【正文】 s the principal way that firms pete. A naked agreement on price where the agreement is not reasonably related to the firms’ business operations is illegal. Hard core clear or blatant pricefixing is subject to criminal prosecution.關(guān)于價(jià)格或諸如信用證條款等有關(guān)價(jià)格事項(xiàng)的協(xié)定是極具潛在危害性的。這是因?yàn)閮r(jià)格通常是商家之間競爭的最主要的手段。一項(xiàng)與公司的商業(yè)運(yùn)作不適當(dāng)?shù)芈?lián)系在一起的純價(jià)格協(xié)定是非法的。Hard core clear or blatant pricefixing is subject to criminal prosecution. 限價(jià)行為不論其是清晰的還是極為顯著的，都將面臨到刑事指控。Are similarity of prices, simultaneous price changes or high prices indications of pricefixing? Not always. These conditions can result from pricefixing, but to prove the charge, antitrust authorities would need evidence of an agreement to fix prices. Price similarities or the appearance of simultaneous changes in price also can result from normal economic conditions. For example, vigorous petition can drive prices down to a mon level. A general increase in wholesale gasoline costs due to production shortages can cause gasoline stations to increase retail prices around the same time. As for the appearance of uniformly high prices, collusion may not be the only basis for the situation. Prices may increase if consumer demand for a product is particularly high and the supply is limited. Ask any shopper in search of a particularly popular children’s toy.是否近似價(jià)格、同時(shí)發(fā)生的價(jià)格變動(dòng)或高價(jià)格都是限價(jià)行為的跡象呢？并非總是如此。這些情形可以是由限價(jià)行為而引發(fā)的，但是反托拉斯當(dāng)局需要有一限價(jià)協(xié)定作為證據(jù)以支持其指控。近似價(jià)格、同時(shí)發(fā)生的價(jià)格變動(dòng)也可以是由正常的經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境變動(dòng)而引發(fā)的。例如，激烈的競爭促使價(jià)格下降到一個(gè)正常的水平；因產(chǎn)量不足而引起的汽油成本整體性上升會(huì)促使各加油站在一個(gè)大體相同的時(shí)間提高它們的零售價(jià)格；至于出現(xiàn)的統(tǒng)一的高價(jià)格，串謀也可能不是出現(xiàn)這樣情形的唯一原因。價(jià)格上漲可能是由于消費(fèi)者對某一供應(yīng)不足的產(chǎn)品需求特別大。如，要求商家提供一非常受歡迎的兒童玩具。An agreement to restrict production or output is illegal because reducing the supply of a product or service inevitably drives up its price. 一項(xiàng)關(guān)于限制產(chǎn)量的協(xié)定是非法的。因?yàn)樗鳒p了產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)的供應(yīng)量，這就不可避免地引發(fā)了價(jià)格上漲。A group boycott an agreement among petitors not to deal with another person or business violates the law if it is used to force another party to pay higher prices. 一團(tuán)體的聯(lián)合抵制（即競爭者之間有關(guān)禁止與其它人交易的協(xié)定）若是以迫使另一團(tuán)體支付更高的價(jià)格為目的，那么這種行為就是非法的。Boycotts to prevent a firm from entering a market or to disadvantage a petitor also are illegal. Recent cases involved a group of physicians charged with using a boycott to prevent a managed care organization from establishing a peting health care facility in Virginia and retailers who used a boycott to force manufacturers to limit sales through a peting catalog vendor. 聯(lián)合抵制一家新的公司進(jìn)入市場或聯(lián)合使某一競爭者陷入劣勢境地同樣也是非法的。新近的案例有：弗吉尼亞州一內(nèi)科醫(yī)生團(tuán)體聯(lián)合抵制一組織建立其競爭性的衛(wèi)生保健設(shè)施而遭到起訴；及零售商們通過聯(lián)合行動(dòng)強(qiáng)迫制造商限制其經(jīng)由競爭性零售網(wǎng)的銷售。Are boycotts for other purposes illegal? It depends on their effect on petition and possible justifications. A group of California auto dealers used a boycott to prevent a newspaper from telling consumers how to use wholesale price information when shopping for cars. The FTC proved that the boycott affected price petition and had no reasonable justification.至于用于其它目的的聯(lián)合抵制行動(dòng)是否也是非法的呢？這則取決于它們對于競爭的影響和可能存在的正當(dāng)抗辯理由。例如，一加利福尼亞的汽車代理商團(tuán)體曾采取聯(lián)合抵制行動(dòng)阻止新聞媒體告訴消費(fèi)者在購買汽車時(shí)怎樣利用批發(fā)價(jià)信息。聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)最終認(rèn)定這種聯(lián)合抵制行為影響了價(jià)格競爭，而且也沒有任何正當(dāng)?shù)目罐q理由。 Agreements among petitors to divide sales territories or allocate customers essentially, agreements not to pete are presumed to be illegal. At issue in one recent case was an agreement between cable television panies not to enter each other’s territory. 競爭者之間關(guān)于市場領(lǐng)域劃分或分享消費(fèi)者的協(xié)定（本質(zhì)上是也是限制競爭的）同樣被認(rèn)為是非法的。新近的一個(gè)案例是幾家有線電視公司簽訂協(xié)定承諾互不進(jìn)入對方的市場領(lǐng)域。Restrictions on price advertising can be illegal if they deprive consumers of important information. Restrictions on nonprice advertising also may be illegal if the evidence shows the restrictions have antipetitive effects and lack reasonable business justification. The FTC recently charged a group of auto dealers with restricting parative and discount advertising to the detriment of consumers. 價(jià)格廣告方面的限制若是剝奪了消費(fèi)者需要的一些重要信息就是非法的。對非價(jià)格廣告的限制亦有可能是非法的，只要有證據(jù)表明這種限制有反競爭性的影響同時(shí)又沒有正當(dāng)?shù)纳淌驴罐q理由。聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)不久前曾起訴了一群對比較和折扣廣告進(jìn)行限制，從而損害了消費(fèi)者利益的汽車代理商。