| 關 鍵 詞： |
美商高通；標準必要專利；FRAND 承諾；沒授權沒晶片；競爭法 |
| 中文摘要： |
美商高通公司就行動通訊標準必要專利，採取了獨特的整套授權架構，使其自 2015 年開始，陸續遭到中國大陸、南韓、美國、臺灣以違反競爭法而處分或起訴。2015 年 2 月中國大陸發改委處罰高通 9.75 億美元；2015 年 7 月歐盟執委會正式對高通啟動調查（並於 2018 年 1 月底就其中一項調查正式裁罰）；其後 2016 年底南韓公平會開罰 8.65 億美元。美國聯邦貿易委員會（FTC）於 2017 年 1 月起訴高通公司，2017 年 6 月加州北區法院針對這起案件已經作出第一份初步裁定。臺灣公平會於 2017 年 10 月 11 日，召開記者會宣布對高通裁罰新臺幣 234 億元，為史上金額第一高的行政裁罰。
各國對於高通授權違反競爭法的處理上，不但有時間先後順序的產生，且過程中越後面處理的國家，在法律論述上，也多少會受到較先處理國家的影響。本文將詳細論述各國處分或判決重點，說明臺灣公平會的高通裁罰案，受到南韓公平會與美國 FTC 起訴案的論述影響，也間接受到歐盟法院華為 v.中興案的影響。最後本文會初步比較五地競爭主管機關對高通案，所認定之違法行為、競爭傷害，以及裁罰措施，有何種不同，並點出未來值得深入研究之處。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Qualcomm；Standard Essential Patent；FRAND License Commitment；No License No Chip；Antitrust Laws |
| 英文摘要： |
Qualcomm is a SEP holder in cellular communications standard technology such as 2G, 3G, and 4G. Qualcomm has adopted a strange licensing framework to license its SEPs. Therefore, since 2015, many countries' competitive authorities have sanctioned Qualcomm one after the other. First, China sanctioned Qualcomm in 2015, and fined it US$975 million. In July 2015, the EU commission opened two formal antitrust investigations into possible abusive behaviors by Qualcomm (and recently concluded that Qualcomm's exclusivity payments to Apple illegally breached the EU antitrust rule in January 2018). In December 2016, the Korea Fair Trade Commission imposed sanctions on Qualcomm, and fined it US$865 million. Soon after, the U.S. FTC sued Qualcomm in the Northern District Court of California in January 2017. In April of that year, Qualcomm moved to dismiss the complaint, but Judge Lucy H. Koh rendered her opinion for the FTC, saying that if the fact is true, the FTC's allegation will win. Following the KFTC's and the U.S. FTC's actions, on October 11, 2017, the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission put out a press release that they had found that Qualcomm had abused its market dominance by unfair means to directly or indirectly prevent modem chipset makers from competing, and fined Qualcomm US$773 million.
In November, the TFTC released their final official decision with detailed reasoning, and three commissioners delivered their dissenting opinions. The TFTC held that Qualcomm's three conducts when combined together formed Qualcomm's anti-competitive business model, and finally harmed the competition in the chipset market. The reasoning is very similar to that in the US FTC's complaint and the KFTC's sanction. On the other hand, among the remedies imposed by the TFTC was one where the TFTC required Qualcomm to engage in good-faith negotiations with modem chipset makers, which meant that Qualcomm was obliged to license its SEP to it chipset competitors. This good-faith negotiation requirement was gleaned from the KFTC's sanction, but actually came from the 2015 EU court's Huawei v. ZTE case opinion. Those five competitive authorities focus on different types of illegal behavior and have found different forms of competitive harm, which will be compared. Finally, some points that deserve further study will be suggested.
|
| 目 次： |
一、前言
二、高通行動通訊標準必要專利授權架構
三、大陸、南韓處分與歐盟影響
四、美國 FTC 起訴與地院初步判決
五、臺灣公平會處分與各國比較
六、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|