The Evolution of Market Analysis under American Antitrust Law: Winning Cases in the 21st Century 美国反垄断法视野下市场分析的发展： 在21世纪的胜诉案例 主讲人：EMILIO VARANINI* DEPUTY.

Presentation on theme: "The Evolution of Market Analysis under American Antitrust Law: Winning Cases in the 21st Century 美国反垄断法视野下市场分析的发展： 在21世纪的胜诉案例 主讲人：EMILIO VARANINI* DEPUTY."— Presentation transcript:

1 The Evolution of Market Analysis under American Antitrust Law: Winning Cases in the 21st Century 美国反垄断法视野下市场分析的发展： 在21世纪的胜诉案例 主讲人：EMILIO VARANINI* DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, ANTITRUST SECTION, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 美国加利福尼亚州总检察长办公室 反垄断法部门 副检察长 INTERNATIONAL LIAISON, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL, ANTITRUST SECTION 全美检察官协会 反垄断法部门 国际联络员 *THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE SPEAKER ONLY 以下言论仅代表主讲人个人观点 TRANSLATORS: YANG QIANWU, CHEN JING, JULIAN YANG, SENIOR PARTNER AND ASSOCIATES OF BEIJING DACHENG (SHENZHEN) LAW FIRM 涉外法律专业委员会杨乾武、陈静、JULIAN YANG翻译，公平交易法律专业委员会冯江律师校对

2 WHY DOES COMPETITION LAW NEED TO DEFINE AND ANALYZE MARKETS
Required for most violations of antitrust law unless you use direct effects. 除非你用直接影响，绝大多数反垄断法的违法要件都需要定义和分析市场。 Most forms of joint conduct. 联合行为的大多数形式 Exceptions? Price-fixing, market allocation, bid-rigging 例外情形？价格垄断、市场分割、串通招投标 Abuse of dominance or monopolization. 滥用市场支配地位或垄断市场 Reviewing mergers.回顾并购案例 Think about cases in China like QQ, Johnson & Johnson, and the MOFCOM decisions involving the shipping lines joint venture and hard disk drives. 例如，中国的腾讯案，强生案，以及中国商务部对有关航运公司合资企业经营和硬盘驱动器经营的决定。 The use of American merger cases and guidelines as examples in understanding market definition/analysis 美国合并企业判例及其准则可以作为理解市场和分析市场的例子

3 American cases to be analyzed 用于分析的美国判例
Why look at recent American merger cases and guidelines to understand market definition and analysis in antitrust law? 为什么审视最近的美国合并案例及其准则有利于我们从反垄 断法角度理解市场和分析市场？ These cases together show the following key principles: 这些判例都集中反映了下列几个关键原则： Need to pay close attention to actual market realities; 需要密切关注市场的现实情况； Need to use latest economic thinking, including advanced theories of price discrimination, focusing on “maverick” companies, etc….;需要运用最新经济学思维，包括关于价 格歧视的前沿理论，以及关注“不按常理行事的”公司…… Need to use best evidence, e.g., statements of people in the market pre-merger about their market; and 需要运用“最佳证据”，例如在市场兼并前，相关主体对市场的陈述； Need to apply submarket analysis.需要运用“子市场理论”分析法。 If you argue entry by new competitors will happen, such entry should be immediate. 如果你主张“新竞争者市场准入”，那么这种加入应该是“即将发生”的。 American cases to be analyzed 用于分析的美国判例 United States v. Oracle, 331 F.Supp.2d 1098 (N.D. Ca. 2004); 美国诉Oracle（甲骨文）案； FTCv. Whole Foods Market, 548 F.2d 1028 (D.C. 2008); and 联邦贸易委员会诉Whole Foods （有机商品超市）案；以及 United States v. H & R Block, 833 F.Supp.2d 36 (D.D.C ). 美国诉H & R Block（布洛克税务）案。

