中国企业在美国反垄断诉讼中的挑战与应对:基于对相关判决的质疑

中国企业在美国的一系列反垄断诉讼发生在中国加入世界贸易组织后与美国在经贸关系中博弈摩擦不断升级的背景之下,其中涉及了美国反托拉斯法的域外适用、国际礼让原则、外国法查明、外国政府对本国法律解释的效力等一系列焦点问题。在相关案件的判决中,美国法院就上述问题的观点和论述存在诸多漏洞和偏颇之处,包括限缩适用"国际礼让原则"中"真实冲突"的条件、外国法查明中客观性的缺失等。而未来随着中国企业日益成为美国反托拉斯重点关注对象,中国企业会面临更多挑战,需从美国国内法、国际法、中国相关政策法规的制定以及企业自身行为的合规性等方面积极应对。     

反垄断法宽恕制度的理论基础与实效保障

发源于美国反垄断法之宽恕制度,具有明显的依赖性、契约性和威慑性特征。由于该制度在反垄断执法中对于及时发现和查处秘密卡特尔发挥了重要作用,因此,被许多国家和地区反垄断法所参照,成为推动反垄断法有效实施的重要工具之一。坚实的经济学基础和法理学基础,是该制度合理性的依据所在,也是其功效得以发挥的重要基础;具体的适用条件、严厉的处罚措施、确定的减免待遇和诚实信用原则的遵守是其效力得以实现的重要保障。我国《反垄断法》虽然也引进了宽恕制度,但未设计具体有效的实效保障措施,应借鉴其他国家和地区的经验予以完善。     

反垄断法的价值构造

价值问题是反垄断立法和实施中的核心和前置性问题,在当前中国反垄断法实施面临制度分裂、"纸面上的法"与"行动中的法"相背离等背景下,对这一话题的研讨尤为重要。成熟反垄断法律制度的实体价值主要表现在自由、效率和公平等诸方面,在经济理性的作用下,这些价值呈并存、竞争和融合的矛盾运动之势。受制于政治、经济、社会文化以及制度等因素的影响,中国反垄断法表现出来的自由价值和经济理性等先天不足,是该法实施乱象的重要根源,亟待通过制度实践和竞争文化培育凝聚更多价值共识。     

The Inefficiency of Quasi–Per Se Rules: Regulating Information Exchange in EU and U.S. Antitrust Law

It is well understood that the exchange of information between horizontal competitors can violate competition law provisions in both the European Union (EU) and the United States, namely, article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and section 1 of the Sherman Act. However, despite ostensible similarities between EU and U.S. antitrust law concerning interfirm information exchange, substantial differences remain. In this article, we make a normative argument for the U.S. antitrust regime's approach, on the basis that the United States’ approach to information exchange is likely to be more efficient than the relevant approach under the EU competition regime. Using economic theories of harm concerning information exchange to understand the imposition of liability in relation to “stand-alone” instances of information exchange, we argue that such liability must be grounded on the conception of a prophylactic rule. We characterize this rule as a form of ex ante regulation and explain why it has no ex post counterpart in antitrust law. In contrast to the U.S. antitrust regime, we argue that the implementation of such a rule pursuant to EU competition law leads to higher error costs without a significant reduction in regulatory costs. As a majority of jurisdictions have competition law regimes that resemble EU competition law more closely than U.S. antitrust law, our thesis has important implications for competition regimes around the world.     

COMPETITION POLICY IN CHINA AND ITS RELEVANCE TO SMES

Competition policy has great relevance to all the firms in any economy. Even though it is unlikely that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have enough market power to constrain competition through a misuse of such power, they may still face prosecution if they are involved in a boycott of competitors or suppliers, price-fixing, output-restriction and other monopoly agreements. This article discusses antitrust issues pertaining to SMEs with a focus on China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) and its implementation rules. Contrary to the popular view that SMEs benefit from competition laws, evidence shows that they are reluctant to get involved in antitrust litigation against large firms partly because of the high legal costs involved. There is an urgent need to promote an awareness of antitrust compliance in China and to educate SMEs about the need to avoid breaching the new antitrust law and its associated regulations. In the meantime, SMEs should take full advantage of the antitrust laws to fight against the abuse of market dominance directed at them, and to gain equal opportunities to market access.     

