[ 赵庆庆译 ]——(2005-2-27) / 已阅49355次

Several years ago, the Questar Corp., which operated the only pipeline transporting natural gas to Salt Lake city, tried to acquire a major part of a firm that was planning to begin service to the city. The potential entrant was already having a procompetitive effect on pricing. The FTC blocked the merger, preserving the price benefits for Salt Lake City consumers.
多年前，Questar公司是唯一一家运营通往盐湖城的输气管线的公司。它企图获取另外一家正计划在盐湖城提供类似服务的公司的多数股份。The potential entrant was already having a procompetitive effect on pricing. 联邦贸易委员会阻止了此项合并，维持了有利于盐湖城的消费者的价格水平。
Price Discrimination
价格岐视
A seller charging competing buyers different prices for the same "commodity" or discriminating in the provision of "allowances" -- compensation for advertising and other services -- may be violating the Robinson-Patman Act. This kind of price discrimination may hurt competition by giving favored customers an edge in the market that has nothing to do with the superior efficiency of those customers. However, price discriminations generally are lawful, particularly if they reflect the different costs of dealing with different buyers or result from a seller’s attempts to meet a competitor’s prices or services.
一销售商就相同的商品向不同的竞买者索取不同的价格或在限量供应（如对广告或其它服务的补偿）中对购买者实行歧视的行为可能违反《鲁宾逊-帕特曼法》。这种价格歧视可能使某些受到优待的消费者在市场中处于优势地位从而损害市场竞争。This kind of price discrimination may hurt competition by giving favored customers an edge in the market that has nothing to do with the superior efficiency of those customers. 尽管如此，有差别的市场价格从总体上来说是合法的，特别是当它们反映了和不同的购买者进行交易所产生的交易成本差异时，或者它们是由于一销售商付出试图与他的竞争者在价格与服务上保持一致的努力而引起的。
Price discrimination also might be used as a predatory pricing tactic -- setting prices below cost to certain customers -- to harm competition at the supplier’s level. Antitrust authorities use the same standards applied to predatory pricing claims under the Sherman Act and the FTC Act to evaluate allegations of price discrimination used for this purpose.
价格歧视也可能被作为一种掠夺性定价策略来使用，（如对某些特定的消费者索取低于成本的价格）并对供货商层面的竞争造成损害。反托拉斯当局对适用于谢尔曼法和联邦贸易委员会法规制下的掠夺性定价的指控采同一标准 以评估关于此类价格歧视行为的抗辩。
Frequently Asked Questions
常见问题
Q: The gasoline stations in my area have increased their prices the same amount and at the same time. Is that price-fixing?
A: A uniform simultaneous price increase could be the result of price fixing, but it also could be the result of independent business responses to market conditions. For example, if conditions in the international oil markets result in an increase in the price of crude oil, there could be a ripple effect. Local gasoline stations may respond to the wholesale price of gasoline by increasing their prices to cover their higher costs. However, if there is evidence that the operators of the gasoline stations talked to each other about increasing prices, it may be an antitrust violation.
问：本地区的加油站在同一时间将油价统一提高了相同的幅度，这是否属限价行为呢？
答：同时发生的价格同步上涨可能是市场主体限价的结果，但也可能是由于各市场主体对市场形势的变化做出的各自独立的商业反应。例如，国际石油市场环境的变化可能导致原油价格的上涨，这亦会引发连锁反应。当地的加油站可能会对批发价格的变化做出相应的反应以弥补其经营成本的提高。但是，若有证据表明加油站的经营者对有关提价事项进行了协商并达成一致，这可能就违反了反托拉斯法的规定。
Q: Shopping for a stereo loudspeaker made by Sound Corporation, I couldn’t find a dealer who would sell it for less than the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. Isn’t that price-fixing?
A: The key is evidence of an agreement. If the manufacturer and a dealer entered into an agreement on a resale price or minimum price, that would be a price-fixing violation. The agreement could be formal, through a contract, or informal, when the dealer’s compliance is coerced. However, if the manufacturer has established a policy that its dealers should not sell below a minimum price level, and the dealers have independently decided to follow that policy, there is no violation.
