Interconnection is the essential attribute of the Internet，It is also the core element that creates the prosperity of the Internet economy。However in recent years，Internet companies, especially large Internet companies, seem to have abandoned tradition，Began to close its territory，Reject open sharing of resources。Such a ban not only causes dissatisfaction among other operators，It also makes the country worry that the continued prosperity of the Internet economy will be hindered。Currently，Academic discussions on platform bans mainly focus on the field of antitrust law。However，Platform banning behavior is also closely related to the bet with bet365，It may involve Article 12 of the bet with bet365 by interfering with the normal business activities of others，Concerns about general provisions may also arise due to “unfairness”。But at the same time，Article 12 of the bet with bet365 is highly controversial，General terms are highly abstract，How to apply the two articles depends on people’s grasp and understanding of the value basis and accumulated experience of the bet with bet365。

With the development of bet with bet365，The traditional underlying logic is challenged，Alternative infrastructure has not yet been established，This makes it more difficult for the bet with bet365 to deal with new disputes such as Internet platform bans in practice。In this context，The tradition and development process of clarifying the value basis of bet with bet365，Outline a framework for analyzing the legitimacy of Internet platform bans，To avoid the bet with bet365’s regulations on platform bans that are too broad or too narrow，Promote the healthy development of the Internet economy，It has important theoretical and practical significance。

　　The tradition and development of the value basis of bet with bet365

The bet with bet365 was first introduced in response to the law that was popular in continental Europe at the end of the 19th century、People’s common complaints about “the decline of business ethics” and “the sharp increase in unfair competition”。Therefore，bet with bet365 contains the pursuit of specific fair results。At the same time，bet with bet365 was born in the era when liberalism swept Europe，Therefore, it must also contain the protection and pursuit of the value of freedom。The traditional way of balancing freedom and fairness in bet with bet365 is，Actively prohibit conduct considered unfair，Liberty is protected negatively as the right to deduction。bet with bet365 mainly relies on experience and consensus to define "unfair behavior"，And in the early stage, unfair competition behaviors were fixed in the articles by specific enumeration。After 1909，Anti-unfair competition laws in continental Europe are further expanded，The method of fixing experience and consensus is expanded to "general terms + specific enumeration"。The introduction of general clauses is of great significance，It is like a "Trojan horse"，Let the moral code with the economic origin of handicraft guild control enter the bet with bet365，For the latter to respect the existing social order，Even the conservative nature of favoring prior operators。

Since the 21st century，Operators are beginning to feel dissatisfied with the aforementioned features of the bet with bet365，Hope the system will reduce interference in market behavior，So the "Liberalization of Anti-Unfair Competition Laws" movement was launched on the European continent，Forcing the court to change its attitude towards some competitive behaviors，Tolerating the behavior of more market challengers。What needs to be emphasized is，This clear-cut change is actually mild，It only slightly affects the ratio of freedom and fairness。The fundamental status of freedom of conduct and restrictions on freedom based on the concept of fairness，No fundamental changes have occurred。Although my country’s bet with bet365 was only promulgated and implemented in the 1990s，Its development is also delayed compared to mainland Europe，But the overall context is roughly the same。

　　In principle, it does not constitute unfair bet with bet365

The bet with bet365 pursues fair results by prohibiting specifically listed unfair competition behaviors，Ensure freedom of conduct by allowing operators to engage in conduct that is not prohibited，The legality of Internet platform bans first depends on whether the bet with bet365 clearly lists bans as unfair competition。Article 12, paragraph 3, of the bet with bet365 prohibiting malicious incompatibility clauses has the highest correlation with banning behavior。But，This clause contains an uncertain concept of "malice"，This shows that legislators are cautious about regulating incompatible behavior。August 2021，The "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the bet with bet365 of the People's Republic of China" (Draft for Comments)" stipulates how to interpret malicious incompatibility clauses such as "targeting specific operators" and "unable to cooperate to eliminate the impact" ” and other restrictive requirements，Further narrowing the prohibited scope of malicious incompatible clauses，This shows that the judicial authorities are also highly cautious in restricting incompatible behaviors。