4 Definition of markets – basic principles 市场的定义-几个基本原则
How are markets defined under American antitrust law? 美国反垄断法如何定义“市场”？ Basic principles are unchanged since the 1950s and 1960s. 以下基本原则自二十世纪五六十年代以来一直未变： First, you must define the relevant product market. 首先，必须定义“相关产品市场”。 Next, you must define the relevant geographic market. 其次，必须定义“相关地域市场”。 Third, you must determine the barriers to entry. 第三，必须确定“市场准入门槛”。 After these three steps, you must determine the market shares of the companies you wish to analyze (an analysis that becomes more complex for mergers). 以上三个步骤之后，还必须判断你希望分析的企业市场份额（公司合并的市场份额判断会更加复杂） Relevant Product Market 相关产品市场 Defining a relevant product market requires looking to customer demand for products that are closely similar to each other. 对相关产品市场进行定义需要分析近似产品的客户需求。 U.S. law: See, e.g., U.S. v. E.I. duPont Nemours & Co., Brown Shoe v. United States, and United States v. Grinnell Corp. (1950s and 1960s.) 美国法律的体现：可以参考以下判例，如美国诉 E.I. duPont Nemours & Co（杜邦公司）案、 Brown Shoe （布朗鞋业）诉美国案，以及美国诉Grinnell Corp.（格林耐尔公司 ）案（二十世纪五六十年代）

5 SPECIAL CASE – SUBMARKETS (MARKETS WITHIN MARKETS) 特殊情况——子市场（市场里的次级市场）
What are submarkets? 什么是子市场？ These are markets within markets.子市场是指市场里的市场。 Can you look at submarkets and, if so, under what conditions?你能分析子市场吗？如果能，在什么情形下分析？ Early answer – yes - see, e.g., Brown Shoe v. United States; see also Grinnell (discussion of fringe competitors). 简单回答：能。可以参考 Brown Shoe（布朗鞋业）诉美国案，以及Grinnell（格林耐尔）案（对边缘性竞争者的讨论，译者注：上述两案创新了相关市场“商品群”概念， 即集群市场中，消费者存在将数个商品或服务组合一起消费的偏好） Movement in U.S. away from submarkets in 1980s and 2000s. 二十世纪八十年代和二十一世纪初，美国判例对子市场关注程度逐步减弱。 Why? Perception that it was confusing – can a single brand be its own market? 为什么？一个难以理解的观点——一个单一品牌能否成为自己的市场？ Then, why return to Brown Shoe in late 2000s and 2010s? 那么，为什么在 2000年代晚期和2010年代又重新关注子市场？ Relevant geographic market and barriers to entry 相关地域市场和市场准入门槛 . Defining geographic markets – how far would customers be willing to travel to use the products of other companies if the merging companies raised prices. . Look at location of suppliers and location of customers.

6 DETERMINING MARKET CONCENTRATION 经营者集中的判断
.地域市场的定义-如果公司合并且提高价格了，客户在选择其他公司产品上愿意走多远。 .看供货商的地理位置和客户的地理位置。 .Determine if other companies would rapidly (i.e., very quickly) enter the market if the merging parties raised their prices (e.g., barriers to entry). .判断在合并公司提高价格（如市场准入门槛）的情况下，其他公司是否会迅速（即非常快速地）进入市场。 Determining market shares (mergers) 确定市场份额（合并） Once the relevant market is determined, you then need to determine the market shares of those companies in that market, including the market share that the merging companies will have in that market. “相关市场”一旦确定，那么接下来需要判断这些公司的市场份额，包括合并公司未来可能享有的市场份额。 This is most often done based on the companies’ revenues. 上述的市场份额有时在很大程度上可以根据这些公司的财政收入作出判断。 Once market shares are determined, then the next step in analyzing mergers is to determine market “concentration.” 市场份额一旦确定，合并行为分析的下一步就是对市场“集中”进行判断。 DETERMINING MARKET CONCENTRATION 经营者集中的判断 Market “concentration” involves the determination of market shares of the firms in the relevant market before and after a merger. 经营者集中需要考虑包括该公司在相关市场形成前、后所占市场份额的判断。 As a market becomes more “concentrated,” either the number of firms decreases or the size of certain firms greatly increases versus the remaining firms in that market. 当一个市场变得逐渐“集中”，可能出现公司数量递减；或者特定公司的规模比市场其余的公司的规模显著增大。 And as markets become more concentrated, it becomes easier for remaining firms to increase prices based on two types of effects: 而且当一个市场更加集中，剩余的公司基于下列两种类型的影响，提升价格将变得更加容易：

