|
1 导读 面对巨额罚款，谷歌系统即将收费？ 2 听力|精读|翻译|词组  Antitrust theatre 反垄断剧场 英文部分选自经济学人Business版块 Taming tech titans 驯服科技巨头 Antitrust theatre 反垄断剧场 Despite a global techlash and high fines in Europe, America’s online giants have not much to fear from regulators 尽管欧洲有全球科技抵制和高额罚款，但美国的互联网巨头并不惧怕监管 .“THE making of a big tech reckoning,” blared one typical headline earlier this year. “The case for breaking up Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google,” touted another. Based on media coverage alone it might seem as if the tech titans are in trouble. Add in the news, on July 18th, of a record €4.3bn fine for Google by the European Commission and that impression is strengthened. But if you look hard at where the regulatory rubber is actually hitting the road, the techlash seems much less brutal. Notwithstanding this week’s fine—which amounts to just over $5bn and is the biggest antitrust penalty ever—the online giants are nowhere near being reined in. 今年早些时候，标题为“对科技巨头的清算在逼近”的文章成为经典头条，鼓噪一时”。另一篇题为“打破亚马逊、苹果、脸书和谷歌的模式”的文章也大受吹捧。仅基于媒体的报道来推测，科技巨头似乎遇到了麻烦。7月18日，欧盟委员会对谷歌开出43亿欧元的罚款，则进一步验证了这种推测。然而，如果深挖监管新政对科技巨头的影响，科技抵制带来的伤害其实微乎其微。虽然本周的罚款金额刚过50亿美元，还是有史以来最大的一笔反垄断罚款，但互联网巨头却远未被驯服。 To be sure, the mood has changed. In America a survey for Axios, a news website, found that between October and March the favourability ratings of Facebook, Amazon and Google had fallen by 28%, 13% and 12%, respectively. Republicans such as Ted Cruz, a senator, now employ anti-tech rhetoric. Last month the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it will, starting in September, hold hearings on “competition and consumer protection in the 21st century”. 诚然，公众情绪已然改变。新闻网站Axios的调查发现，3月至10月期间，脸书、亚马逊和谷歌在美国的支持率分别下降了28%、13%和12%。参议员特德·克鲁兹（Ted Cruz）等共和党人，现在开始使用反科技的言辞。上个月，联邦贸易委员会(FTC)宣布，9月起，开始就“21世纪的竞争和消费者保护”举行听证会。 The shift in sentiment started earlier and has gone further in Europe, both because none of the companies have headquarters there and because of the region’s sensitivities in regard to privacy and data protection. Google had already battled the commission, and lost, in “the shopping case”, so called because it involves sites that involve comparison-shopping services. The firm was accused of having discriminated against rivals by downgrading their search results and putting its own on top; last year the commission levied a €2.4bn fine and told Google to treat all comparison-shopping results equally. 这种变化在欧洲开始得更早，发展得也更深入，这既是因为这些公司都没有在欧洲设立总部，也是因为欧洲在隐私和数据保护方面尤为敏感。谷歌搜索结果中的网站牵扯进比较购物服务，“谷歌购物搜索反垄断案”由此得名，在这场欧盟委员会发起的战役中，谷歌已经大败了一场。谷歌被指控降低竞争对手在搜索结果中的排名，将自己的商家排在搜索结果的前列，区别对待竞争对手;去年欧盟委员会向谷歌征收€24亿的罚款,要求谷歌平等对待所有竞价网站。 The case that led to this week’s fine carries even more weight, in part because it echoes another famous battle. The commission says that Google is doing pretty much what Microsoft did in the late 1990s: tying together pieces of software to cement its dominance. This case involves Android, Google’s mobile operating system, and all sorts of related software and services, including Google Play, its app store, internet search and a suite of other apps. 本周罚款的案例则更具分量，部分原因是它呼应了另一场众所周知的事件。欧盟委员会表示，谷歌正在做的事情与微软在上世纪90年代末所做的差不多:吞并零散的小软件公司，达成其行业霸主地位。这个案例涉及到谷歌的移动设备操作系统安卓，以及各种相关的软件和服务，涵盖谷歌Play、应用商店、搜索引擎和一系列其他应用。 