美国联邦贸易委员会在高通公司反托拉斯诉讼中胜诉

黄永乐

#大学英语听力#


(Reuters) - The U.S. government’s antitrust victory over chip supplier Qualcomm Inc drew tough questions for the Federal Trade Commision from a panel of three appellate judges in San Francisco on Thursday.
(路透社)-美国政府对芯片供应商高通公司(Qualcomm Inc.)的反垄断胜利，周四在旧金山的一个由三名上诉法官组成的小组中引发了联邦贸易委员会(Federal Trade Commision)的棘手问题。
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a closely watched case the regulator brought against Qualcomm in early 2017.
美国第九巡回上诉法院在2017年初听取了监管机构对高通提起的一起受到密切关注的案件的口头辩论。
San Diego, California-based Qualcomm supplies modem chips that connect phones and other devices to wireless data networks, but patent licensing drives most of its profits.
总部位于加利福尼亚州圣地亚哥的高通公司提供调制解调器芯片，将手机和其他设备连接到无线数据网络，但专利许可驱动了其大部分利润。
The company is fighting a May 2019 decision by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh.
该公司正在反对美国地区法官露西·高(Lucy Koh)2019年5月做出的决定。
That judge sided with antitrust regulators, writing that Qualcomm’s practice of requiring phone makers to sign a patent license agreement before selling them chips “strangled competition” and harmed consumers.
这位法官站在反垄断监管机构一边，写道，高通要求手机制造商在向其出售芯片之前签署专利许可协议的做法“扼杀了竞争”，损害了消费者。
The panel of judges probed the FTC on how Qualcomm may have violated antitrust laws, even if the company did use its dominant position in the chip market to gain higher patent royalties.
评委小组调查了联邦贸易委员会高通(Qualcomm)可能如何违反反垄断法，即使该公司确实利用其在芯片市场的主导地位获得了更高的专利版税。
“Anticompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act. Hyper-competitive behavior is not. This case asks us to draw the line between the two,” Judge Stephen Joseph Murphy III said.
“谢尔曼法”禁止反竞争行为。超级竞争行为并非如此。本案要求我们在两者之间划清界限，“法官斯蒂芬·约瑟夫·墨菲三世(Stephen Joseph Murphy III)说。
The FTC argued Qualcomm applied an excessive “surcharge” to phone makers, charging them too high a price for patent licenses because the phone makers had to sign the deals to get Qualcomm’s chips.
FTC辩称，高通向手机制造商征收了过高的“附加费”，向他们收取过高的专利许可价格，因为手机制造商必须签署协议才能获得高通的芯片。
“Doesn’t the Supreme Court say that patent holders have the right to price their patents? What would be anticompetitive about that?” Judge Johnnie Rawlinson asked.
“最高法院不是说专利持有人有权为他们的专利定价吗？那有什么是反竞争的呢？“约翰尼·罗林森法官问道。