| 摘要: | 2006年，美國司法部指控日商夏普(Sharp)、韓商樂金(LG)及台灣的友達、奇美，中華映管等9家公司涉及合謀參與TFT-LCD 液晶面板市場的聯手價格操縱（Price fixing），違反美國反托拉斯法（Anti-Trust）其中8家廠商在2008年陸續認罪，唯獨台灣友達光電（AUO）至今與美國法院對抗中。友達宣稱，雖有參與液晶會議（Crystal Meetings），但友達並未真的落實共同定價之行為，並出示相關出貨證明，證實友達的報價低於國際面板報價。同時友達更主張，友達光電為台灣公司，會議也在台灣進行，依照各國法律為屬地主義原則，美國根本無權對於台灣的企業或個人判罪，友達董事長李焜耀表示：「與競爭對手有交換情報，但絕對沒有聯合價格，公司會繼續上訴以維護本身的清白與權益。」本研究希望從目前執行反托拉斯政策最徹底的兩個地區：美國與歐盟之法律來深入瞭解何謂域外效力（extra-territorial effect），一個國內法律是否有權對於他國企業與他國個人的行為定罪？這樣是否會侵犯到他國主權與商業利益？友達的抗辯是否有脫罪的機會？希望透過本文之研究，能讓國內廠商在進行國際貿易時，更瞭解歐美反托拉斯法的規範與罰則，以免誤觸他國法規。In 2006, the U.S. Justice Department accused nine companies, including Sharp (Japan), LG (Korea), AUO, Chi Mei Optoelectronics, Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Taiwan) and so on, of involving in the conspiracy to participate in the TFT-LCD LCD panel market of joint price-fixing, which violated U.S. antitrust law. In 2008, eight of the nine manufacturers pleaded guilty to the accusation except AUO, which continues its confrontation with the U. S. courts up to now. AUO claimed that although participating in the Crystal Meeting, AUO did not really implement the price-fixing behavior. AUO simultaneously presented related certificates of delivery to prove that the price they offer is lower than the international panel. Furthermore, AUO claimed that as a company in Taiwan, AUO attended the meeting in Taiwan, which has nothing to do with the U.S. in accordance with the national laws of the territorial principle and thus the U.S. has no right to convict Taiwan's enterprises or individuals. "We exchanged information with our competitors but absolutely did not involve in the price-fixing behavior. AUO will continue to appeal for its own innocence and interests." said KY Lee, the chairman of AUO.This study aims to investigate what the extraterritorial effect (extra-territorial effect) is, from the laws of the U. S. and the EU, the two regions where implements the antitrust law most thoroughly. A domestic law is sufficient to convict the behaviors of enterprises in its country and other countries or not, and if yes, whether this infringes on the sovereignty of other countries and commercial interests. This study would like to know whether the defense can exculpate AUO from the crime. I hope that this research can present a better understanding of the norms of European and American antitrust laws and penalties for domestic firms to avoid violating the law of other countries while carrying out international trade.From the laws of the U. S. and the EU, the two regions where implements the antitrust law most thoroughly, this study aims to investigate what the extraterritorial effect (extra-territorial effect) is, whether a domestic law is sufficient to convict the behaviors of enterprises in its country and other countries or not, and if yes, whether this infringes on the sovereignty of other countries and commercial interests. This study would like to know whether the defense can exculpate AUO from the crime. I hope that this research can present a better understanding of the norms of European and American antitrust laws and penalties for domestic firms to avoid violating the law of other countries while carrying out international trade. |
