[ 趙慶慶譯 ]——(2005-2-27) / 已閱53056次
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, called the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, requires the prior notification of large mergers to both the FTC and the Justice Department.
《克萊頓法》第七條A款，亦稱Hart-Scott-Rodino法，要求大合并案中當(dāng)事方在合并時(shí)要事先照會(huì)聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)和司法部。
Some cases are easier than others. The courts decided many years ago that certain practices, such as price fixing, are so inherently harmful to consumers that a detailed examination isn’t necessary to determine whether they are reasonable. The law presumes that they are violations (antitrust lawyers call these per se violations) and condemns them almost automatically.
某些案件比其它的案子要來得簡單一些。諸如價(jià)格限定這類行為，因其對(duì)消費(fèi)者固有的危害性，法院多年前曾確認(rèn)在認(rèn)定這些行為是否合理時(shí)，并不需要對(duì)它們進(jìn)行詳細(xì)的審查，而是由法律直接假定它們違法而且?guī)缀跏亲詣?dòng)地譴責(zé)它們。（反托拉斯律師們稱其為實(shí)質(zhì)性違法）。
Other practices demand closer scrutiny based on principles that the courts and antitrust agencies have developed. These cases are examined under a "rule of reason" analysis. A practice is illegal if it restricts competition in some significant way and has no overriding business justification. Practices that meet both characteristics are likely to harm consumers -- by increasing prices, reducing availability of goods or services, lowering quality or service, or significantly stifling innovation.
其它的一些行為則需要根據(jù)法院和反托拉局業(yè)已發(fā)展起來的一些原則對(duì)其進(jìn)行詳細(xì)的審查。這些案子是在 “理性原則”的分析下接受審查的。一種行為倘若其以某種明顯的方式限制了競爭且沒有免責(zé)正當(dāng)?shù)纳淌驴罐q理由，那么它就是非法的。這些行為常有以下這些特征：通過提價(jià)，降低商品或服務(wù)的可用性，提供低品質(zhì)的商品或低質(zhì)量的服務(wù)，以及顯著的抑制技術(shù)革新等手段來損害消費(fèi)者的利益。
The antitrust laws are further complicated by the fact that many business practices can have a reasonable business justification even if they limit competition in some way. Consider an agreement among manufacturers to adopt specifications that require fire-resistant materials for certain products. The set of specifications may be called a standard. The agreement to adopt the standard is restrictive: the manufacturers have limited their own ability to use other materials, and they have limited consumer choice. But the agreement to adopt the standard may benefit consumers in that it provides assurances of safety.
反托拉斯法亦基于一個(gè)這樣的事實(shí)而趨于復(fù)雜化。那就是許多商事行為雖然在某種程度上限制了競爭，但它們擁有正當(dāng)?shù)纳淌驴罐q理由。例如，廠商們之間關(guān)于采用防火材料制造特種產(chǎn)品的規(guī)范的協(xié)定。這一整套的規(guī)范可稱之為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。廠商們采納的這種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)事實(shí)上是限制競爭的：廠商自我限制了其使用其它材料的能力，同時(shí)也限制了消費(fèi)者的選擇范圍。然而，這種關(guān)于采納某一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的協(xié)定對(duì)消費(fèi)者可能是有利的-------它提供了具有安全保證的商品。
What if manufacturers did not use a uniform standard for electrical outlets and plugs? The likely result would be incompatibilities between parts produced by different manufacturers. But because of the standard, parts manufactured by different companies become interchangeable; competition for the parts increases, and prices go down.
如果廠商們不采用電源和插座的行業(yè)統(tǒng)一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)會(huì)有什么情況發(fā)生呢?極可能導(dǎo)致不同廠商制造的零部件相互之間不相容。由于統(tǒng)一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的存在，不同公司制造的零部件變得可以通用，于是此類零部件市場的競爭加強(qiáng)了，從而使其價(jià)格回落。
Illegal Business Practices
非法商事行為
Horizontal agreements among competitors:
Agreements among parties in a competing relationship can raise antitrust suspicions. Competitors may be agreeing to restrict competition among themselves. Antitrust authorities must investigate the effect and purpose of an agreement to determine its legality.
