中國發布反壟斷新規值得關註

　　In the annals of anti-monopoly case law, Chinese rice noodle and tableware cartels do not rank up there with the Standard Oil trust, the petroleum cartel that was famously prosecuted in 1911 under the US Sherman Antitrust Act.

　　But in time these two much lesser known cartels, targeted by Beijing regulators shortly after the implementation of China’s 2010 Anti-Monopoly Law, may become famous in their own right. They were among the first cases in an enforcement campaign that has since ensnared the likes of Mercedes-Benz and Qualcomm. It could also soon have implications for multinationals’ ability to safeguard intellectual property in the world’s most coveted market.

　　In both instances, the National Development and Reform Commission imposed small penalties for price collusion on more than a dozen rice noodle makers and service providers that wash, sterilise and wrap tableware in plastic for restaurants. Stephen Harris, a competition attorney with Winston & Strawn in Washington DC, says both cases were a signal to Chinese companies by NDRC that “new laws exist and there’s a cop on the beat”.

　　The NDRC’s investigations into allegedly anti-competitive behaviour by domestic firms culminated with an Rmb200m ($32.2m) fine for China’s largest liquor maker, Wuliangye, two years ago. But it takes rather more money to get the attention of multinationals, and the NDRC achieved just that in 2013 with the first in a series of investigations against foreign manufacturers of milk powder, auto parts, premium cars and semiconductors.

　　Foreign firms accused of anti-competitive behaviour by the NDRC have generally been hit with much higher fines than their domestic counterparts. Qualcomm agreed to pay a Rmb6.1bn penalty in February, while Mercedes and Audi were fined Rmb350m and Rmb250m respectively.

　　In all three instances, the fact the penalties could have been much worse has blunted some of the criticism that the NDRC has been deliberately targeting foreign companies — a charge the regulator has consistently denied.

　　Qualcomm’s penalty could have required much more costly changes to its business model. The San Diego company’s shares actually rose on the news. Mercedes and Audi, meanwhile, were penalised for infractions in just one province each. In theory, they could have had to pay much more had NDRC’s investigators ferreted out wrongdoing in all of China’s 32 provinces, autonomous regions and directly administered municipalities.

　　That suggests the NDRC’s investigations of multi­nationals, like the ones into domestic firms before them, were to a large degree motivated by the desire to send a wake-up call to the foreign investment community rather than secure maximum fines.

　　So what next now that the NDRC has so effectively got its intended message across? Only one previously disclosed investigation has yet to be resolved — that involving Microsoft and the State Administration of Industry and Commerce, which also polices aspects of the 2010 Anti­Monopoly Law.

　　Mr Harris and his colleagues at Winston & Strawn — who represent both Qualcomm and Microsoft but said they could not comment on either case — are warning multinationals about a new set of SAIC guidelines that could force them to share intellectual property with their Chinese competitors. The rules, designed to “prohibit abuse of intellectual property rights to eliminate or restrict competition”, were promulgated early last month and take effect on August 1. Just as western regulators have occasionally forced operators of telecoms networks and electricity grids to share their “essential facilities” with competitors, the SAIC could compel “dominant” companies to share intellectual property when it constitutes “an essential facility of manufacturing and business operations”.

　　If it were to do so, the SAIC would be following the EU in applying the essential facilities doctrine to intellectual property. But the EU has only forced companies to share intellectual property in a very small number of exceptional circumstances, while the US has refused to do so.

　　In a rare public comment on the new rules, one SAIC official has said the regulator will be “cautious” in applying them. For multinationals wary of being forced to transfer technology in China, the uncertainty is a worrying but useful reminder that the country’s anti-monopoly law is very much a work in progress. Very few if any of them took note of the implications for their own industries of the NDRC’s prosecutions of the domestic rice noodle and tableware cartels. It is a mistake that they should not make twice.

