判例译析 | 是垄断吗？捆绑销售日报和晚报的广告位

捆绑销售日报和晚报的广告位，是垄断吗？

Times-Picayune Pub. Co. 

v. 

United States（345 U.S. 594 (1953)）

事实背景

A publishing company owns and publishes in New Orleans a morning and an evening newspaper. Its sole competitor in the daily newspaper field is an independent evening newspaper. Classified and general display advertisers in the company's publications may purchase only combined insertions appearing in both its morning and evening papers, not in either separately. The United States brought a civil suit against the company under the Sherman Act, challenging the use of these "unit" contracts as an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of § 1, and as an attempt to monopolize trade in violation of § 2.

Times-Picayune Pub. Co（以下简称“T出版公司”或“T公司”）在新奥尔良拥有并出版了一份早报和一份晚报。它在日报领域的唯一竞争对手是一家独立的晚报。T公司出版物中提供分类广告和一般展示广告。广告商若想购买上述广告，只能一并购买刊登在早报和晚报上的组合广告位，而不能单独购买早报的或是晚报的广告位。美国政府根据《谢尔曼法》对T公司提起了民事诉讼，质疑使用这些“搭售”合同属于对贸易的不合理限制，违反了《谢尔曼法》第1条；T公司企图实施贸易垄断也违反了《谢尔曼法》第2条。

法院判决

法院认为

(a) The challenged activities of the company constitute interstate commerce within the meaning of the Sherman Act. P. 602, n 11.

T公司被质疑的活动符合《谢尔曼法》对州际商业的定义。

(b) A "tying" arrangement violates § 1 of the Sherman Act when a seller enjoys a monopolistic position in the market for the "tying" product and a substantial volume of commerce in the "tied" product is restrained. International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392. Pp. 345 U. S. 608-609.

当卖方在“搭售”产品的市场上享有垄断地位，并且“搭售”产品的大量商业活动受到限制时，“搭售”安排违反了《谢尔曼法》第1条（International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392. pp. 345 U. S. 608-609.）。

(c) Since the charge against the company was not of tying sales to its readers, but only to buyers of general and classified space in its papers, dominance in the New Orleans newspaper advertising market, not in the readership, is the decisive factor in determining the legality of the company's unit plan. P. 345 U.S. 610.

由于对T公司的指控不是对其读者的搭售，而只是对其报纸上的普通和分类广告位的购买者的搭售，所以确定T公司搭售计划的合法性的决定性因素，是在新奥尔良报纸广告市场上的主导地位，而不是该报纸在读者中的主导地位。

(d) Section 2 of the Sherman Act outlaws monopolization of any "appreciable part" of interstate commerce, and § 1 bans unreasonable restraints irrespective of the amount of commerce involved. P. 345 U. S. 611.

《谢尔曼法》第2条规定，对州际商业的任何“显著部分（appreciable part）”的垄断都是非法的，而第1条则禁止不合理的限制，无论涉及商业的数量如何。

(e) The essence of illegality in tying agreements is the wielding of monopolistic leverage; a seller exploits his dominant position in one market to expand into another. Solely for testing the strength of that lever, the whole, and not part, of a relevant market must be assigned controlling weight. P. 345 U. S. 611.

搭售协议（tying agreement）的违法本质是垄断杠杆的运用；卖方利用其在某一市场的支配地位向另一市场扩张。仅仅为了测试该杠杆的强度，必须对相关市场的整体而非部分进行控制。

(f) The company's morning newspaper did not enjoy in the newspaper advertising market in New Orleans that position of "dominance" which, together with a "not insubstantial" volume of trade in the "tied" product, would result in a Sherman Act offense under the rule of International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392. Pp. 345 U. S. 608-613.

T公司的早报在新奥尔良的报纸广告市场上并不享有“支配”地位，而这种地位加上“搭售”产品的“不是非实质性（not insubstantial）”的贸易量，根据International Salt Co. v. United States（332 U. S. 392），将导致违反《谢尔曼法》。

(g) The common core of the adjudicated unlawful tying arrangements is the forced purchase of a second distinct commodity with the desired purchase of a dominant "tying" product, resulting in economic harm to competition in the "tied" market. Pp. 345 U. S. 613-614.