競爭者間的橫向協(xié)定： 相互之間有競爭關(guān)系的市場主體間的協(xié)定很可能引起反托拉斯當(dāng)局的懷疑。競爭們可能協(xié)商在他們自己之間進(jìn)行限制競爭。反托拉斯當(dāng)局需要通過調(diào)查該協(xié)定的影響和目的來確認(rèn)其合法性。
Agreements on price. Agreements about price or price-related matters such as credit terms potentially are the most serious. That’s because price often is the principal way that firms compete. A "naked" agreement on price -- where the agreement is not reasonably related to the firms’ business operations -- is illegal. Hard core -- clear or blatant -- price-fixing is subject to criminal prosecution.
價(jià)格協(xié)定。關(guān)于價(jià)格或諸如信用證條款等有關(guān)價(jià)格事項(xiàng)的協(xié)定是極具潛在危害性的。這是因?yàn)閮r(jià)格通常是商家之間競爭的最主要的手段。一項(xiàng)與公司的商業(yè)運(yùn)作不適當(dāng)?shù)芈?lián)系在一起的純價(jià)格協(xié)定是非法的。Hard core -- clear or blatant -- price-fixing is subject to criminal prosecution. 限價(jià)行為不論其是清晰的還是極為顯著的，都將面臨到刑事指控。
Are similarity of prices, simultaneous price changes or high prices indications of price-fixing? Not always. These conditions can result from price-fixing, but to prove the charge, antitrust authorities would need evidence of an agreement to fix prices. Price similarities -- or the appearance of simultaneous changes in price -- also can result from normal economic conditions. For example, vigorous competition can drive prices down to a common level. A general increase in wholesale gasoline costs due to production shortages can cause gasoline stations to increase retail prices around the same time. As for the appearance of uniformly "high" prices, collusion may not be the only basis for the situation. Prices may increase if consumer demand for a product is particularly high and the supply is limited. Ask any shopper in search of a particularly popular children’s toy.
是否近似價(jià)格、同時(shí)發(fā)生的價(jià)格變動(dòng)或高價(jià)格都是限價(jià)行為的跡象呢？并非總是如此。這些情形可以是由限價(jià)行為而引發(fā)的，但是反托拉斯當(dāng)局需要有一限價(jià)協(xié)定作為證據(jù)以支持其指控。近似價(jià)格、同時(shí)發(fā)生的價(jià)格變動(dòng)也可以是由正常的經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境變動(dòng)而引發(fā)的。例如，激烈的競爭促使價(jià)格下降到一個(gè)正常的水平；因產(chǎn)量不足而引起的汽油成本整體性上升會(huì)促使各加油站在一個(gè)大體相同的時(shí)間提高它們的零售價(jià)格；至于出現(xiàn)的統(tǒng)一的高價(jià)格，串謀也可能不是出現(xiàn)這樣情形的唯一原因。價(jià)格上漲可能是由于消費(fèi)者對(duì)某一供應(yīng)不足的產(chǎn)品需求特別大。如，要求商家提供一非常受歡迎的兒童玩具。
Agreements to restrict output. An agreement to restrict production or output is illegal because reducing the supply of a product or service inevitably drives up its price.
產(chǎn)量限制協(xié)定。一項(xiàng)關(guān)于限制產(chǎn)量的協(xié)定是非法的。因?yàn)樗鳒p了產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)的供應(yīng)量，這就不可避免地引發(fā)了價(jià)格上漲。
Boycotts. A group boycott -- an agreement among competitors not to deal with another person or business -- violates the law if it is used to force another party to pay higher prices.
聯(lián)合抵制。一團(tuán)體的聯(lián)合抵制（即競爭者之間有關(guān)禁止與其它人交易的協(xié)定）若是以迫使另一團(tuán)體支付更高的價(jià)格為目的，那么這種行為就是非法的。
Boycotts to prevent a firm from entering a market or to disadvantage a competitor also are illegal. Recent cases involved a group of physicians charged with using a boycott to prevent a managed care organization from establishing a competing health care facility in Virginia and retailers who used a boycott to force manufacturers to limit sales through a competing catalog vendor.