Of course，The legitimacy of Internet platform bans also depends on the interpretation and application of general terms。But for competitive behaviors that are not regulated by specific provisions，In principle, this behavior should be considered to fall within the scope of freedom of behavior，Only continue to examine whether it should be regulated by general provisions in exceptional circumstances。In addition，bet with bet365 traditionally respects the existing social order formed spontaneously，This also provides support for allowing Internet platforms to engage in blocking behaviors in principle。Specifically，Internet platforms can be banned through two methods: protocol and technical force。Blocking through agreement requires the consent of other operators，If other operators refuse to cooperate, the ban cannot be implemented，This means that the ban based on "consent" is a spontaneous order with a legitimate basis，Anti-unfair competition laws should generally not interfere。To achieve a ban through technical force is to create a fait accompli through private power，If the behavior does not violate the prohibitive provisions of the law，When the Internet platform has the ability to maintain this private power and form order，Anti-unfair competition laws should generally not interfere。

　　Unfair bet with bet365 under exceptional circumstances

The protection provided by the bet with bet365 for freedom of conduct is not absolute，Rather, it restricts freedom based on the fair goals it pursues。Professional ethics during the handicraft guild period had a profound impact on the bet with bet365，The guild is committed to eliminating competition within its members and therefore takes various measures to promote the equalization of members’ income。The ancient professional ethics is reshaped by time，But its core content remains，And evolved into an important content of fairness pursued by the bet with bet365，That is, long-term operators gain a certain degree of survival rationality，Others except performance competition behavior，Conduct should not seriously threaten the survival basis of prior operators。This is especially true during periods of technological change，Because economic activities are experiencing unpredictable rapid changes at this time，The bet with bet365 plays the role of a buffer。Based on this，Internet platform bans may constitute unfair competition，If the object it bans is an operator with whom it has formed a long-term dependence，And the banning behavior is enough to put the other party into a serious crisis。In reverse，If there is no stable dependence relationship between operators，Perhaps a certain Internet platform’s refusal to share resources only creates obstacles for other operators to realize their future development plans，The latter has no long-term vested interest in these enclosed resources，The ban does not violate the fairness requirements under the framework of the bet with bet365。Same，If a certain operator’s banning behavior only brings some inconvenience to the business activities of other market entities，It may increase the operating costs of other operators，But it will not have consequences that threaten its survival，Then the banning behavior still falls within the scope of the operator’s freedom of conduct。

Internet platform bans constitute unfair competition except for causing specific results，It may also constitute unfair competition because the perpetrator has a specific subjective state。The current consensus among my country’s academic and practical circles is that，Operators shall not maliciously cause damage to other operators。However, there are major differences between academic circles and practitioners on how to interpret bad faith in bet with bet365，This is because the practical community tends to inject traditional ethics into the element of subjective fault，Defining the subjective malice of the perpetrator based on folk ethics such as "eating people to gain fat" and "benefiting oneself at the expense of others"。The academic community advocates that business rationality should be distinguished from traditional ethics。Obviously，Defining malice based on commercial rationality is more in line with the requirements of the times，This is also consistent with the interpretation of malice in comparative law，That is, "harming others but not benefiting oneself"。This means，In order to pursue their own economic interests, Internet platform operators allow blocking behavior, causing the interests of competitors to be reduced，This competitive behavior is in line with economic rationality，Should not be condemned by the bet with bet365。But，If the operator’s banning behavior is causing harm to other operators，But it cannot bring economic benefits to myself，On the contrary, you may suffer the same or even more damage，Then this kind of practice of "injuring the enemy by one thousand and injuring yourself by eight hundred" is malicious in terms of bet with bet365。When the operator’s blocking behavior is determined to be malicious，The behavior can be determined to be improper based on the malicious incompatibility clause，You can also inject "malice" into open concepts such as "the principle of good faith" and "recognized business ethics"，Then it is determined that the ban constitutes unfair competition based on the general provisions。

　　(Author’s Affiliation: Shenzhen University bet with bet365 School)