不判处损害赔偿的垄断违法行为  

Antitrust Violations without Damage Recoveries

作　　者：菲利普.阿瑞达 兰磊[2] 

机构地区：[1]美国哈佛大学法学院 [2]华东政法大学知识产权学院

出　　处：《竞争政策研究》2018年第1期61-69,共9页Competition Policy Research

摘　　要：为了实现补偿和威慑的双重功能,判处反垄断损害赔偿时必须充分认识到它与认定垄断违法行为之理据间的关系。在本评论中,阿瑞达教授分析了几种尽管被告已被认定违法但根据这一根本命题拒绝判处金钱损害赔偿的情形。阿瑞达教授以巡回上诉法院在特雷德韦案和弗特纳案中的判决为实例说明,忽视损害赔偿与实体责任基础之间的关系可能导致错误的判赔。In order to serve their dual functions of compensation and deterrence,private antitrust damages must be awarded with a full recognition of the relationship to the rationale for finding an antitrust violation.In this Comment,Professor Areeda analyzes several situations in which this fundamental proposition may deny money damages despite a finding that the defendant violated the law.The recent circuit court decisions in the Treadway and Fortner cases are used as illustrations of the erroneous damage awards that can result from a failure to appreciate the relationship between damages and the substantive basis for liability.

关 键 词：反垄断法 损害 损害赔偿 竞争损害 反垄断法损害 

分 类 号：D922.294[政治法律—经济法学]