「技術的抱合せ（Technological Tying）」と商品設計行為（Product Design）
Contents
1.2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. Oo
13. 2
14. 2 1
15. Antitrust Modernization Commission USl Report and Recommendations 2007 Areeda Phillip E Riner Elhauge and Herbert Hovenkamp ANTITRUST LAW X Aspen Pub 2006 European Commissnon DG Competition Discussnon Paper on the Applcation of Arti
16. Se
17. 2
18. NH RC OR
19. Popofsky 2 0 0 6 per se 1egal
20. SO SR ER
21. technological tying
22. OU
23. artificiality 12 200 7 9
24. 19 2004 10 21 2 2 5 7 1 4 1 5 H 1
25. 2 3
26. European Commission 2005 0 27 J i
27. eo
28. EF Ee il A 1
29. SA RX Fl 4 m
30. European Commission Press Release IP 05 1626 19 Dec 2005
31. 1 Zz 1 Ms YY tractable
32. NN RY 1 0
33. 1 0 SH 5 1 9 1 5 ee 18 2
34. 1 operate better
35. 1 2 CPU
36. 1 6 8 A A 60 A 9 0 1 09 A X TI C A
37. E 8
38. 3 kp Je
39. E MS 16
40. 4 R Market Power 5 1
41. 5 AR 2 2 t
42. lt Hl 14 PC OS WMP OS ED PC OS
43. 2 No Economic Sense 8 no economic sense
44. Xerox Corp v Media Scis Int1 Inc 511 F Supp 2d 372 388 D N Y 2007 7 1 2 b 6 12 E 2 United States v Microsoft Corp 253 F 3d 84 D C Cir 2001 en banc
45. 1 C 1C X A
46. 2 5 3 3
47. NN ER Areeda Elhauge and Hovenkamp 2006 2 technological benefit 4 Gnitial E
48. X 1I C A X A X X X
49. 1 1 0 E
50. smgle firm conduct 2 0 0 6 Hearings on Section 2 of the Sherman Act Sponsored by the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division U S Department of Justice 8 2 8 2 European Commission 2005 Tying and bundhing 1
51. convergence Gntegration Hearings on Section 2 of the Sherman Act Sponsored by the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division U S Department of Justice 2006 product design Majoras 2006 Design Change California Computer Products v IBM 613 F 2d 727 9th Cir 1979
52. 17 WMP OS WMP OS 1 0 1 9 3
53. 2 0 NNS uw 7 Evans Padilla and Salinger 2 0 0 6 O Donoghue and Padilla 2 0 0 6 22
54. 6 nT United States v Jerrold Electronics Corp 187 F Supp 545 E D Pa 1960 aff d per curiam on other grounds 365 U S 567 1961 Telex Corp v IBM 367 F Supp 258 N D Okla 1973 rev d on other grounds 510 F 2d 894 10th Cir 1975 cert dismissed 423 U S 802 1975 ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp v IBM Corp 448 F Supp 228 N D Cal 1978 aff d per curiam sub nom Innovation Data Processing v International Business Machines Corp 585 F Supp 1470 D N J 1984 modified on other grounds 603 FE Supp 646 1984 Information Resources Inc v A C Nielsen Co 615E Supp 125 129 130 N D Il 1984 Foremost Pro Color Inc v Eastman Kodak 703 F 2d 534 9th Cir 1983 cert de
55. H MS PC 08 PC OS WMP MS OS PC OS WMP
56. technological ME 3 In the information communication industry a dominant company s Strategy in relation to product design has a significant impact on the market The strategy occasionally brings about the exclusion of rivals and the elimination of competition As a result of radical
57. 10 EX F 3 j E product design B
58. Majoras 2006 f 23 E
59. through eliminating competition Werden 2006 25
60. per se E 1 E 2 53 3
61. Gaynor 2006 After Market
62. F E 2 1 NL E E 3
63. 10 Co 2007 2 007 9 test Ordover amp Willig Antitrust Modernization Commission 2 0 7 short run profit sacrifice 1981
64. 2 2 6 HF 1 E E DH 1
65. WA I CC 1 E gt RF ID Radio Frequency Identification 6
66. Windows RE gt 82 Windows Windows MS Windows MS
67. ubiquity ee MS OEM PC MS PC OS MS WMP PC OS WMP WMP WMP MS WMP
68. 82 MS PC OS MS 8 2 2 82
69. 11 Ruropean Commission 2005 2007 4 26 mm
70. Wee 9 2 15 H MS WMP f WMP WMP Windows PC OS 1 MS PC WMP PC
71. 1 988 2 001 3 5 2 0 0 5
72. International Conduct 9 BN RI PICS2 20 66 20 07 Majoras 2 private actor 2 0
73. maverick company 1
74. 9 1
75. rule or reason 1 E i 1 2
76. T C 2004 10 21 1 C 1 C I C IC
77. H 1 2 TS H 1 2
78. 1 O 0D 1 E 1
79. MS MS MS WMP Windows WMP WMP Windows OS MS
80. 3 TC 1 5 4 Hf i H E
81. Ce health genuine 1 3 artificial br 2
82. 82 d i 82 d ubiquity MS OEM
83. California Computer Products v IBM 613 F 2d 727 744 9th Cir 1979 Berkey Photo Eastman Kodak Co 603 F 2d 263 2d Cir 1979 cert denied 444 U S 1093 1980 Foremost Pro Color Inc v Eastman Kodak 703 F 2d 534 9th Cir 1983 cert denied 465 U S 1038 1984 2 C R Bard v M3 Sys 157 F 3d 1340 Fed Cir 1998 United States v Microsoft Corp 253 F 3d 84 D C Cir 2001 Java 2 8 2 d CFTI 8 1 8 1
84. 1 2 2 E
85. GS 2 WMP MS I Windows PC OS WMP MS MS 82 d PR
86. 1 3 Areeda Elhauge and Hovenkamp 2006 1
87. 5 1 21 1 CHI 1
