[ 赵庆庆译 ]——(2005-2-27) / 已阅52560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.

 《克莱顿法》第七条A款，亦称Hart-Scott-Rodino法，要求大合并案中当事方在合并时要事先照会联邦贸易委员会和司法部。
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来得简单一些。诸如价格限定这类行为，因其对消费者固有的危害性，法院多年前曾确认在认定这些行为是否合理时，并不需要对它们进行详细的审查，而是由法律直接假定它们违法而且几乎是自动地谴责它们。（反托拉斯律师们称其为实质性违法）。
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.
其它的一些行为则需要根据法院和反托拉局业已发展起来的一些原则对其进行详细的审查。这些案子是在 “理性原则”的分析下接受审查的。一种行为倘若其以某种明显的方式限制了竞争且没有免责正当的商事抗辩理由，那么它就是非法的。这些行为常有以下这些特征：通过提价，降低商品或服务的可用性，提供低品质的商品或低质量的服务，以及显著的抑制技术革新等手段来损害消费者的利益。
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个这样的事实而趋于复杂化。那就是许多商事行为虽然在某种程度上限制了竞争，但它们拥有正当的商事抗辩理由。例如，厂商们之间关于采用防火材料制造特种产品的规范的协定。这一整套的规范可称之为标准。厂商们采纳的这种标准事实上是限制竞争的：厂商自我限制了其使用其它材料的能力，同时也限制了消费者的选择范围。然而，这种关于采纳某一标准的协定对消费者可能是有利的-------它提供了具有安全保证的商品。
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.
如果厂商们不采用电源和插座的行业统一标准会有什么情况发生呢?极可能导致不同厂商制造的零部件相互之间不相容。由于统一标准的存在，不同公司制造的零部件变得可以通用，于是此类零部件市场的竞争加强了，从而使其价格回落。
Illegal Business Practices
非法商事行为
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.
竞争者间的横向协定： 相互之间有竞争关系的市场主体间的协定很可能引起反托拉斯当局的怀疑。竞争们可能协商在他们自己之间进行限制竞争。反托拉斯当局需要通过调查该协定的影响和目的来确认其合法性。
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.
价格协定。关于价格或诸如信用证条款等有关价格事项的协定是极具潜在危害性的。这是因为价格通常是商家之间竞争的最主要的手段。一项与公司的商业运作不适当地联系在一起的纯价格协定是非法的。Hard core -- clear or blatant -- price-fixing is subject to criminal prosecution. 限价行为不论其是清晰的还是极为显著的，都将面临到刑事指控。
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.
是否近似价格、同时发生的价格变动或高价格都是限价行为的迹象呢？并非总是如此。这些情形可以是由限价行为而引发的，但是反托拉斯当局需要有一限价协定作为证据以支持其指控。近似价格、同时发生的价格变动也可以是由正常的经济环境变动而引发的。例如，激烈的竞争促使价格下降到一个正常的水平；因产量不足而引起的汽油成本整体性上升会促使各加油站在一个大体相同的时间提高它们的零售价格；至于出现的统一的高价格，串谋也可能不是出现这样情形的唯一原因。价格上涨可能是由于消费者对某一供应不足的产品需求特别大。如，要求商家提供一非常受欢迎的儿童玩具。
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.
产量限制协定。一项关于限制产量的协定是非法的。因为它削减了产品和服务的供应量，这就不可避免地引发了价格上涨。
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.
联合抵制。一团体的联合抵制（即竞争者之间有关禁止与其它人交易的协定）若是以迫使另一团体支付更高的价格为目的，那么这种行为就是非法的。
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.
联合抵制一家新的公司进入市场或联合使某一竞争者陷入劣势境地同样也是非法的。新近的案例有：弗吉尼亚州一内科医生团体联合抵制一组织建立其竞争性的卫生保健设施而遭到起诉；及零售商们通过联合行动强迫制造商限制其经由竞争性零售网的销售。
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联合抵制行动是否也是非法的呢？这则取决于它们对于竞争的影响和可能存在的正当抗辩理由。例如，一加利福尼亚的汽车代理商团体曾采取联合抵制行动阻止新闻媒体告诉消费者在购买汽车时怎样利用批发价信息。联邦贸易委员会最终认定这种联合抵制行为影响了价格竞争，而且也没有任何正当的抗辩理由。
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.
市场分割。竞争者之间关于市场领域划分或分享消费者的协定（本质上是也是限制竞争的）同样被认为是非法的。新近的一个案例是几家有线电视公司签订协定承诺互不进入对方的市场领域。
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.
广告限制协定。价格广告方面的限制若是剥夺了消费者需要的一些重要信息就是非法的。对非价格广告的限制亦有可能是非法的，只要有证据表明这种限制有反竞争性的影响同时又没有正当的商事抗辩理由。联邦贸易委员会不久前曾起诉了一群对比较和折扣广告进行限制，从而损害了消费者利益的汽车代理商。
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.
道德准则。职业道德准则若是不适当地限制了其职业可能的竞争方式也是非法的。多年前，有这样一个案例：联邦贸易委员会裁定美国医药联合会确立的道德准则中的某些条款限制了医生参加一些提供选择性医疗服务的业务，例如卫生保健计划就违法了反托拉斯法。本案为卫生保健领域更为激烈的竞争打开了大门。
Restraints of other business practices. Other kinds of agreements also can restrict competition. For example:
其它商事限制行为。其它类型的协定同样可能限制竞争。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公司的代理商协定削减他们的营业时间，包括在周六停业。
该协定减少了这些代理商在人们便利的时间内其本应正常提供的服务。从而加大了消费者货比三家的难度。联邦贸易委员会成功地阻止了此项协定的生效。
 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. 最高法院亦支持了联邦贸易委员会的裁定。
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.
在这些类型的案件中确认一违法行为很大程度上取决于能否证明厂商间协定的存在。一外在的协定可以通过一些直接的证据予以证明。如一份包含或涉及协议的文件；数分钟的厂商间达成协定的会议记录；或一知晓协定内容的证人的证词。但协定也可以用类推的方式予以证明，主要是指一些合并的间接证据，包括竞争者在实施特定市场行为前开会；电话记录以及信号行为。（即一家公司将其提高商品价格的意图告诉另一家公司）。这些证据必需表明厂商的行为看起来更像是相互间串谋的结果，而非单方面行动。
Vertical agreements between buyers and sellers
买方和卖方间的纵向协定
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.
此类型的协定存在于相互间有买卖关系的各方之间，如一零售商与其供货制造商。虽然与价格相关的协定常被假定是非法的，但反托拉斯当局认为多数非价格协定无多嫌疑，因为它们之中许多都有正当的商事抗辩理由。
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.
转售价格维持协定。此为纵向限价，即一供货商与一销售商之间关于某一商品最低转售价格的协定。这种协定明显违反了反托拉斯法。同样，制造商和零售商对最低转售价格达成一致也是非法的。

总共5页　　[1] 2 [3] [4] [5]

上一页　　　　下一页