中文文獻
期刊論文(依據作者姓氏筆劃排列)
1. 林國彬,「美國聯邦電力事業經濟管制之研究」,公平交易季刊,第九卷第一期,頁55、107,2001年1月。2. 林雅惠,「論寬頻接取市場之批發價格管制制度-兼論垂直價格擠壓理論」,萬國法律,第150期,頁29-51,2006年。3. 陳志民,「反托拉斯法規範掠奪行為之現在與未來-新經濟制度下之省思(二)」,政大法學評論,第八十一期,頁220-222,2004年。英文文獻
書籍(依作者姓氏起首字母排列)
1. Herbert Hovenkamp, Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and Its Practice (3d ed. 2005)
期刊論文(依據作者姓氏起首字母排列)
1. Areeda, Phillip A. & Donald Tuner, Predatory Pricing and Related Practices Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 88 Harv. Rev. 697(1975).
2. Baker Jonathan B., Beyond Schumpeter vs. Arrow: How Antitrust Fosters Innovation, 74 ANTITRUST L.J. 575(2007).
3. Krattenmaker, Thomas G. & Steven C. Salop, Anticompetitive Exclusion: Raising Rivals’ Costs to Achieve Power over Price, 96 YALE L. J. 209 (1986)
4. Krattenmaker, Thomas G. & Steven C. Salop, Competition and Cooperation in the Market for Exclusionary Rights, 76 AM. ECON. REV. 109 (1986).
5. Salop, Steven C., Refusals to Deal and Price Squeezes by an Unregulated, Vertically Integrated Monopolist, 76 ANTITRUST L.J. 709(2010).
6. Salop, Steven C. & David T. Scheffman, Raising Rivals’ Costs, 73 AM. ECON. REV. 267(1983)
其他參考文獻
1. European Communities, Notice on the Application of the Competition Rules to Access Agreements in the Telecommunications Sector. 98/C, C 265/02.
2. Guidance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings.
3. Commission Recommendation on Interconnection in a Liberalized Telecommunication Market Part2 – Accounting Separation and Cost Accounting, 98/195/EC, April 8, 1998.
4. European Regulators Group, Report on the Discussion on the Application of Margin Squeeze Tests to Bundles, March 2009.
5. Commission Guidelines on Market Analysis and the Assessment of Significant Market Power Under the Community Regulation Framework for Electronic Communications Networks and Services, O.J. C 165, July 11, 2002.
6. Simon Genevaz, Margin Squeeze after Deutsche Telekom, May 14, 2008, available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/margin-squeeze-after-ideutsche-telekomi/
7. Cecilio Madero, Iratxe Gurpegui Ballesteros & Ana Malheiro, Margin Squeeze Abuses: The EU Perspective, Apr. 15, 2009, available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/margin-squeeze-abuses-the-eu-perspective/
相關判決
美國判決(依本文中出現順序排列)
1. Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. linkLine Commc’ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 129 S.Ct.1109 (2009).
2. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585(1985).
3. Verizon Communication Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004).
4. United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (Alcoa), 148 F.2d 416(2d, Cir. 1945).
5. Town of Concord v. Boston Edison Co., 915 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
6. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993).
7. Barry Wright Corp. v. ITT Grinnell Corp., 724 F.2d 227 (1st Cir. 1983).
8. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986).
9. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366.(1973); Image Technical Services, Inc. v. Kodak, 123 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997).
歐盟判決(依本文中出現順序排列)
1. Commission Decision of May 21, 2003, COMP/C-1/37.451, 37.578, 37.579 – Deutsche Telekom AG., 2003 O.J. (L 263) 9.
2. Case T-271/03, Deutsche Telekom AG v. Commission, 2008 E.C.R.II-477.
3. Case C-280/08 P. Deutsche Telekom AG v. Commission, 2010 E.C.R. __, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0280:EN:HTML
4. Commission’s Interim Measures Decision of October 29, 1975, National Carbonizing, 1976 O.J. (L 35) 6.
5. Commission Decision of Jul.18, 1988, Napier Brown – British Sugar, 1988 O.J. (L 284) 41.
6. Ofcom, Case CW/00760/03/04, Own-initiative investigation against BT about potential anti-competitive exclusionary behaviour. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ccases/closed_all/cw007/?lang=default (last visited 2012/6/29)
7. France Telecom、Cegetal http://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/pdf/avis/04d48.pdf. (last visited 2012/6/29)