转售价格维持本身违法原则质疑:先例形成的历史探源

Debunking the Per Se Illegality Rule of RPM:A Historical Enquiry of Its Precedential Genesis

1911年美国联邦最高法院在迈尔斯博士案中判决涉案转售价格维持(RPM)违反《谢尔曼法》。后世逐渐将其解读为确立了RPM本身违法原则,并认为如此判定的理据有二。这种理解对我国反垄断法界认识RPM产生了深远影响。然而,这是一种严重误读。该案引用禁止限制产权让渡法则的目的,并不在于论证限制产权让渡即损害竞争。涉案行为是一种高度复杂的涉及RPM的垄断协议,与经销商横向卡特尔具有相同竞争效果,但并不能由此推出所有RPM均具有此种效果。该案被解读为RPM本身违法权威的过程是一个通过反复援引和不断扭曲形成错误先例的过程。由于大量例外的存在,美国联邦系统从来也不存在真正意义的RPM本身违法规则。在借鉴美国法理时应避免被其先例拘束,而应该专注于探究实体理据。

In the 1911 Dr.Miles Case,U.S.Supreme Court ruled that the resale price maintenance(RPM) in issue violated the Sherman Act.Later jurisprudence interpreted it as setting up the per se illegality rule for RPM,and such reading supported by two rationales.This interpretation carries great weight with the cognizance of RPM by the Chinese antitrust community.However,this is a serious misreading of the case.Its citation of the doctrine of restraint on alienation doesn’t mean to argue that a restraint on alienation constitutes harm to competition.The conduct in issue is a set of highly complex monopolistic agreements involving RPM,which have the same competitive effects with horizontal cartel among dealers;however,it does not follow that each and every RPM has such competitive effects.The process of this case being interpreted as an authority on RPM per se illegality is one in which an incorrect precedent is set up through repeated citations and distortions.Due to the existence of various exceptions,there has never been a real RPM per se illegality rule in the U.S.federal jurisdiction.When drawing upon American antitrust jurisprudence,we shall focus on underlying rationales of its precedents,instead of being bound by its precedents themselves.