问：在购买Sound公司生产的立体声音响时，我找不到任何一家愿以低于制造商建议零售价格销售的代理商，这是否构成限价呢？
答：此问题的核心在于有无协定的证据，如果制造商和代理商对转售价格或最低价格达成了一个协定，那么这就是一种违法的限价行为。这种协定可能是以合同的形式正式鉴定的，当代理商们对这种协定价格的服从是被强制的时候，协定也可能是非正式的。但是，制造商即便是制订了代理商不得在低于最低价格的水平上销售的政策，只要代理商仍可自主地决定自己是否贯彻这种政策时，这种限价便是合法的。
Q: The medication my doctor prescribed for my heart condition is available from only one manufacturer, and the price is very high. Is that a monopoly?
A: If the manufacturer achieved a monopoly by acquiring a competitor or obtaining a patent by fraud, its monopoly may be illegal. If the only reason for the lack of competition is that no one else has developed a suitable alternative medication, the monopoly probably is legal. Many pharmaceutical products are protected by patents, which give the manufacturer the right to be the only producer of the product until the patent expires. That gives the manufacturer a legally acquired monopoly during the life of the patent. The antitrust laws accommodate the goal of the patent laws to encourage innovation: They prevent other firms from reaping the benefits of the invention before the inventor is rewarded for the risk and cost of the innovation.
Often, an alternative drug, made by another company, can be prescribed for a particular condition. If those companies decided to merge, or if one tried to buy the other’s patent, that would be illegal, especially if the situation resulted in a substantial lessening of competition.
问：我的医生为我的心脏病开的一些处方药在市场上只有一家制药商可提供，而且价格高昂，这是否构成垄断？
答：如果这家制药商是通过兼并竞争者或以欺骗性的手段获取专利而达到市场垄断地位的，那便是非法的。如果市场上的这种缺乏竞争的状态是由于市场上没有一家其它的制药商可以提供替代性的药品，那么这种垄断便是合法的。制药商的产品可能是受专利权保护的，法律赋予其在专利保护期内独家生产专利药品的权力。这使制药商在专利期内得以合法地垄断市场。反托拉斯法在这点上和专利法协调一致以鼓励技术革新，他们排除了其它公司在新产品开发者在其所承受的开发风险和开发成本获得回报之前从此项革新中受益的可能性。
通常，在另一家公司生产出适用于某种病症的替代性药品后。若这些处于同一市场领域的公司决定合并，或其中之一试图购买另一家的专利权，那便是非法的。尤其是当这种合并将导致实质性弱化竞争的情形时。
Q: My town has given an exclusive franchise to one firm to provide all trash-collection services. I think I could get a better price from another hauler. Isn’t the franchise restraining competition?
A: Although the town’s decision to grant an exclusive franchise prevents competition in trash collection, it probably is within the municipal powers granted by the state. If so, the town is immune from the antitrust laws under the state action doctrine, which says that the antitrust laws are not meant to apply to the actions of a state.
问：我居住的小镇对一家垃圾收集公司进行特别授权，使其垄断了本地区的垃圾收集业务。但我想我可以从其它同类公司处获得价格更为优惠的服务。这种特别授权是否限制了市场竞争？
答：虽然小镇对该公司的特别授权妨碍了当地垃圾收集市场的竞争，但这可能是政府赋予小镇的地方自治权的一部分。倘若如此，小镇实施的政府授权下的行为就不受反托拉斯法的规制，也就是说，反托拉斯法不适用于政府行为。
Q: I own a small jewelry store and the manufacturer of TimeCo brand watches recently dropped me as a dealer. I’m sure it’s because my competitors complained that I sell below the suggested retail price. The explanation was the manufacturer’s policy: its products should not be sold below the suggested retail price, and dealers who do not comply are subject to termination. Is it legal for the manufacturer to dictate my prices?
