中国发布反垄断新规

 　　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 1 cartel that was famously prosecuted 2 in 1911 under the US Sherman Antitrust Act.

　　在反垄断判例法记录中，中国的米粉和餐具消毒卡特尔不可与标准石油(Standard Oil)托拉斯同日而语。1911年，美国法院根据《谢尔曼反托拉斯法》(Sherman Antitrust Act)裁定标准石油托拉斯为非法石油垄断组织，这是一个著名的判例。
　　But in time these two much lesser 3 known cartels, targeted by Beijing regulators shortly after the implementation 4 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 5’ ability to safeguard intellectual property in the world’s most coveted 6 market.
　　然而，中国这两个鲜为人知的卡特尔或许也会因为其自身的原因扬名世界——2010年，在中国《反垄断法》(Anti-Monopoly Law)实施一年多后，它们便被北京方面的监管部门盯上了。它们是反垄断执法行动中首批被调查的对象，这之后梅赛德斯-奔驰(Mercedes-Benz)和高通(Qualcomm)之类的公司相继中枪。这场执法行动很快还可能威胁跨国企业在中国市场上保护自身知识产权的能力，而中国是全世界最令人垂涎的市场。
　　中国发布反垄断新规
　　In both instances, the National Development and Reform Commission imposed small penalties for price collusion on more than a dozen rice noodle makers 8 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”.
　　在两个案例中，中国的国家发改委(National Development and Reform Commission)对十多家米粉制造商以及7家为餐馆提供套装消毒餐具的餐具消毒企业处以小额罚款，原因是这些企业串通涨价。华盛顿特区温斯顿-斯特朗律师事务所(Winston & Strawn)的反垄断律师斯蒂芬?哈里斯(Stephen Harris)称，两起案件都是发改委向中国企业发出的警告——“新法律已经实施，警察在盯着呢”。
　　The NDRC’s investigations 10 into allegedly anti-competitive behaviour by domestic firms culminated 11 with an Rmb200m ($32.2m) fine for China’s largest liquor maker 7, 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 12 parts, premium 13 cars and semiconductors 14.
　　发改委对中国本土企业所谓反竞争行为的调查，以两年前中国最大白酒制造商五粮液(Wuliangye)被处以2亿元人民币（合3220万美元）罚款达到巅峰。但是，要引起跨国企业的注意，还得开出更大的罚单。2013年，这个目的达到了——发改委开启了针对外国制造商的第一起调查，随后的一系列反垄断调查席卷了奶粉、汽车零部件、豪华车以及半导体领域的外国制造商。
　　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.
　　被发改委指控存在反竞争行为的那些外国公司最后收到的罚单金额，一般比被罚的国内企业高得多。今年2月，高通同意支付61亿元人民币的罚款，而奔驰和奥迪(Audi)则被分别处以3.5亿和2.5亿元人民币的罚款。
　　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 15 targeting foreign companies — a charge the regulator has consistently denied.
　　有人批评发改委在故意拿外国企业开刀，而在以上3个案例中，罚款金额原本都可能更高，这一事实缓和了部分这样的批评。发改委对这一批评始终予以否认。
　　Qualcomm’s penalty could have required much more costly 16 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 17 ferreted out wrongdoing in all of China’s 32 provinces, autonomous 18 regions and directly administered municipalities.
　　对高通的处罚原本可能包括要求其改变商业模式，那样的话代价要高昂得多。被罚的消息公布后，这家总部位于美国圣地亚哥的公司的股价事实上还上涨了。与此同时，奔驰和奥迪受到的处罚分别针对它们各自在仅一个省份的不法行为。理论上讲，如果发改委查出它们在中国内地全部的32个省、自治区和直辖市的不法行为，它们被处以的罚款可能会高得多。
　　That suggests the NDRC’s investigations of multi?nationals, 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.
　　这意味着，发改委对跨国企业的调查，很大程度上是出于想要敲打一下外企，而非想要获得尽可能高的罚金，正如发改委之前对国内企业的调查一样。
　　So what next now that the NDRC has so effectively got its intended message across? Only one previously 19 disclosed investigation 9 has yet to be resolved — that involving Microsoft and the State Administration of Industry and Commerce, which also polices aspects of the 2010 Anti?Monopoly Law.
　　既然发改委已经颇有成效地传达了其意图，那么接下来会发生什么？目前只有一个之前披露过的调查尚未有结果——该调查涉及微软(Microsoft)和中国国家工商行政管理总局（State Administration of Industry and Commerce，简称工商总局），后者也是反垄断执法机构。
　　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 20 early last month and take effect on August 1. Just as western regulators have occasionally forced operators of telecoms networks and electricity grids 21 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”.
　　温斯顿-斯特朗律师事务所的哈里斯及其同事们同时代理高通和微软，但是他们表示两起案件均无法置评。他们警告跨国企业称，中国工商总局的新一套指导方针可能会强迫它们将知识产权共享给中国竞争对手。《关于禁止滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争行为的规定》于上个月公布，将于8月1日生效。就像西方监管部门偶尔迫使电信网络和电力网络运营商与竞争者共享其“关键设施”一样，当这些知识产权构成“制造和商业运营的关键设施”时，中国工商总局可能会迫使“占主导地位的”企业把知识产权分享出来。
　　If it were to do so, the SAIC would be following the EU in applying the essential facilities doctrine 22 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，中国工商总局将步欧盟(EU)后尘，将关键设施理论应用到知识产权上。但是，欧盟只是在极少数特殊情况下强迫企业共享知识产权，而美国则拒绝这么做。
　　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 23 of being forced to transfer technology in China, the uncertainty 24 is a worrying but useful reminder 25 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 26 of the domestic rice noodle and tableware cartels. It is a mistake that they should not make twice.
　　在就新规发表的一次罕见公开评论中，中国工商总局一名官员称该部门将“谨慎”应用新规。对于担心在中国被强迫转让技术的跨国企业而言，这种不确定性是个令人担忧、也很有用的提醒，即中国的反垄断法很大程度上还是半成品。发改委起诉国内米粉和餐具消毒卡特尔的时候，跨国企业中很少（如果有的话）有哪家注意到了此事对它们自己所在行业的影响。这个错误它们不应再犯第二次。