美国诉微软公司——新经济时代的美国反托拉斯法与知识产权

一、概述 1998年5月,美国司法部、19个州和哥伦比亚特区(原告)起诉微软公司(被告)违反谢尔曼法。原告认为微软公司利用其在操作系统市场上的垄断地位,在操作系统的销售中搭售(tying)或捆绑(bundling)浏览器和在浏览器市场上实施独占交易(exclusive dealing)协议等行为违反谢尔曼法第一条;微软公司为了维护其在个人电脑操作系统上的垄断地位,实施一系列排他的、反竞争的或掠夺性的商业行为来维持操作系统在市场上的垄断地位,以     

Resisting the Long Arm of Criminal Antitrust Laws: Norris v The United States

This note analyses the judgment of the House of Lords in the case Norris v USA , and argues that its ruling on whether mere price-fixing can amount to a common law conspiracy to defraud will have a significant effect on both US and UK criminal anti-cartel enforcement. In particular, the potential negative impact of the judgment on the future viability of the UK Cartel Offence is highlighted.     

United States v. Lyons: toward a new conception of legal insanity

In United States v. Lyons (1984), the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court altered its definition of legal insanity to conform with recent recommendations of the American Bar Association and the American Psychiatric Association. This paper briefly reviews the social and legal context of the Court's ruling. The author then discusses the insanity defense's rationale and suggests an interpretation of the Court's new definition that should guide psychiatric testimony.     

The Hand Rule and United States v. Carroll Towing Co. Reconsidered

Judge Learned Hand’s opinion in United States v. CarrollTowing Co. (1947) is canonized in the law-and-economics literatureas the first use of cost-benefit analysis for determining negligenceand assigning liability. This article revisits the case in whichthe Hand formula was born and examines whether Judge Hand’sruling in that case would provide correct incentives for efficientlevels of precaution. We argue that the negligence test as usedby Judge Hand is somewhat different from the Hand test as usedby modern law-and-economics theorists. With a game theoreticanalysis of the case, we show that Judge Hand’s negligencetest could in fact produce games with inefficient equilibria,or with liability determinations opposite Judge Hand’s.     

美国宪法不自证己罪特权的适用范围考察——施梅伯案及其以后

在美国,不自证己罪特权的适用状况始终与司法权的运作密切相关。通过1966年的施梅伯案,联邦最高法院历史性地将特权的适用范围限定在证述或表达,从而明确认可一系列针对人身的强制取证行为。该标准一直沿用至今,但也在强制提交文件、强制取证过程中的附带陈述、强制精神病鉴定和制定法申报义务等案件中遭遇挑战,再起波澜。实践表明,美国联邦最高法院对不自证己罪特权的司法适用有所保留,更多只是将其作为口供任意性的保障。关注不自证己罪特权在美国刑事司法的适用状况,会对我们理解《刑事诉讼法》关于不得强迫任何人证实自己有罪的规定有所启发。