7 Unilateral: the merger by itself sufficiently reduces competition due to a substantial increase in concentration, e.g., merger to monopoly, that it makes price increases more likely. 单边（效应）影响：由于集中的实质增多，合并本身能够充分地减少竞争。例如，出于垄断目的的合并很可能提升价格。 Coordinated: remaining firms in a market following a merger can more easily track each other prices and thus can raise prices with the knowledge that other companies will likely follow them. 协同（效应）影响：垄断市场下其他没有集中的公司可以更容易跟进彼此的价格变动情况，进而根据他们从市场中了解到的彼此的信息提升价格。 Example: Oligopolies with 3-4 firms only and barriers to entry. 例子： 只有3-4个寡头垄断公司及市场准入门槛。 ORACLE 美国诉ORACLE 案 Facts: 事实： Product: ERP software – software used by businesses and government entities to run a number of functions including human resources, finances, supply management, and customer relations. 产品：ERP软件-商务和政府部门使用的、用以运营一系列功能的软件，包括人力资源、资金运转、管理支持和客户关系。 Customers: Divided into three tiers – most sophisticated and complex, usually global, businesses were in Tier III, medium-sized companies were in Tier II, all other companies were in Tier I. 顾客：分成3个层级——最尖端的、结构最复杂的，通常全球化程度最高的企业属于第三层级；中等规模的公司属于第二层级；其他公司属于第三层级。 Note: These categories were not rigid – some companies in Tier II were very sophisticated and some in Tier III were not complicated at all such as supermarkets. Also note that some would put government entities in their own category. 注意：这些分类不是绝对的——一些属于第二层级的公司可以很尖端，一些属于第三层级的公司结构并不复杂，例如超级市场。同时要注意一些分类观点将政府主体也 纳入归类主体范围内。 Merging Parties: Oracle wanted to purchase PeopleSoft and made a tender offer. Oracle was #3 in the Tier III market, PeopleSoft was #2. 合并方： Oracle拟要约收购PeopleSoft 。 Oracle 在第三层级公司中排名第三，而PeopleSoft则排名第二。 Competitors: SAP competed with Oracle and PeopleSoft in Tier I.竞争者：SAP和Oracle、 PeopleSoft相比 属于第一层级。 Potential Competitors: Lawson, Microsoft, and AMS (if government counts).潜在竞争者： Lawson, Microsoft, AMS （如果把政府算上的话）

8 ORACLE (CONT’D) 美国诉 ORACLE案
U.S. Department of Justice case: U.S司法部案例 3-2 merger with both unilateral and coordinated effects, BUT Oracle和PeopleSoft都具有单边（效应）和协同（效应）影响 但是 Government did not argue that Tier III was a submarket within the ERP market; instead it made up its own market know as the “high-functioning” ERP market ( a term never before used) roughly equivalent to Tiers III and a lot of Tier II. 政府并未主张“层级3在ERP市场中属于子市场”；而是虚构了一个它自己称之为“高级功能”的ERT市场，类似于层级3和大多数层级2的ERP市场（这是一个此前从未被 引用过的术语）（译者注：简单说某种商品划分市场层级越多，市场范围可能越窄）。 Government did not separate out government entities from businesses in its proposed market . 政府没有把政府主体从其所提议的市场中分离出来。 AMS (and to large extent Lawson) now potential competitors. AMS（在很大程度上Lawson也是）现在是潜在的竞争者。Government did not argue that price discrimination would allow Oracle to raise prices to a core group of Tier III customers if it acquired PeopleSoft, even though Oracle admitted such; 政府没主张：如果Oracle购买PeopleSoft，即使Oracle 承认此点——价格歧视将允许Oracle针对梯度3的核心客户群体提升价格， Government downplayed PeopleSoft role as maverick and innovator and importance of that role in evaluating merger.政府淡化了PeopleSoft作为特立独行者和创新者的角色，并 淡化了此等角色在合并行为中的重要性。 ORACLE (CONT’D) 美国诉ORACLE案 Court Holding: Government did not meet its burden of showing an anti-competitive effect in a relevant market or of disproving the potential entry of competitors such as Lawson, AMS, and Microsoft into what it defined as the relevant market. Court downplayed customer testimony that did not match market data. 法院判决：政府在“相关市场反竞争效果”这一点上没有完成其举证责任，也没有在“不允许潜在竞争者，例如Lawson, AMS和Microsoft，进入其所定义的相关市场”这 一点上完成举证责任。法院淡化了不符合市场数据的客户证词。 Court downplayed existence of only isolated attempts by Lawson, AMS, and Microsoft to compete for core customers in Tier III because of breadth of government definition of market. 由于政府对市场定义的广度问题，法院淡化了Lawson, AMS和 Microsoft在第三层级市场争取核心客户的孤立的努力。

