduction of new UE categories, 3GPP RP-150096, Shanghai, China, 9 - 12 March.
Rapp, R. T. & Stiroh, L. J. (2002). Standard Setting and Market Power, NERA Economic Consulting paper, 1-16.
RAN Chairman (2018). Handling new SI/WI proposals in RAN, 3GPP RP-172795, Lisbon, Portugal, 18-21 December.
Schellingerhout, R. (2011). Standard Setting from a Competition Law Perspective, in Competition Policy Newsletter, 1-9.
Telecommunication Standardization Bureau [TSB] (2014). Understanding Patents, Competition & Standardization in an Interconnected World, International Telecommunication Union [ITU] Report, 1-98.
Vries, H. J. (2006). International Standardization as a Strategic Tool, IEC Report, 130-141.