The overall purpose of this study was to evaluate the current status of the Sherman Act's application to the professions, with emphasis on the accounting profession. This was further stated as two purposes. 1. The primary purpose was to interpret the historical development and current status of the most important defenses used in the courts by the professions and professionals against alleged violations of the Sherman Act. 2. The second purpose was to evaluate the relative importance of variables, including the defenses used, that have affected the outcomes of court cases involving alleged violations of the Sherman Act.

No description available.

Konkurrenslagstiftningarna i USA och EU är ledande på konkurrensområdet i världen idag. Förbudet mot missbruk av dominerande ställning i artikel 102 FEUF och monopolistisk maktposition i section 2 Sherman Act, utgör en central del av de konkurrensrättsliga regelverken i EU och USA. Reglerna delar många likheter, men de skiljer sig åt till viss del angående reglernas syfte, formulering samt hur de tillämpas av konkurrensmyndigheter och domstolar. Den ökande digitaliseringen i samhället, i kombination med teknisk utveckling, har skapat en ny form av marknader, så kallade new economy industries, som skiljer sig åt från traditionella marknader. De nya digitala marknaderna saknar geografiska begränsningar och kännetecknas av innovation som konkurrensmässig drivkraft. Google är den mest använda digitala sökmotorn i EU och USA. Bolaget har varit under utredning av konkurrensmyndigheterna i båda rättsordningar sedan år 2010. Genom att främja sina egna tjänster i sökresultaten, anklagas Google för att hindra konkurrerande aktörer från att beträda marknaden och därmed hämma konkurrensen. Det är första gången som artikel 102 FEUF och section 2 Sherman Act tillämpas på en sökmotor. De traditionella verktyg som konkurrensmyndigheterna använder sig av vid utredningar enligt artikel 102 FEUF och section 2 Sherman Act, går dock inte att applicera tillfredsställande på digitala marknader. De konkurrensrättsliga regelverken i EU och USA har inte anpassats efter de digitala marknadernas särskilda förutsättningar, vilket skapar en osäkerhet kring konkurrensrättens effektivitet. Skillnaderna mellan rättsordningarnas tillämpning av artikel 102 FEUF och section 2 Sherman Act på Googles agerande, grundar sig således främst på de digitala marknadernas särskilda förutsättningar och det osäkra rättsläget. En reformering av de konkurrensrättsliga regelverken i EU och USA är därför nödvändig, för att säkerställa att digitala marknader i framtiden kan regleras ur ett konkurrensrättsligt perspektiv.

Red-Hat Linux之CEO，Robert Yang曾對微軟行為作如此論述：「微軟很壞，但壞的很成功！」本文內容可分為三部分。首先在於釐清微軟成功之原因，針對形成微軟獨佔個人電腦作業系統之原因，做一有系統之經濟觀點分析：將軟體產業特殊之競爭策略層面考量與相關網路外部性理論經濟模型推論、驗證過程透過本文架構重新整合，發展出不同於一般管理文獻論述之方式以建立微軟獨佔地位之經濟理論基礎。第二部份針對微軟破壞競爭規範等違法行為作研究，主要針對微軟1998年對網景之反托拉斯此案，以美國司法部公布之事實認定書與休曼法為基礎，加以延申並做詳盡之探討。第三部分則針對微軟被宣判違反反托拉斯法後，政府在網際網路時代下執行反托拉斯法以回復競爭規範之角色、補救原則、措施做一探討並與AT＆T案例比較；最後並提出兩種分割方式經濟模型分析與最適分割條件之政策性建議。 / The CEO of Red-Hat Linux, Robert Yang, has made such comments on the behavior of Microsoft that:” Microsoft is very bad, but very successful.” This thesis mainly focuses on three parts. The first part is to clarify the reasons why Microsoft is so successful and analyze its monopolistic position on personal computer operating system market in light of a systematic、economic method combining strategic competitive characteristics of software industry with economic theories of network externalities, making its foundations of monopoly and distinguish from general managerial arguments through the framework of this thesis. The second part primarily focuses on the antitrust case of Microsoft’s behavior against Netscape proposed by DOJ in 1998. Basing on the DOJ’s findings of fact and the antitrust law of Sherman act, we made explorative research on the case. The third part is to explore the role、principles and methods of antitrust remedy enforcements by government under the era of networks and Internet and compare with the AT&T case in 1982. Finally, we compare between two different ways that divide Microsoft into two companies in light of economic analysis and propose policy recommendation about condition that will optimize upon exploiting such remedy method.