9 WHOLE FOODS 联邦贸易委员会诉Whole Foods 案
Facts: 事实部分： Product: Organic Food (food grown without the use of pesticides) Supermarkets. 产品：卖有机食物(食物的培育没有使用农药)的超级市场 Customers: While many people would switch to regular supermarkets if there was a price increase, a core group of customers exist who would pay a price premium for organic foods. 顾客：尽管如果价格上涨，很多人会转而去一般的超级市场，但也的确存在一个愿意为有机食物支付额外价格的核心的顾客群体。 Merging Parties: #1 and #2 Organic Food Supermarket companies in the U.S. 合并方：美国排名第一和排名第二的有机食物超级市场公司 Competitors: No large organic food supermarket chains, but regular supermarket chains were beginning to introduce organic food sections. 竞争者：没有大型的有机食物超级市场连锁店，不过一般的超级市场连锁店已经开始卖有机食物了。 Potential competitors – Regular supermarket chains putting in organic food sections. 潜在的竞争者-进入有机食物行业常规的超级市场连锁店 WHOLE FOODS (CONT’D) 联邦贸易委员会 WHOLE FOODS 案 FTC Position:美国联邦贸易委员会的立场 Organic food supermarkets are in a submarket distinct from all other supermarkets; 有机食物超级市场处于有别于所有其他超级市场的子市场 Even when other supermarkets offered organic food, they could not match the range and breadth of offering of these organic supermarkets. 即使其他超级市场有提供有机食物，但是他们还不能够在市场深度和市场宽度上与专营有机食物的超级市场相竞争 Core customers will pay a substantial price premium for organic food. 核心客户会用一个实质更优惠的价格购买有机食物。 Court Holding: 法院判决：

10 H&R BLOCK 美国诉 H&R Block案
Agreed with FTC on basis of concept of submarkets. 同意美国联邦贸易委员会对子市场的基础概念。 Agreed with FTC that it was right to focus on core customers under price discrimination concepts. 同意美国联邦贸易委员会在价格歧视概念下集中于核心客户是正确的。 Credited direct evidence from merging parties and customer testimony.认可来自合并方的直接证据和顾客证词。 Credited direct evidence of price decreases in areas where one merging party opened a supermarket to compete with other party.认可来自开设超级市场的一个合并方与另一 个合并方竞争导致价格降低的直接证据 H&R BLOCK 美国诉 H&R Block案 Facts:事实部分： Product: Tax returns that are filled out on line by individuals with the aid of software. 产品：个人用户使用的网上填报税收返还软件 Customers: Tax filers who want the aid of software to determine how much they owe but who don’t or can’t pa for an accountant. 顾客：税收填报者，这些人需要软件辅助他们确定纳税金额，但是这些人不想雇用或没有钱雇用会计师。 Merging parties: #2 and #3 companies in business of online tax returns. 合并方：在线税收返还交易项目排名第2和排名第3的公司 Competitors: #1 company (Intuit) and a few very small companies. 竞争者：排名第1公司（ Intuit 公司）和一些非常小的公司。 Potential competitors: Companies that help individuals prepare tax returns in the brick and mortar world such as accountants and retail tax stores. 潜在竞争者：公司帮助个人在实体店领域进行税收返还服务，例如会计事务所和税收零售店。