刍议我国中医药专利保护制度

本文阐述了我国中医药专利保护制度的现状,分析了我国中医药专利保护制度存在的问题,如法律法规不健全、专利申请和保护意识淡薄等,从构建专门专利法律保护体系、建立数据库、提高专利意识和加速国际化进程等角度,提出了完善我国中医药专利保护制度的政策建议。     

经济全球化与反垄断立法

随着经济全球化的发展,基于国内因素的考虑而制定的反垄断法不可避免地遇到了各种问题,美国和欧盟等都开始对传统反垄断法进行调整。经济全球化也促进了反垄断国际规范的发展。中国在经济全球化的背景下应该及时制定反垄断法或反限制竞争法;并且在制度安排上应注意:坚持垄断中性的认识,充分体现合理规则,中国反垄断法应以规制限制竞争行为为中心,充分考虑国际市场因素,合理安排责任制度,有克制地赋予域外效力。     

论反垄断法适用除外制度的理论基础

适用除外制度之所以成为反垄断法的一项重要制度,有其深刻的经济基础和法律基础。从经济基础上讲,垄断与竞争均是利弊兼具,垄断并不必然消灭竞争,甚至会使竞争加剧。适用除外制度的确立,有利于发挥垄断的积极作用, 克服竞争的某些消极作用。从法律基础上讲,反垄断法要解决虽然属于垄断、但又不予禁止的技术问题,只有通过适用除外制度加以解决;另一方面,适用除外制度还是反垄断法与其他法律进行协调的一项必不可少的措施。     

美国反垄断法豁免中的诺尔——本灵顿原则评析

诺尔——本灵顿原则是由美国联邦最高法院通过几个案例确立的联邦反垄断法中的一个原则,其主要含义是:根据《美国宪法第一修正案》的规定,即使竞争者通过游说政府而改变法律将会削弱竞争,其行为也不违反反垄断法。诺尔——本灵顿原则是协调《谢尔曼法》的重要目标与公民请愿权利和各级政府有效决策之间关系的产物。诺尔——本灵顿原则对中国的反垄断法执法也有一定启发意义,在执法过程应当全面协调经营者的竞争利益与其他经营者的宪法权利、与政府行为的关系。     

民事法益的证成——以有限理性为视角

人类的理性是有限度的,这就必然导致有限理性下的立法具有不完备性。法律的不完备性在民法上集中体现为两个方面:一是在立法时基于立法者的有限理性,将某些利益遗漏,没有纳入到法律之中,从而形成了预见缺失型立法漏洞;二是民事权利体系的建构与利益生长性之间的矛盾。上述两种情况实际都导致了应然权利和法定权利的分离状态。在应然权利尚未上升到法定权利但是通过法律间接地予以保护之后,则表现为法益的正常状态。     

消费者反垄断诉讼的本源与我国应然之探

对于私人反垄断执行,美国《反托拉斯法》所规定的三倍赔偿制度功不可没,为此,许多学者都认为,在确定消费者反垄断诉讼的制度中,也应确定这种民事惩罚性的机制,才能使消费者反垄断诉讼得到很好的运行。但在私人反垄断践行最好的美国,消费者个人是被排除在私人执行之外的,按照美国《反托拉斯法》的规定,消费者个人并不能获得三倍赔偿的诉讼激励。美国《反托拉斯法》所规定的三倍赔偿机制系基于其责任体系仅有民事责任和刑事责任,没有处于刑事和民事责任之间的行政处罚责任,民事责任的三倍赔偿机制实际起到了落实"应刑罚性"和刑罚"最后手段性"的威慑与嚇阻重任。而在反垄断法责任中存在刑事责任、民事责任和行政责任的国家,行政责任中的行政处罚责任完全担当了刑事威慑和遏制的补充责任,为避免过度制裁和重复制裁而普遍都没有设置三倍的民事赔偿责任。消费者反垄断诉讼必须以维持市场秩序为本,对消费者反垄断诉讼的高热情和高厚望必须回归到理性和现实,在具体制度的设置时也应有所体现。     

管制行业反垄断执法权配置分析——以管制度为视角

管制行业在不同程度上存在着反垄断执法问题,其执法权配置有多种模式可供选择,但从管制度的角度看,这一执法权配置应是从行业管制机构向反垄断专门执法机关逐步移转的过程,这也是大多数国家或地区立法与实践的发展趋向,因此,我国相关立法也应作相应完善.     

私营标准的反垄断法分析

私营标准具有事实上的强制力,缺乏等效性,且可能成为大型零售商构筑市场准入门槛、实施贸易歧视的工具,这使私营标准可能触发反垄断法上的问题。目前,私营标准的国际协调面临着困境,这势必促使各国国内反垄断法做出相应对策。反垄断法的域外适用机制成为私营标准反垄断法管制的接点,滥用私营标准的反垄断法分析遵循与滥用市场支配地位反垄断法分析一致的思路。同时,应关注私营标准的技术法规化问题,警惕私营标准中知识产权因素可能对市场竞争的影响。     

竞争法对知识产权的保护与限制

知识产权法对知识所建构的权利义务规范以及民法基本原则对知识产权的保护和限制存在着天然的缺陷。知识的私有性与社会性,决定了知识产权与反不正当竞争法和反垄断法的被保护与被规制的关系。反不正当竞争法着眼于侵权人,保护知识产权不受侵犯;反垄断法着眼于权利人,以便防范知识产权的滥用。二者弥补了私法层面对知识产权保护的不足和对滥用知识产权行为制约的局限。     