A: The law allows a manufacturer to have a policy that its dealers should sell a product above a certain minimum price, and to terminate dealers that do not honor that policy. Manufacturers may choose to adopt this kind of policy because it encourages dealers to provide full customer service and prevents other dealers, who may not provide full service, from taking away customers and "free riding" on the services provided by other dealers. If TimeCo got you to agree to maintain the suggested retail price, it would be illegal. It also would be illegal if TimeCo agreed with your competitors to drop you as a dealer to help maintain a price to which they had agreed. However, a complaint from a competing retailer is not sufficient to prove such an agreement, because the manufacturer may have decided independently that its interests were better served by sticking with its policy.
问：我拥有一家小珠宝行，TimeCo牌手表的制造商最近取消了我的代理商资格。我确信这是由于我的竞争者向制造商投诉我以低于制造商建议的零售价格销售手表。制造商给出的解释是：它的厂品不得以低于建议零售价格销售，不服从规定的代理商将会被终止代理权。制造商强行规定我的售价是合法的吗？
答：法律允许制造商制订关于其代理商应在某一最低价格水平之上销售其厂品的政策。同时允许制造商终止不遵守此政策的代理商的代理权。制造商极可能采用这种政策，因为它将促使代理商向消费者提供全面的服务，并防止那些不愿提供全面服务的代理商抢走消费者及从其它代理商提供的全面服务中 “搭便车”。如果TimeCo公司强迫你接受其建议的零售价格，就是非法的；如果TimeCo公司与你的竞争者合谋将你逐出市场以维持他们的协议价格，也是非法的。. However, a complaint from a competing retailer is not sufficient to prove such an agreement,因为制造商可能已认定坚持最低限价政策可使其获得更好的收益。
Q: I own a retail clothing store and the Brand Company refuses to sell me any of its line of clothes. These clothes are very popular in my area, so this policy is hurting my business. Isn’t it illegal for Brand to refuse to sell to me?
A: It could be illegal if the refusal to sell is based on an agreement between Brand and your competitors. Without an agreement, the antitrust laws allow manufacturers substantial leeway in selecting the dealers with whom they deal. Indeed, manufacturers select dealers for a variety of reasons, including a preference for those who carry a full line of their products, the desire to maintain a certain "image" for the product line, or the ability to maintain a minimum volume of business to minimize distribution costs. The antitrust laws do not interfere with business decisions like these as long as the manufacturer acts unilaterally and not as part of a scheme to monopolize a market.
问：我拥有一家服装零售店，Brand公司拒绝将其生产的一系列服装出售给我。这些服装在本地区甚为畅销，所以Brand公司的政策损害了我的经营。Brand公司拒绝向我出售其厂品的行为是非法的吗？
答：倘若这种拒绝是基于Brand公司和你的竞争者所签署的协定，那它就是非法的。若不存在协定，反托拉斯法允许制造商有实质性区别地选择其愿意与之交易的代理商。事实上，制造商在选择其代理商时是出于多方面考虑的：包括对代理其全系列产品的代理商情有独钟；或是为了保持某一系列产品的市场形象；保持最低限度销售以使销售成本最小化的能力。只要制造商的行动是单方面的且不是垄断市场计划的一部分，反托拉斯法就不会干涉企业所做出的此类商业决定。
Q: I operate two stores that sell recorded music. My business is being ruined by giant discount store chains that sell their products for less than my wholesale cost. I thought there were laws against price discrimination, but I can’t afford the legal fees to fight the big corporations. Can you help?
A: Although it appears that the discount chains are receiving their recorded music products at a lower wholesale price, it may be because it costs a manufacturer less, on a per-unit basis, to deal with large volume customers. If so, the manufacturer may have a "cost justification" defense to the differential pricing and the policy would not violate the Robinson-Patman Act. However, if the wholesale price differences are not justified on the basis of cost or other differences, and retail competition is being harmed to the detriment of consumers, antitrust authorities would want to know about the situation.
