| dc.description.abstract | 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.
| en_US |