中國發布反壟斷新規

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.
在反壟斷判例法記錄中，中國的米粉和餐具消毒卡特爾不可與標準石油(Standard Oil)托拉斯同日而語。1911年，美國法院根據《謝爾曼反托拉斯法》(Sherman Antitrust Act)裁定標準石油托拉斯爲非法石油壟斷組織，這是一個著名的判例。

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.
然而，中國這兩個鮮爲人知的卡特爾或許也會因爲其自身的原因揚名世界——2010年，在中國《反壟斷法》(Anti-Monopoly Law)實施一年多後，它們便被北京方面的監管部門盯上了。它們是反壟斷執法行動中首批被調查的對象，這之後梅賽德斯-奔馳(Mercedes-Benz)和高通(Qualcomm)之類的公司相繼中槍。這場執法行動很快還可能威脅跨國企業在中國市場上保護自身知識產權的能力，而中國是全世界最令人垂涎的市場。

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”.
在兩個案例中，中國的國家發改委(National Development and Reform Commission)對十多家米粉製造商以及7家爲餐館提供套裝消毒餐具的餐具消毒企業處以小額罰款，原因是這些企業串通漲價。華盛頓特區溫斯頓-斯特朗律師事務所(Winston & Strawn)的反壟斷律師斯蒂芬•哈里斯(Stephen Harris)稱，兩起案件都是發改委向中國企業發出的警告——“新法律已經實施，警察在盯着呢”。

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.
發改委對中國本土企業所謂反競爭行爲的調查，以兩年前中國最大白酒製造商五糧液(Wuliangye)被處以2億元人民幣（合3220萬美元）罰款達到巔峯。但是，要引起跨國企業的注意，還得開出更大的罰單。2013年，這個目的達到了——發改委開啓了針對外國製造商的第一起調查，隨後的一系列反壟斷調查席捲了奶粉、汽車零部件、豪華車以及半導體領域的外國製造商。

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.
被髮改委指控存在反競爭行爲的那些外國公司最後收到的罰單金額，一般比被罰的國內企業高得多。今年2月，高通同意支付61億元人民幣的罰款，而奔馳和奧迪(Audi)則被分別處以3.5億和2.5億元人民幣的罰款。

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.
有人批評發改委在故意拿外國企業開刀，而在以上3個案例中，罰款金額原本都可能更高，這一事實緩和了部分這樣的批評。發改委對這一批評始終予以否認。

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.
對高通的處罰原本可能包括要求其改變商業模式，那樣的話代價要高昂得多。被罰的消息公佈後，這家總部位於美國聖地亞哥的公司的股價事實上還上漲了。與此同時，奔馳和奧迪受到的處罰分別針對它們各自在僅一個省份的不法行爲。理論上講，如果發改委查出它們在中國內地全部的32個省、自治區和直轄市的不法行爲，它們被處以的罰款可能會高得多。

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.
這意味着，發改委對跨國企業的調查，很大程度上是出於想要敲打一下外企，而非想要獲得儘可能高的罰金，正如發改委之前對國內企業的調查一樣。

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.
既然發改委已經頗有成效地傳達了其意圖，那麼接下來會發生什麼？目前只有一個之前披露過的調查尚未有結果——該調查涉及微軟(Microsoft)和中國國家工商行政管理總局（State Administration of Industry and Commerce，簡稱工商總局），後者也是反壟斷執法機構。

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”.
溫斯頓-斯特朗律師事務所的哈里斯及其同事們同時代理高通和微軟，但是他們表示兩起案件均無法置評。他們警告跨國企業稱，中國工商總局的新一套指導方針可能會強迫它們將知識產權共享給中國競爭對手。《關於禁止濫用知識產權排除、限制競爭行爲的規定》於上個月公佈，將於8月1日生效。就像西方監管部門偶爾迫使電信網絡和電力網絡運營商與競爭者共享其“關鍵設施”一樣，當這些知識產權構成“製造和商業運營的關鍵設施”時，中國工商總局可能會迫使“占主導地位的”企業把知識產權分享出來。

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.
若果真如此，中國工商總局將步歐盟(EU)後塵，將關鍵設施理論應用到知識產權上。但是，歐盟只是在極少數特殊情況下強迫企業共享知識產權，而美國則拒絕這麼做。

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.
在就新規發表的一次罕見公開評論中，中國工商總局一名官員稱該部門將“謹慎”應用新規。對於擔心在中國被強迫轉讓技術的跨國企業而言，這種不確定性是個令人擔憂、也很有用的提醒，即中國的反壟斷法很大程度上還是半成品。發改委起訴國內米粉和餐具消毒卡特爾的時候，跨國企業中很少（如果有的話）有哪家注意到了此事對它們自己所在行業的影響。這個錯誤它們不應再犯第二次。