近來共享經濟商業模式崛起，對各國既有相關市場皆造成不少之衝擊，當中，優步公司用以計算車資之「訂價演算法」，於美國實務亦引起許多爭議。美國司法案例中其中一個重要爭議即為優步公司單方制定之「訂價演算法」與其採行之「高峰動態訂價法」究否構成價格聯合行為。於美國實務近來2起與價格聯合行為相關之案例，即包含Meyer v. Kalanick案與Chamber of Commerce & RASIER, LLC v. City of Seattle案（以下簡稱「City of Seattle案」）中，皆可見Uber企圖正當化其價格聯合行為，以免於競爭法審查下有違法之嫌。而美國對於價格聯合行為之規範，載明於休曼法第1條；依據休曼法第1條規定，若原告擬主張被告行為違反卡特爾行為，則應證明系爭卡特爾行為符合合意主體要件、具合意或共謀行為，與造成限制性之競爭效果等三項要件。由於上述二案皆仍於訴訟前階段，判決尚未出爐，因此，此議題值得吾等分析之。本文擬以美國實務判決為基準，彙整相關爭議，進而探討Uber所採訂價演算法是否構成價格聯合行為。 本文發現，雖然此等訂價演算法究否構成價格聯合行為尚未有定論，然由於訂價演算法中之高峰動態訂價法可提高駕駛於尖峰時段中提供載客服務之誘因，將有助於調節市場機制與促進競爭。此外，Uber亦可利用其訂價演算法與設置平台所奠立之優勢，使其得以潛在破壞市場秩序之形式，創造競爭優勢。據此，Uber除可克服既有行政管制下市場進入之劣勢外，亦得使相關市場交易效率大幅提升、市場更加競爭。因此，於探討Uber價格聯合行為合法與否時，亦應將此等因素納入考量。 / The rapid expansion of sharing economy enterprises around the world has led to many challenges. And among these enterprises, one of the most disruptive examples is Uber because of its algorithm. In the United States, the lawsuits regarding Uber's algorithm has also gained massive attention. One of the controversial issues of the complaints relies upon whether Uber's algorithm which set by Uber, and “surge pricing” model do constitute an illegal price-fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In 2 recent high-profile cases, Meyer v. Kalanick & Chamber of Commerce & RASIER, LLC v. City of Seattle, Uber has tried to justify its price fixing to avoid antitrust scrutiny. There are three specific facts that the Plaintiff must prove to establish its antitrust claim in Section 1 of the Sherman Act: 2 or more entities entering into an agreement, conspiracy, and unreasonably restrains competition. Analysis regarding Uber's algorithm is significant because the trials are ongoing. Therefore, the thesis examines whether Uber's algorithm do constitute an illegal price-fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by exploring the potential problems with regard to the elements based on U.S. judicial decisions. The thesis believes that Uber's algorithm can enhance the efficiency of transaction and has pro-competitive effects, leading to the impact of Uber's surge pricing on providing the incentives for drivers during peak hours. Establishing platform and Uber's algorithm create Uber's strengths and advantages. By having disrupted the existing industry, Uber's algorithm serves pro-competitive purposes.

The purpose of my assignment is to summarize facts, thoughts and assumptions and provide Progressive Era analyses in relation to the 1912 presidential elections. The respective campaigns of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson can -- in general terms - be considered as a contest between the theoretical and the practical. This was evident in their varying approaches to both economic and social issues. Even within the Progressivism there were different points of view on the liberalism in the American democracy and strategic issues such as tax, customs duties and anti-monopoly policies. I will specifically examine this disparity in context of the social struggle between concentrated and organized capitalism and the progressive labor movement. Who were the people designing their election platforms, defining the state politics and consequently creating the rules? What was their vision? And what assumptions underlined their thinking? Have their ideas and its application in politics been successful? Finally, what was their political legacy in American society today?