88. RealPlayer Windows Mac OS X Solaris UNIX OS WMP Windows PC OS MS MS PC 08 WMP WMP PC OS MS MS WMP Windows OS MS 2
89. i 2 1
90. 0 7 Competition Network Unilateral 3 1 9 8 2 0 0 6
91. HH OR RR PN mixed bundling v 5
92. 1 C 1 HH 1 9
93. H Lr HH RG NG 1
94. physical tying 2 single firm conduct 2 ECR I ORD 823 MRNA
95. 4 5 2 1 Hn Qr TT l ul XE aii
96. MS WMP Windows WMP Windows OEM WMP Windows WMP Windows WMP MS WMP MS Windows PC OS MS PC OS WMP PC OS Windows RG i ed MS
97. 4 ICT 1 5 3 Gilbert amp Riordan 2 0 0 3 winner take all
98. European Commission Guidelines on Vertical Restraints OJ C291 13 10 2000 European Commission Guidelines on the Application of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to Technology Transfer Agreements OJ C101 27 04 2004 13 8 1 8 2 2 IBM IBM European Commission Fourteenth Report on Competition Policy point 94 1984 3 C M L R 147 IBM CPU 8 2 U CPU undertaking
99. 4 E Melamed 2 0 0 6 No economic sense Werden 2006 10 Whether challenged conduct would have been expected to be profitable apart from any gains that conduct may produce 24
100. 1 fr
101. WMP Windows PC OS Windows Windows OS MS MS MS Windows Windows9 8 2000 Me NT XP MS
102. CEHI Microsoft Corp v Commission of the European Commumnities Case T 201 04 Judgment of the Court of First Instance Grand Chamber 17 Sep 2007 MS WMP PC OS PC OS Commission Deeision 2007 53 EC of 24 March 2004 Case COMP C 3 87 792 Microsoft OJ 2007 32 p 23 2
103. EE
104. 1 5 1 H 1C 49 02 I C
105. 1 2 Transamerica Computer Co v IBM 481 Supp 965 N D Cal 1979 affd 698 F 2d 1377 9th Cir cert denied 464 U S 955 1983 2
106. IT C 1 9 1 0 1 5 1 C TI C IC
107. E Yo 9 1 f
108. No ICP 2007 012 Technological Tying Product Design Assessment of enhancing market power from one layer to another Regulation on technological tying and product design under antimonopoly law Masako Wakui 0 HH Gntegration
109. change and convergence in the network service structure that is now expected in the information communication industry there will indeed be exclusion Some of the exclusions will have the effect of enhancing the market power of a dominant firm from one layer to another The article considers how competition law should assess the product design It focuses on product design that makes consumers unable to use the products of competitors in conjunction with the designed product or technological tying The article analyses the economic impact of this kind of conduct and relevant cases under the United States European and Japanese competition laws It discusses the possible analysis framework and standards applicable to this kind of conduct March 19 2008 wakui law osaka cu ac jp Technological Tying Product Design 1
110. cle 82 of the Treaty to Exclusionary Abuses 2005 Evans David Jorge Padilla and Michael Sahnger A Pragmatic Approach to Tdentifying and Analyzing Legitimate Tying Cases in 1 Atanasiu and C D Ehlerman EUROPEAN COMPETTTION LAW ANNUAL 2003 WHAT IS AN ABUSE OF A DOMINANT POSITION Hart Pub 2006 30 Gilbert Richard J and Michael H Riordan Product Improvement and Technological Tying in a Winner Take All Market Discussion Paper No 0304 11 Columbia University Department of Economics 2003 Majoras Deborah Platt The Consumer Reigns Using Section 2 to Ensure a Competitive Kingdom Opening Remarks Hearings on Section 2 of the Sherman Act Sponsored by the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division U S Department of Justice June 20 2006 lt http wwwr usdo gov atr public hearings single_firm docs 219108 htmz gt Melamed A Douglas Exclusive Deahng Agreements and Other Exclusionary Conduct Are There Unifying Principles 73 Antitrust L J 375 2006 O Donoghue Robert and AJorge Padilla THE LAW AND ECONOMICS OF ARTICLE 82 EC Hart Pub 2006 Ordover Janusz A and Robert D Wilhg An Economic Defimition of Predation Pricing and Product Innovation 91 Yale L J 9 1981 Popofsky Mark S Defining Exclusionary Conduct Section 2 The Rule of Reasons and the Unifying Principle Underlying Antitrust Rules 73 Antitrust L J 435 2006 Salop Steven C Decision Theory and Antitrust Rules 67 Anti
111. nied 465 U S 1088 1984 6 MDC Data Centers v IBM 342 E Supp 502 505 E D Pa 1972 1 United States Microsoft Corp 253 F 3d 34 D C Cir 2000 OS 2
112. trust L J 41 1999 Werden Gregory J Identifying Exclusionary Conduct under Section 2 The No Economic Sense Test 73 Antitrust L J 413 2006 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1988 50 20 2007 60 40 2007 60 1 2007 31
113. w 1 1 SS nie
Download Pdf Manuals
Related Search