競爭法對於維持轉售價格之妥適規範態度：以美國實務發展與市場競爭影響為中心

Abstract

自1911年Dr. Miles案以來，美國聯邦最高法院以財產權的觀點否定維持轉售價格（resale price maintenance, RPM）的合法性，採取「當然違法原則」（per se illegal）。雖然1977年Sylvania案對於非價格垂直交易限制改採「合理原則」（rule of reason），但是又過了30年，才在2007年的Leegin案推翻屹立近百年的Dr. Miles案見解，改採合理原則。此判決一出反彈聲浪不斷，主要是因為維持轉售價格在市場上確實具有反競爭效果。然而本文支持Leegin案對於維持轉售價格的違法判斷標準，認為此行為是否構成違法應從實施維持轉售價格事業的市場力量，以及所屬市場競爭狀態、品牌力量、商品性質、該產業實施維持轉售價格的普及程度等作為衡量依據。從錯誤成本（error cost）的角度觀察，一味禁止維持轉售價格反而對於市場競爭將造成不利的影響。

In Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., the Supreme Court, using the principle of the property law-- The Right of Alienation-- decided that the practice shall be evaluated under the per se illegal analysis. After thirty years, the court had changed their view on Continental TV v. GTE Sylvania, but hadn’t varied on resale price maintenance (RPM). In 2007, the Roberts Court changed the standard with its decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., replacing per se illegality with the rule of reason for minimum price restraints. This decision overruled a ninety-six-year-old precedent, so some commentators have agreed this decision while others have denounced it. This article argues that the rule of reason adopted by the Court in Leegin is the appropriate standard for minimum price restraints.