11 H&R BLOCK (CONT’D) 美国诉H&R BLOCK 案
U.S. Department of Justice Position:美国司法部的立场： Market is online tax software that allows individuals to prepare and file their own tax returns; 市场是指在线税收软件，允许个人准备和填报他们自己的税后返还。 Court Holding:法院判决： Government is correct that market is online tax software that allows individuals to prepare and file their own tax returns; 政府在此点的立场上是正确的：市场是指在线税后软件，允许个人准备和填报他们自己的税后返还。 Defendants’ own business documents support this market definition (referred to as a “discrete market segment”). 被告自己的业务文书支持了法院上述的市场定义（指作为一个“分离的市场部分”） Online tax preparation software has different attributes and prices from tax preparation in the brick and mortar world. 网上在线税收预报软件与实体店是市场领域的软件在属性和价格方面有截然不同的内容。 Only isolated instances of showing direct competition on price between online tax preparation services and brick and mortar services. 仅有孤立的个案表明网上税收服务和实体店服务之间展开了直接的价格竞争。 Premature to conclude new “hybrid” services would make Immediate breakthrough. 如下结论是不成熟的：“混合”服务会很快带来突破。 HOW TO PROVE A RELEVANT MARKET – LATEST TECHNIQUES BEFORE AND WHEN YOU GO TO COURT/ARBITRATION 如何证明一个相关市场-去法院/仲裁时以及之前的最新技巧

12 Get one or more experts for your case; 为你的案子找一个或多个专家（译者注：专家证人对界定相关市场的作用是非常重要的）：
You will need an economic expert to define the market. 你将需要一个经济学专家界定市场。 You may need an expert for other purposes, e.g., to opine on a justification or excuse for business conduct. 或许你因为一些别的目的而需要一个专家，例如，就商务行为的正当性或者借口发表意见。 Note: Experts are not cheap in the U.S. or elsewhere. 注意：专家在美国或任何别的地区收费都不便宜。 Research your client, its competitors, and the market on the Internet;在互联网上研究你的客户及其竞争对手以及市场 Pull the latest stock market reports from your client and its competitors;获取你的客户及其竞争者的股票市场报告 If a third party exists that collects market data, and is willing to sell you the data, it is likely worth it to pay the expense involved;亲自进行或者由其他主体进行顾客调查可能也是值 得的。 Customer surveys by yourself or by others may be worthwhile; and 亲自进行顾客调查，或其他外部主体的调查可能更有实际意义。 Think carefully about how easy it is to get into the market, including government regulatory barriers, reputation/network effects, and/or need for capital. 仔细考虑公司进入市场难易度，包括由政府制定的界限，企业声誉/网络效应，和/或资本需求。 How to prove a relevant market before and when you go to court/arbitration 如何证明一个相关市场-去法院/仲裁时以及之前的最新技巧 What do we mean when we suggest looking at the Internet or at third party sources or by having an expert analyze the market 当我们建议查看网络或第三方资源或请专家分析市场 时，是指什么意思？

13 HOW TO PROVE A RELEVANT MARKET BEFORE AND WHEN YOU GO TO COURT/ARBITRATION 如何证明一个相关市场-去法院/仲裁时以及之前的最新技巧 Talk to your client about its competitors and market; make sure your client has the necessary people who can testify as to both. 与你的客户探讨它的竞争者和市场；确保你的客户有必要的人选可以就两者作证。 Note: Don’t believe your client is necessarily telling you everything. 注意：不要认为你的客户必然地会告诉你每一件事情。 Look for ex-employees of your client’s competitors or market customers who may be willing to talk. 寻找愿意提供信息的竞争者前雇佣人员或市场顾客。 If you think your client will benefit, convince your client to go to the government and report. 如果你认为你的客户会受益于此，说服你的客户会去政府控告。 If someone has reported your client to the government, approach the government early to give your story. 如果有人已经把你的客户控告到了政府，尽早和政府联系并说明你的故事（译者注：你与客户之间市场关系和抗辩理由）。 If you can wait (or convince the court to wait) until the government has acted, that may benefit your case and your client regardless of which side you are on. 不管你代理的是谁，如果你可以等（或者确信法院会等）到政府采取行动过后，你的案子或你的客户很可能会因此受益。 If you think the government has acted or may act against your client, explore early whether your client can offer a compromise to limit any negative effects of your client’s conduct on the market.如果你认为政府已经或可能做出与你客户利益相左的行动，那么你应该尽早开始探讨你的客户能否为自身的行为降低消极的影响作出妥协。