　　在反把持判例法記載中，中國的米粉和餐具消毒卡特爾弗成與尺度煤油(Standard Oil)托拉斯等量齊觀。1911年，美公法院依據《謝爾曼反托拉斯法》(Sherman Antitrust Act)裁定尺度煤油托拉斯為不法煤油把持構造，這是一個有名的判例。

　　但是，中國這兩個不為人知的卡特爾大概也會由於其本身的緣故原由立名天下——2010年，在中國《反把持法》(Anti-Monopoly Law)實行一年多後，它們便被北京方面的羈系部分盯上了。它們是反把持法律行為中首批被查詢拜訪的工具，這以後梅賽德斯-奔跑(Mercedes-Benz)和高通(Qualcomm)之類的公司接踵中槍。這場法律行為很快還大概威逼跨國企業在中國市場上掩護本身常識產權的才能，而中國事全球最使人垂涎的市場。

　　在兩個案例中，中國的國度發改委(National Development and Reform Commission)對十多家米粉制作商和7家為餐廳供給套裝消毒餐具的餐具消毒企業處以小額罰款，緣故原由是這些企業通同漲價。華盛頓特區溫斯頓-斯特朗狀師事件所(Winston & Strawn)的反把持狀師斯蒂芬•哈裏斯(Stephen Harris)稱，兩起案件都是發改委向中國企業發出的告誡——“新司法已實行，警員在盯著呢”。

　　發改委對中邦本土企業所謂反競爭行動的查詢拜訪，以兩年前中國最明白酒制作商五糧液(Wuliangye)被處以2億元國民幣(合3220萬美元)罰款到達頂峰。然則，要引發跨國企業的留意，還得開出更大的罰單。2013年，這個目標到達了——發改委開啟了針對外國制作商的第一路查詢拜訪，隨後的一系列反把持查詢拜訪囊括了奶粉、汽車零部件、奢華車和半導體範疇的外國制作商。

　　被發改委控告存在反競爭行動的那些外國公司末了收到的罰單金額，一樣平常比被罰的海內企業高很多。本年2月，高串通意付出61億元國民幣的罰款，而奔跑和奧迪(Audi)則被分離處以3.5億和2.5億元國民幣的罰款。

　　有人批駁發改委在有意拿外國企業開刀，而在以上3個案例中，罰款金額本來均可能更高，這一究竟和緩了部門如許的批駁。發改委對這一批駁始終予以否定。

　　對高通的處分本來大概包含請求其轉變貿易模式，那樣的話價值要昂揚很多。被罰的新聞頒布後，這家總部處於美國聖地亞哥的公司的股價究竟上還上漲了。與此同時，奔跑和奧迪遭到的處分分離針對它們各安閑僅一個省分的造孽行動。理論上講，假如發改委查出它們在中國要地本地全體的32個省、自治區和直轄市的造孽行動，它們被處以的罰款大概會高很多。

　　這象征著，發改委對跨國企業的查詢拜訪，很大水平上是出於想要敲打一下外企，而非想要得到盡量高的罰金，正如發改委以前對海內企業的查詢拜訪同樣。

　　既然發改委已很有結果地轉達了其用意，那末接下來會產生甚麽?今朝只有一個以前表露過的查詢拜訪還沒有有成果——該查詢拜訪觸及微軟(Microsoft)和中國國度工商行政治理總局(State Administration of Industry and Commerce，簡稱工商總局)，後者也是反把持法律機構。

　　溫斯頓-斯特朗狀師事件所的哈裏斯及其同事們同時署理高通和微軟，然則他們表現兩起案件均沒法置評。他們告誡跨國企業稱，中國工商總局的新一套指點目標大概會強制它們將常識產權同享給中國競爭敵手。《關於制止濫用常識產權消除、限定競爭行動的劃定》於上個月頒布，將於8月1日見效。就像西方羈系部分偶然迫使電信收集和電力收集運營商與競爭者同享其“癥結舉措措施”同樣，當這些常識產權組成“制作和貿易運營的癥結舉措措施”時，中國工商總局大概會迫使“占主導位置的”企業把常識產權分享出來。

　　若果然如斯，中國工商總局將步歐盟(EU)後塵，將癥結舉措措施理論運用到常識產權上。然則，歐盟只是在少少數特別情形下強制企業同享常識產權，而美國則謝絕這麽做。

　　在就新規揭櫫的一次罕有公然批評中，中國工商總局一位官員稱該部分將“謹嚴”運用新規。對付擔憂在中國被強制讓渡技巧的跨國企業而言，這類不肯定性是個使人擔心、也頗有用的提示，即中國的反把持法很大水平上照樣半制品。發改委告狀海內米粉和餐具消毒卡特爾的時刻，跨國企業中很少(假如有的話)有哪家留意到了此事對它們本身地點行業的影響。這個毛病它們不該再犯第二次。