问：我经营着两家出售翻录音乐的商店。一家大型廉价连锁店的低于我的批发价的大幅打折销售行为严重影响了我的经营。我知道有法律规定限制此类价格歧视行为，但我无力支付与大公司进行诉讼所必需的诉讼费用，你们能帮助我吗？
答：虽然，从表面上看起来这家廉价连锁店是以低于批发价在出售他们的翻录音乐，但这可能是由于他实现了规模经营而使单位商品的销售成本下降。总成本亦随之下降。倘若如此，制造商就对于其差别性的定价行为有了一个 “成本抗辩”的正当理由，从而并不违反《鲁宾逊-帕特曼法》However, if the wholesale price differences are not justified on the basis of cost or other differences, and retail competition is being harmed to the detriment of consumers, antitrust authorities would want to know about the situation.
Q: I bought a Total Motors car a few years ago, and now, when I need parts replaced, I have to get them from the TM dealer. They’re very expensive. Isn’t this illegal monopolization?
A: Distribution arrangements like this usually are permitted. TM has the exclusive right to produce TM brand parts, so it is not illegal for the company to have a monopoly for its own parts. In addition, TM’s decision to make the parts available only through its dealers wouldn’t constitute monopolization of the service market unless the dealerships were owned by TM and it appeared that the company was trying to monopolize the service market through unreasonable means. Most automobile dealerships are independently owned, but even if that were not the case, a manufacturer may have legitimate reasons for making the parts available only through its dealers. For example, it may want to ensure quality of performance by requiring the parts to be dealer installed.
问：几年前，我买了一部Total Motors牌轿车，现在我需要更换一些零部件，而且不得不在TM的代理商处购买，这些零部件非常昂贵。这属于非法垄断吗？
答：像这样的销售安排通常是被允许的。TM公司对其品牌的零配件拥有生产专有权。况且，TM公司通过其代理商提供零部件的决策并不会构成服务市场的垄断。除非，这些代理商是TM公司所拥有的，或该公司有通不正当的手段企图垄断市场的迹象。多数汽车代理商都是自主的，但即使情况并非如此，一汽车制造商仍可对其只通过代理商向市场提供零部件的决策拥有正当的抗辩理由。如，确保代理商给消费者提供的零部件的质量。
Q: When I read about mergers, price-fixing, or other competition issues in the newspaper, sometimes it’s the FTC that’s in charge and sometimes it’s the Justice Department. Who decides which agency has responsibility and why?
A: With certain exceptions, the two agencies have antitrust jurisdiction in most industries. To avoid duplicating efforts, they consult before opening an investigation. Over the years, the agencies have developed expertise in particular industries or markets. For example, the FTC devotes most of its antitrust resources to segments of the economy where consumer spending is high: health care, pharmaceuticals, other professional services, food, energy, and certain high-tech industries like computer technology, video programming and cable television. The FTC also is involved in preserving competition in defense industries, to save taxpayer dollars on acquisitions costs.
Some anticompetitive practices -- such as hard-core price fixing -- are prosecuted as criminal violations under the Sherman Act. That’s handled by the Justice Department because it is a function of the Executive Branch of the government. The Justice Department also has sole antitrust jurisdiction over certain matters that are subject to special industry regulation by other agencies, such as the telephone industry and other telecommunications matters, railroads and airlines.
Finally, only the FTC can challenge certain practices that are beyond the reach of the other antitrust laws -- practices that "violate the spirit" but not the exact letter of the other laws.
问：当我在报纸上读到合并、限价或其它有关竞争的问题时，有时候是联邦贸易委员会在负责，有时候却是司法部，那么由谁来确定哪个机构对某一具体案件负责，原因是什么？
答：除了一些特别的例外情形，这两个机构在大部分产业领域拥有反托拉斯司法权。但为了避免重复的调查努力，他们在展开一项调查时通常会事先互相照会。多年来，两个机构已形成各自专业的产业或市场领域。如，联邦贸易委员会将其大部分的反托拉斯资源用于消费者花费较大的经济领域，诸如：卫生保健、医药、其它专业性劳务、食品、能源以及一些像计算机，视频节目、有线电视等高科技的产业。联邦贸易委员会还对保持国防工业领域的竞争负责，以节省纳税人的税赋。

总共5页　　[1] [2] [3] 4 [5]

上一页　　　　下一页