正在裁决的非法搭售安排的共同核心是，在希望购买占主导地位的“搭售”产品的同时，强迫购买第二种不同的商品，从而对“搭售”市场的竞争造成经济损害。

(h) In the absence of evidence demonstrating two distinct commodities sold by the publishing company, neither the rationale nor the doctrines of the "tying" cases can dispose of the company's advertising contracts challenged here. They must therefore be tested under the Sherman Act's general prohibition on unreasonable restraints of trade. Pp. 345 U. S. 613-615.

在没有证据表明T出版公司销售两种不同的商品的情况下， “搭售”案件的原理和学说都无法解决T公司受到质疑的广告合同的问题。因此，必须根据《谢尔曼法》对不合理的贸易限制的一般禁止规定予以检验。

(i) The inquiry to determine reasonableness under § 1 in this case must focus on the percentage of business controlled, the strength of the competition, and whether the challenged activity springs from business requirements or from purpose to monopolize. P. 345 U. S. 615.

在本案中，根据《谢尔曼法》第1条确定合理性的调查必须集中于所控制的业务的百分比、竞争的强度，以及被质疑的活动是源于业务要求还是源于垄断目的。

(j) The factual data in the record in this case do not demonstrate that the company's advertising contracts unduly handicapped the existing competing newspaper. Pp. 345 U. S. 615-622.

本案案卷中记载的事实数据并不能证明该公司的广告合同不适当地妨碍了现有的竞争性报纸。

(k) The Government has proved in this case neither actual unlawful effects nor facts which radiate a potential for future harm. P. 345 U. S. 622.

政府在本案中既没有证明实际的非法影响，也没有证明未来可能造成伤害的事实。

(l) While even otherwise reasonable trade arrangements must fall if conceived to achieve forbidden ends, the company's adoption of the unit plan in this case was predominantly motivated by legitimate business aims. P. 345 U. S. 622.

不过，即使是合理的贸易安排，但如果是为了实现被禁止的目的而设计的，也必须终止，但本案中T公司采用捆绑销售计划的主要动机是合法的商业目的。

(m) Although emulation of a competitor's illegal plan does not justify an unlawful trade practice, that factor is relevant in determining intent, particularly when planned injury to that competitor is the crux of the charge of Sherman Act violation. P. 345 U. S. 623.

虽然模仿竞争对手的非法计划并不能成为非法贸易行为的理由，但这在确定意图（intention）时是相关的因素，特别是是否违反《谢尔曼法》的关键是计划对该竞争对手的伤害时尤为如此。

(n) Although long tolerated trade arrangements acquire no vested immunity under the Sherman Act, that consideration is relevant when monopolistic purpose, rather than effect, is to be gauged. Pp. 345 U. S. 623-624.

虽然根据《谢尔曼法》，长期容忍的贸易安排并未获得既得豁免，但当要衡量垄断目的而非效果时，这一考虑便与此相关。

(o) The record in this case shows neither unlawful effects nor aims. Pp. 345 U. S. 615-624.

本案案卷中既没有展现非法的效果，也没有展现非法的目的。

(p) The company's refusal to sell advertising space except en bloc, viewed alone, in the circumstances of this case, does not constitute a violation of the Sherman Act. Pp. 345 U. S. 624-626.

T公司拒绝出售广告位，除非是拒绝整体出售（en bloc），单从本案的情况来看，并不违反《谢尔曼法》。

(q) A specific intent to destroy competition or to build monopoly is essential to guilt of an attempt to monopolize in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, and such intent is not established by the record in this case. Pp. 345 U. S. 626-627.

破坏竞争或建立垄断的具体意图是违反《谢尔曼法》第2条的垄断企图的必要条件，而这种意图在本案案卷中没有得到证实。

(原文链接：

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/594/)