聯(lián)合抵制一家新的公司進(jìn)入市場或聯(lián)合使某一競爭者陷入劣勢(shì)境地同樣也是非法的。新近的案例有：弗吉尼亞州一內(nèi)科醫(yī)生團(tuán)體聯(lián)合抵制一組織建立其競爭性的衛(wèi)生保健設(shè)施而遭到起訴；及零售商們通過聯(lián)合行動(dòng)強(qiáng)迫制造商限制其經(jīng)由競爭性零售網(wǎng)的銷售。
Are boycotts for other purposes illegal? It depends on their effect on competition and possible justifications. A group of California auto dealers used a boycott to prevent a newspaper from telling consumers how to use wholesale price information when shopping for cars. The FTC proved that the boycott affected price competition and had no reasonable justification.
至于用于其它目的的聯(lián)合抵制行動(dòng)是否也是非法的呢？這則取決于它們對(duì)于競爭的影響和可能存在的正當(dāng)抗辯理由。例如，一加利福尼亞的汽車代理商團(tuán)體曾采取聯(lián)合抵制行動(dòng)阻止新聞媒體告訴消費(fèi)者在購買汽車時(shí)怎樣利用批發(fā)價(jià)信息。聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)最終認(rèn)定這種聯(lián)合抵制行為影響了價(jià)格競爭，而且也沒有任何正當(dāng)?shù)目罐q理由。
Market division. Agreements among competitors to divide sales territories or allocate customers -- essentially, agreements not to compete -- are presumed to be illegal. At issue in one recent case was an agreement between cable television companies not to enter each other’s territory.
市場分割。競爭者之間關(guān)于市場領(lǐng)域劃分或分享消費(fèi)者的協(xié)定（本質(zhì)上是也是限制競爭的）同樣被認(rèn)為是非法的。新近的一個(gè)案例是幾家有線電視公司簽訂協(xié)定承諾互不進(jìn)入對(duì)方的市場領(lǐng)域。
Agreements to restrict advertising. Restrictions on price advertising can be illegal if they deprive consumers of important information. Restrictions on non-price advertising also may be illegal if the evidence shows the restrictions have anticompetitive effects and lack reasonable business justification. The FTC recently charged a group of auto dealers with restricting comparative and discount advertising to the detriment of consumers.
廣告限制協(xié)定。價(jià)格廣告方面的限制若是剝奪了消費(fèi)者需要的一些重要信息就是非法的。對(duì)非價(jià)格廣告的限制亦有可能是非法的，只要有證據(jù)表明這種限制有反競爭性的影響同時(shí)又沒有正當(dāng)?shù)纳淌驴罐q理由。聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)不久前曾起訴了一群對(duì)比較和折扣廣告進(jìn)行限制，從而損害了消費(fèi)者利益的汽車代理商。
Codes of ethics. A professional code of ethics may be unlawful if it unreasonably restricts the ways professionals may compete. Several years ago, for example, the FTC ruled that certain provisions of the American Medical Association’s code of ethics restricted doctors from participating in alternative forms of health care delivery, such as managed health care programs, in violation of the antitrust laws. The case opened the door for greater competition in health care.
道德準(zhǔn)則。職業(yè)道德準(zhǔn)則若是不適當(dāng)?shù)叵拗屏似渎殬I(yè)可能的競爭方式也是非法的。多年前，有這樣一個(gè)案例：聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)裁定美國醫(yī)藥聯(lián)合會(huì)確立的道德準(zhǔn)則中的某些條款限制了醫(yī)生參加一些提供選擇性醫(yī)療服務(wù)的業(yè)務(wù)，例如衛(wèi)生保健計(jì)劃就違法了反托拉斯法。本案為衛(wèi)生保健領(lǐng)域更為激烈的競爭打開了大門。
Restraints of other business practices. Other kinds of agreements also can restrict competition. For example:
其它商事限制行為。其它類型的協(xié)定同樣可能限制競爭。例如：
A large group of Detroit-area auto dealers agreed to restrict their showroom hours, including closing on Saturdays. The agreement reduced a service that dealers normally provide -- convenient hours -- and made it difficult for consumers to comparison shop. The FTC challenged the agreement successfully.