本文研究之議題，並非有關政治面或其他社會面所稱之杯葛，而是競爭法領域中之杯葛行為，主要為公平交易法第十九條第一款所規範之情形。 本文之研究目的，主要希望能對公平交易法第十九條第一項之構成要件、違法性、法律效果等數項議題，參考他國立法例及學說進行研究，並就實務處理進行分析檢討，以及提出管見之看法及建議。 本論文共分為七章。第一章為「緒論」，分為研究題目之說明、研究動機與目的、研究方法、研究範圍及限制，及研究架構等部分，旨在介紹論文的基本方向與架構。 第二章，則是討論「我國法對於杯葛行為之規範及相關內容」。於第一節中，首先進行杯葛行為之基本介紹，以使讀者瞭解本文所處理之客體為何，並且明瞭規範杯葛行為之目的。第二節之內容，是針對公平交易法第十九條第一款，為一全面性介紹。第三節，是就公平交易法第二十四條之適用可能，為一討論。第四節，則是討論民法部分於杯葛行為之適用可能及適用情形。 第三章，討論「美國法對於杯葛行為之規範及分析」。第一節之概說，乃為後述討論內容作一引言。第二節，是就規範杯葛行為之條文－休曼法第一條、聯邦貿易委員會法第五條，作一相關闡釋。第三節，是就美國判例，參考學者Hylton, Keith N.教授的見解，區分三個不同時期，介紹杯葛行為於實務之不同評價演變。第四節，則對本章之內容作一總結。 第四章介紹「德國法對於杯葛行為之規範及分析」。第一節之概說，乃為後述討論內容作一引言。第二節，是就限制競爭防止法第二十一條第一項（GWB §21Ⅰ）為相關闡述。第三節，是就不正競爭防止法第三條（UWG §3），其適用情形及相關內容進行分析。第四節，是就德國民法有關侵權行為之規定（BGB §823、§826），討論杯葛行為之適用情形。第五節，乃討論杯葛行為與憲法上言論自由保護其間之關係。 第五章乃在探討「杯葛行為於我國法制面及實務操作之爭議問題研究」。於第一節中，處理者乃杯葛行為之體系定位之問題。第二節，進行構成要件之細部問題分析；例如，發話人究否應具有一定市場力量？第三節，針對杯葛行為之違法性，分析是否存在進行杯葛行為之正當理由。第四節，旨在討論杯葛行為之法律效果問題。第五節，核心集中於公平會對於同業公會所發起之杯葛行為，究應以第十四條或第十九條第一款論斷為妥？第六節，主要在處理杯葛與其他概念之區別。第七節，則在處理公平交易法第十九條第一款與其他條文競合之問題。 第六章之內容為「實務重要案例之分析及檢討建議與結論」。此部分本文選擇較具重要性之公平會處分案，整理實務之看法及處理模式，並加以分析及檢討。 第七章則是進行「結論與建議」。本文將彙整前面各章之重點，針對本文關心之相關爭點及問題，提出拙見，以供參考。 / This thesis focus on the topic of boycotts issues in competition law, especially article 19 subparagraph 1 of the Fair Trade Law of Taiwan. There are 7 chapters in this study. In chapter 1, there is an introduction to this research such as the structure of this paper. Chapter 2 discusses the regulations about boycotts in Taiwan, including article 19 subparagraph 1 and article 24 of the Fair Trade Law and article 184 of the Civil Law. Besides, in this chapter there are essential introductions to boycotts, e.g. what purpose the party has. Chapter 3 observes how U.S. treats boycotts. According to the observance of professor Hylton, Keith N., the court used different standers to judge boycotts in various periods. This chapter will focus on what doctrine the court adopted to consider boycotts－rule of reason, or illegal per se? On the other hand, chapter 4 introduces rules of boycotts in Germany. There are several important parts: GWB §21Ⅰ, UWG §3, and BGB §823、§826. Besides, there is a point about the relation of boycotts and freedom of speech. Chapter 5 deals several problems of boycotts in Taiwan practices and Fair Trade Law. Besides the opponents of the articles, this chapter tried to solve problems such as should we consider market power of the party? Further more, there are comparisons about boycotts and other similar concepts or topics. Chapter 6 proceeds analysis about the cases in Taiwan practices, especially decisions of the Fair Trade Commission. In chapter 7 the author offered his opinions about some issues of boycotts.