14 Compromise can include divestment of assets, price caps, and hold separate agreements.
上述妥协包括资产出售，价格上限，以及保留不同的协议。 How to prove a relevant market before and when you go to court/arbitration (cont’d)如何证明一个相关市场-去法院/仲裁时以及之前的最新技巧 But what about getting information from the opposing party? 但是如何从对立方处获取相关信息？ On one hand, you can’t do discovery here like in the United States but 一方面，你不能像在美国一样做“证据发现” （译者注：我国没有准确的对应制度，我国反垄断司法解释允许专家证人出庭“解释证据”） Some arbitration rules allow for an expert to be appointed who can do discovery (Shanghai FTZ); 一些仲裁规则允许指定一名专家做“证据发现”（例如上海自贸区） If there is a similar case in an American court, you may be able to get discovery from the parties in that case; 如果在美国法院有一个类似的案子，你也许能够对涉案当事人进行“证据发现”。 If the government has acted, you may be able to get information from the government; 如果政府已经在行动了，你也许能够从政府处获得相关信息。 Also argue that whatever the government has done should be enough; 也要和政府主张不论政府已经做了什么都应该是足够的。 Note: This likely will not work if there is a claim for damages. 注意：如果存在损害赔偿主张，这可能是行不通的。 Be aware of the presumptions and burdens of proof required by the courts as to various elements of an antitrust case and use them; and 留意法院对于反垄断案件的各种要素的假定和 举证责任要求，并且运用他们。 Take advantage of opportunities that you may have to ask questions or suggest questions that the court can ask; and 利用你不得不提问的机会或者建议法院能够提问问题的机会 ，以及 Learn from your mistakes when you appeal to a higher court (easier in China than in the U.S.). 当你向上级法院上诉时，从你过去的的错误中积累经验（在中国上诉比在美国上诉要更容易）

15 Presumptions and burdens of proof as to proving a relevant market – special considerations如何证明一个相关市场-去法院/仲裁时以及之前的最新技巧 Normally, plaintiffs bear the burden of proving a relevant market, including a relevant product market or submarket and a relevant geographic market or submarket, BUT 通常地， 原告承担相关市场存在的举证责任，包括一个相关产品市场或子市场以及一个相关的地域性市场或子市场，不过 The courts or the government in guidelines and/or regulations that plaintiffs need not show a relevant market for certain kinds of conduct; 在法院或者政府工作指引和/或规定中 规定原告无需证明某些特定行为的相关市场； If Plaintiffs can show direct effects, i.e., price increases, they can also avoid the need to show a relevant market; 如果原告可以证明直接影响，也就是价格上涨。那么他们也能够避免证明相关市场的存在（译者注：美国《横向并购指南》产业组织经济学最新“UPP”方法可以直接模 拟反竞争效果，不一定非要先界定相关市场）。 On barriers to entry, while plaintiffs have the burden of showing that there are existing barriers to entry, that is different than arguing repositioning (e.g., the possibility of new entry); and 市场准入门槛方面，当原告有责任证明存在市场准入门槛时，这与重新定位市场（例如，新门槛的可能性）的主张是不同的；以及 Repositioning may be the burden of defendants to prove. 重新定位市场可能会成为被告的举证责任。 At some point defendants have to offer evidence to contradict or rebut the case for a relevant market presented by plaintiffs. 针对原告关于相关市场的观点，被告在特定程序上必须提供相反证据或进行抗辩。 Fringe competition should not be sufficient for defendants to rebut or contradict plaintiffs’ case. 边缘性竞争的案例应该不能用来作为被告抗辩或反驳原告的案例。 THANK YOU. 谢谢。 If you have any questions, you can contact me at