| Reasonable price competition is affecting the market an important part of this whole operation. Free price system to be able to make market players continue to improve service quality, reduce service costs and efforts, but also to provide consumers with choice of space. Thus, in order to protect free competition and maintain the sustainable development of the market economy, price monopoly agreements are limited States Antitrust Law. However, unlike the behavior of horizontal price fixing agreement brings obvious adverse competitive effects, vertical price monopoly agreement on competition in the market competition will bring positive results. This vertical price monopoly agreement to antitrust regulation has caused some degree of complexity and suffering. With the wide range of applications in recent years, China’s market on vertical price monopoly agreement, coupled with the court a few days ago, "Rui Bang v. Johnson" Case and "Maotai, Wuliangye limit resale price" hefty fines case punished by National Development and Reform Commission is causing wide attention from all walks of law and re-thinking.This paper is divided into four parts.The first part is an overview of vertical price fixing agreement. By comparing home and abroad elaborate on the meaning of vertical price monopoly agreement, extended the concept of vertical price fixing agreement, and analyzed and summarized its characteristics. Basic Theory of vertical price fixing agreement is the foundation for "anti-monopoly law," specific regulations, because of its own complexity, appropriate theoretical foundation; it is beneficial for many types of vertical price fixing agreement for the same legal regulation. In addition, detailed analysis of the manifestations of vertical price monopoly agreement, compared to the longitudinal price limit brought positive and negative economic effects, so that a more thorough understanding of the behavior of longitudinal price limits.The second part of the vertical price fixing agreement outside the legal regulations. Analysis of the United States, the European Union, Japan, the three representative national anti-monopoly law regulation of vertical price-fixing agreements, especially for different types of vertical price-fixing agreements-fixed resale price, define the minimum resale price and limit the highest resale price, is apply itself illegal principle, and apply the principle of reasonable and applicable did explain the type of immunity system. Through comparative studies, from the application of principles and specific system on foreign legislation bring enlightenment to China’s anti-monopoly law.The third part is an analysis of vertical price regulation of monopoly agreement on China’s anti-monopoly law into the system. Introduction The Current Situation of Anti vertical price monopoly agreements in antitrust law and administrative regulations, and to China in recent years are reviewed in detail in the judiciary and law enforcement agencies in the regulation of the practice of vertical price monopoly agreement of the two representative cases-"Rui Bang v. Johnson" case and "Maotai, Wuliangye resale price restrictions" case, and further analysis of the status quo and the lack of legislation that exist in practice for vertical price regulation of monopoly agreement on this basis.The fourth part is about perfection vertical price monopoly agreement of the Antitrust Regulation. On the basis of the first three parts of this section on anti-monopoly law system on our vertical price monopoly agreement on regulation problems with the current situation of China, we made several recommendations to improve. Recommends that the main focus of competition policy in line with national conditions and improving the relevant content of the legislation in two areas in which recognized standards of responsibility, clear principles applicable, detailed vertical price fixing agreement types, optimizing the exemption system, the burden of proof inversion and improve relevant laws and responsibilities Antitrust legislation in terms of content made specific regulatory proposals. |