一些Detroit-area公司的代理商協(xié)定削減他們的營業(yè)時(shí)間，包括在周六停業(yè)。
該協(xié)定減少了這些代理商在人們便利的時(shí)間內(nèi)其本應(yīng)正常提供的服務(wù)。從而加大了消費(fèi)者貨比三家的難度。聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)成功地阻止了此項(xiàng)協(xié)定的生效。
A group of dentists refused to make patients’ X-rays available to insurance companies. The FTC maintained that the agreement restricted a service to patients, as well as information that would be relevant to reimbursements. The Supreme Court upheld the FTC’s ruling.
A group of dentists refused to make patients’ X-rays available to insurance companies. The FTC maintained that the agreement restricted a service to patients, as well as information that would be relevant to reimbursements. 最高法院亦支持了聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)的裁定。
Proving a violation in these kinds of cases depends largely on proving the existence of an agreement. An explicit agreement can be demonstrated through direct evidence -- a document that contains or refers to an agreement, minutes of a meeting that record an agreement among the attendees, or testimony by a person with knowledge of an agreement. But an agreement also can be demonstrated by inference -- a combination of circumstantial evidence, including the fact that competitors had a meeting before they implemented certain practices, records of telephone calls, and signaling behavior -- when one company tells another that it intends to raise prices by a certain amount. This evidence must show that a company’s conduct was more likely the result of an agreement than a unilateral action.
在這些類型的案件中確認(rèn)一違法行為很大程度上取決于能否證明廠商間協(xié)定的存在。一外在的協(xié)定可以通過一些直接的證據(jù)予以證明。如一份包含或涉及協(xié)議的文件；數(shù)分鐘的廠商間達(dá)成協(xié)定的會(huì)議記錄；或一知曉協(xié)定內(nèi)容的證人的證詞。但協(xié)定也可以用類推的方式予以證明，主要是指一些合并的間接證據(jù)，包括競爭者在實(shí)施特定市場行為前開會(huì)；電話記錄以及信號(hào)行為。（即一家公司將其提高商品價(jià)格的意圖告訴另一家公司）。這些證據(jù)必需表明廠商的行為看起來更像是相互間串謀的結(jié)果，而非單方面行動(dòng)。
Vertical agreements between buyers and sellers
買方和賣方間的縱向協(xié)定
Certain kinds of agreements between parties in a buyer-seller relationship, such as a retailer who buys from a manufacturer, also are illegal. Price-related agreements are presumed to be violations, but antitrust authorities view most non-price agreements with less suspicion because many have valid business justifications.
此類型的協(xié)定存在于相互間有買賣關(guān)系的各方之間，如一零售商與其供貨制造商。雖然與價(jià)格相關(guān)的協(xié)定常被假定是非法的，但反托拉斯當(dāng)局認(rèn)為多數(shù)非價(jià)格協(xié)定無多嫌疑，因?yàn)樗鼈冎性S多都有正當(dāng)?shù)纳淌驴罐q理由。
Resale price maintenance agreements. Vertical price-fixing -- an agreement between a supplier and a dealer that fixes the minimum resale price of a product -- is a clear-cut antitrust violation. It also is illegal for a manufacturer and retailer to agree on a minimum resale price.
轉(zhuǎn)售價(jià)格維持協(xié)定。此為縱向限價(jià)，即一供貨商與一銷售商之間關(guān)于某一商品最低轉(zhuǎn)售價(jià)格的協(xié)定。這種協(xié)定明顯違反了反托拉斯法。同樣，制造商和零售商對(duì)最低轉(zhuǎn)售價(jià)格達(dá)成一致也是非法的。
總共5頁 [1] 2 [3] [4] [5]
上一頁 下一頁
