| 摘要: | 在數位時代的潮流下，紙本書即使已流傳數百年，但由於攜帶不便，是以難逃轉型，電子書之概念逐漸成形，古騰堡計劃作為書籍電子化之先驅，吸引了包括Amazon在內之廠商投入電子書與電子閱讀器之製作與銷售。但Amazon以低價銷售電子書之方式卻受到詬病，出版商更是大力譴責，並與新參進者Apple合作。然而出版商與Apple之間的合作除了使電子書零售價格上升，亦消弭了零售階層的價格競爭，是以無論是紐約南區聯邦地區法院，或是第二巡迴上訴法院，皆認為Apple與出版商之間的行為構成水平聯合訂價，應以當然違法原則處理，並判決Apple違法。但不同於法院之判決結果，本文認為Apple與出版商簽訂的代理協議雖抬高了零售價格，但實際上卻能促進市場競爭，因此有以合理原則判案之可能性。但在討論Apple之行為是否構成共謀前，應先探詢Amazon對電子書之銷售策略是否有掠奪性訂價之嫌疑，接著才會深入探討為何本文認為Apple之行為能促進競爭，而例外合法。
對於一個新興市場而言，主管機關不應在產業萌芽初期即過分打壓參與者，以免影響市場之發展，尤其是與資訊流通密切相關的出版產業。隨著傳統出版商之重要性衰弱，Amazon除了逐漸取代傳統出版商外，還幾乎獨占了電子書零售市場，如此將導致消費者選擇產品之範圍縮減。因此，主管機關應鼓勵新參與者之進入，活躍整個產業的競爭，即使該新參與者是以可能限制市場競爭之手段進入市場，主管機關仍應先放寬審查之標準，留待該參與者之市場力量已足以使其交易相對人對其產生依賴時，其仍持續採用該限制競爭之手段，主管機關再對其加以制裁即可。
此外，本篇論文亦會假設，假若Apple案發生在我國，我國公平交易法會如何處理，是會如同美國法院般以當然違法原則論處，或是有較大之可能性適用合理原則。再者，本篇論文會稍加論述我國出版產業之現況，還有電子書在我國發展之現況，期望在出版產業之市值逐年下降之現在，能有再度起飛的未來。
;Despite the history of over hundreds of years, paper books are still forced to face the transformation as result of the inconvenience. At the time of fading away of paper books, E-books are starting to cut a figure. Amazon, the world’s largest E-commerce platform, saw the business opportunity and developed a E-reader ‘Kindle’ which immediately caught consumers’ attention. However, Amazon underselling E-books caused discontent among publishers, which decided to make an illegal price-fixing agreement with a new entrant, Apple. Because of the illegal horizontal collusion between Apple and publishers eliminating competition within E-books retail market, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit asserts their conduct was subject to per se illegal. On the contrary, in my opinion, in spite of price increase, the price-fixing agreement actually encouraged potential market entrants entering the E-book market which fostering the competition. In addition, in terms of emerging markets, in order to facilitate the development of them, the authorities concerned have to encourage potential entrants to enter into the markets, especially in the publishing industry, even though the practices the entrants adopted have a probability to harm the competition. Hence, the Apple’s conduct should have room for discussion. |