直面经济和社会发展中的经济法问题

2007年,中国经济法学界针对经济和社会发展中的经济法问题,展开研究,在具体问题的解决、研究领域的拓展、研究方法的更新等方面均取得了明显的进步,特别是税收法、反垄断法、特别市场规制法等。2008年经济法学研究在继续加强制度研究的同时,有必要在总论研究上有新的突破。     

The balance between equity and efficiency; reflections on the goals of the new Nigerian competition law

In January 2019, the Nigerian Government finally enacted its first competition law after several attempts to do so previously failed. Since all competition regimes advance one or more goals, the paper provides a critical evaluation of what the goals of the Nigerian Competition Law ‘is’ or ‘are’ and/or what they should be. This paper posits that discussion on goals must relate fundamentally to the true reason(s) the nation ‘needs’ an antitrust legislation and the relationship between these reasons (as reflected in the preamble of the legislation) and the prohibitory aspects of the law.Although the goal of competition is generally thought to be relating to promoting economic efficiency, however, for developing countries (including Nigeria), competition must compose of an important equity dimension. Ironically, the work uses the ‘developed’ experience of the EU in later stages to show that the goals of an antitrust policy are never static but dynamic and may not necessarily always admit of ‘efficiency’ considerations. This paper’s argument is that Nigeria needs a welfarist approach to competition which means efficiency should sit as a top objective and that any compromise on economic efficiency as the goal must be accommodated only to the extent that basic principles of a market driven competition is not harmed. Consequently, the work reflects on how the new Nigerian law has provided a balance between market efficiency and other goals of competition and how the new Nigerian competition body can operationalise this balance in the development of the nation’s antitrust policy. In this regard, the EU also provides some important enforcement lessons.     

Redressing the imbalanced political market for health policy: a role for the state attorney general?

In current discussions of "procompetitive" approaches to health policy, the enforcement of antitrust laws in health care markets is a strategy that has attracted increasing attention: the filing of consumer-oriented health suits provides a means to "redress" the typically imbalanced "political market" in health policy. This study examines an important aspect of the antitrust enforcement process, the decision by a state attorney general to undertake an aggressive antitrust enforcement program in the health area. Three variables were found to explain this decision: the political needs of a "politician-supplier," the organizational resources of a strategic institutional position, and the availability of a relatively favorable policy arena. An assessment of the future role of state attorneys general in this area suggests that their health antitrust initiatives will increase, but that various political and resource constraints are likely to inhibit their aggressiveness in pursuing these actions.     

日本主权豁免法制的最新发展与启示

作为联合国《国家及其财产管辖豁免公约》的缔约国,日本通过国内立法完成了对公约的转化。出于限制豁免主义立场的考虑,日本在商业交易的判断标准、给予外国国家豁免的具体情形以及外国国家参加法院诉讼的法律效果等问题上对公约进行了较大修改;出于与国内法衔接的考虑,对国家与国家企业的关系采取了回避的态度;而在劳动者损害赔偿诉讼的管辖权等方面,虽然条文表述有异,但却符合公约的精神。日本国内立法的整体方向是扩大日本的司法管辖权,这一点既需要引起我们的警觉,也值得我们借鉴。     

Federal antitrust policy and physician discontent: defining moments in the struggle for congressional relief

Organized medicine has battled the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) since the 1970s over enforcement of the antitrust laws. Physicians' discontent stems from the belief that federal policy allows managed care organizations to achieve dominance in health care markets just as it discourages physicians from taking collective action to protect their interests. This article examines two important efforts by organized medicine over a twenty-year interval to alter federal antitrust policy. In 1982, physicians and other professionals sought a special exemption from FTC jurisdiction; beginning in 1998, physicians promoted legislation that would exempt independent practitioners from the antitrust laws for collective bargaining purposes. Both initiatives passed in the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate. This article uses an advocacy coalition framework to reinterpret the events and to assess the reasons for legislative failure. The evidence suggests that in both instances, although twenty years apart, consumer groups and federal bureaucrats determined the outcome in favor of corporate medicine.     

On the efficiency of the common law: an application to the recovery of rewards

Richard Posner’s influence on the field of law and economics cannot be overstated. Among his many contributions, Posner offered an early conjecture that remains fascinating and controversial to this day: the idea that common law rules are more likely than legislative codes to be concerned with efficiency. In this paper, I compare the efficiency of a common law rule of contracting to the efficiency of a civil law rule. In common law jurisdictions, claimants must have knowledge of a reward in order to recover. In civil law jurisdictions, however, no such knowledge is required. I analyze the efficiency of each rule by examining the incentives created by each rule. In a finding that agrees with Posner’s hypothesis, I argue that the common law rule is more efficient. The model has a number of applications beyond contract default laws. I use the model to discuss three legal questions previously analyzed by Richard Posner: (1) incentivizing innovation; (2) the finders-keepers rule in property law; and (3) salvage rights in maritime law.