反垄断法及案例分析

反垄断法及案例分析 国别 实施主体 反垄断法组成 执法队伍特征 美国 司法部反托拉斯司;美国联邦贸易委员会;各州政府和民间主体 反托拉斯法 克莱顿法 联邦贸易委员会法

专家型、终身制 日本

公正交易委员会 禁止垄断法 不正当赠品及不正当表示防止法 承包合同法

设事务总局，目前人员650人。 欧盟

欧共体委员会 欧共体法院 欧共体竞争法 竞争局大约有450名工作人员，其中200名是经济学和法学领域的家。 德国 联邦卡特尔局 垄断委员会 联邦经济与科技部

反限制竞争法 工作人员约250人，其中110人拥有法 律或经济学学位，任高级主管。 美国：《保护贸易和商业不受非法限制与垄断之害法》 （An Act to Protect Trade and Commerce against Unlawful Restraints and Monopolies） 简称《谢尔曼法》（Sherman Act）

欧盟European Union 欧盟委员会-竞争总局Competition Directorate General / The Eupopean Commission 欧共体条约The Treaty Establishing European Community 中国反垄断法平等地适用于市场主体即经营者。 适用范围 中国反垄断法对横向垄断协议和纵向垄断协议分别做出了禁止规定。 关于垄断协议 中国反垄断法不反对经营者具有市场支配地位，但严格禁止其滥用市场支配地位实施排除、限制竞争，损害消费者利益的垄断行为。 关于滥用市场支配地位 中国反垄断法第五章对滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争行为进行了专门规定 关于滥用行政权力 中国反垄断法鼓励经营者通过依法实施集中等方式做大做强，同时依法规制经营者集中行为 关于经营者集中 微软 可口可乐 波音 Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT and NYSE:MSFT) is an American public multinational corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington, USA that develops, manufactures, licenses, and supports a wide range of products and services predominantly related to computing through its various product divisions1>. Established on April 4, 1975 to develop and sell BASIC interpreters for the Altair 8800, Microsoft rose to dominate the home computer operating system market with MS-DOS in the mid-1980s, followed by the Microsoft Windows line of operating systems. Microsoft Corporation History Government interest in Microsoft's affairs had begun in 1991 with an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission over whether Microsoft was abusing its monopoly on the PC operating system market. The commissioners deadlocked with a 2-2 vote in 1993 and closed the investigation, but the Department of Justice opened its own investigation on August 21 of that year, resulting in a settlement on July 15, 1994 in which Microsoft consented not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows but remained free to integrate additional features into the operating system. In the years that followed, Microsoft insisted that Internet Explorer (which first appeared in the Plus! Pack sold separately from Windows 95) was not a product but a feature which it was allowed to add to Windows, although the DOJ did not agree with this definition. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The United States, nineteen individual states, and the District of Columbia (;the plaintiffs;) bring these consolidated civil enforcement actions against defendant Microsoft Corporation (;Microsoft;) under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2. The plaintiffs charge, in essence, that Microsoft has waged an unlawful campaign in defense of its monopoly position in the market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible personal computers (;PCs;). Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft violated §2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power. They also assert that Microsoft attempted, albeit unsuccessfully to date, to monopolize the Web browser market, likewise in violation of §2. Finally, they contend that certain steps taken by Microsoft as part of its campaign to protect its monopoly power, namely tying its browser to its operating system and entering into exclusive dealing arrangements, violated § 1 of the Act. Upon consideration of the Court's Findings of Fact (;Findings;), filed herein on November 5, 1999, as amended on December 21, 1999, the proposed conclusions of law submitted by the parties, the briefs of amici curiae, and the argument of counsel thereon, the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market, both in violation of § 2. Microsoft also violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system. The facts found do not support the conclusion, however, that the effect of Microsoft's marketing arrangements with other companies constituted unlawful exclusive dealing under criteria established by leading decisions under § 1. The nineteen states and the District of Columbia (;the plaintiff states;) seek to ground liability additionally under their respective antitrust laws. The Court is persuaded that the evidence in the record proving violations of the Sherman Act also satisfies the elements of analogous causes of action arising under the laws of each plaintiff state. For this reason, and for others stated below, the Court holds Microsoft liable under those particular state laws as well. Microsoft Corporation 其他高新技术公司反垄断案