In essence Google gives smartphone-makers and telecoms operators an all-or-nothing choice: if they want to install any of these programs on their devices, they have to install them all and show the icons in prominent positions. Since firms need at least the app store to make their products commercially viable, they have no choice but to comply. Nor does Google allow them to install competing versions of Android on any of their models. These practices deny “rivals the chance to innovate and compete on the merits” and “consumers the benefits of effective competition,” said Margrethe Vestager, the competition commissioner (pictured above). 本质上，谷歌给智能手机制造商和电信运营商提供的选择是：要么安装全部程序，要么一个程序也别想安装，程序图标也必须出现在屏幕的显著位置。因为商家至少需要应用商店，使他们的产品从商业的角度上有存在的价值，他们别无他法，只能遵从。谷歌不允许他们在任何一种机型上安装安卓的竞争版本。欧盟委员会负责竞争事务的委员玛格丽特·韦斯塔格（Margrethe Vestager）（见上图）表示，这些条款剥夺了“竞争对手创新的机会和按照价值竞争的机会”，剥夺了“消费者享受有效竞争带来的益处”。 Closing arguments 结案陈词 Google has clever ripostes. In the shopping case it argued that it wants to give consumers quick access to relevant information, rather than forcing them to click through to another search engine. Indeed, the commission was widely criticised in that case for failing to show that consumers were denied a superior service as a consequence of Google’s actions. 谷歌对此巧妙地予以反击。在购物搜素反垄断一案中，谷歌反驳称，这是为了帮助消费者快速获取相关信息，而不是强迫他们点击去进入另一个搜索引擎。 事实上，在该案件中，欧盟委员会因未能证明谷歌的行为剥夺了消费者享受优质服务的权利，而受到广泛的批评。 In the Android case the search firm insists that the restrictions are needed to make open-source platforms a success. The needs of everyone who uses them—not just consumers, but developers, device-makers and Google itself—have to be “painstakingly” balanced, in the words of Sundar Pichai, Google’s boss, in a blog post published after the commission’s ruling. The decision, he said, risks tearing apart this healthy open-source ecosystem by causing Android to fragment into incompatible versions and by making it less profitable for Google to invest in the software. 在“安卓案”当中，谷歌坚持认为，要让这些开源平台获得成功，上述限制条款是必不可少的。在欧盟委员会公布其裁决后，谷歌公司老板桑达·皮采（Sundar Pichai）在自己的博客中辩称，这些平台的使用者，不仅仅包括消费者，还包括那些开发者、设备制造商以及谷歌公司自身；必须“苦心孤诣”方能平衡各方的需要。他声称，欧盟委员会的这项决定会导致安卓系统分裂成好几个不兼容的版本，会降低谷歌投资于该软件的利润，从而令这个原本健康的开源生态系统濒临崩溃。 But the commission is on firmer ground. Being the provider of both internet search and of related services, with substantial market shares across the board (see chart), Google will always have an incentive to discriminate against rival offerings, notes Damien Geradin of Tilburg University. And few will sympathise with Mr Pichai’s warning on fragmentation. An open-source ecosystem is tricky to manage, but this does not entitle Google to stymie alternative ecosystems. Rules telling device-makers exactly where to place app icons seem draconian. Their aim, to protect Google’s search service from competition, seems clear. And its restrictions have had an impact, for example in the case of Amazon’s Fire phones, whose failure owed something to Google. 但是，欧盟委员会的立场越发坚定。蒂尔堡大学的达米恩·杰拉丁（Damien Geradin）指出，作为互联网搜索和相关服务的提供商，并在操作系统、网页浏览等各方面拥有巨大的市场份额(见图表)，谷歌总是有动机排挤竞争对手的产品。因此，很少有人会支持皮采先生关于安卓会分裂的警告。开源生态系统管理起来确实比较棘手，但这并不意味着谷歌就有阻止其他替代性生态系统生长的权利。向设备制造商规定放置应用程序图标的确切位置，这规则其实相当严苛；看来，保护谷歌搜索免受竞争的目的表达地相当清晰。与此同时，谷歌的限制条款已经产生了负面影响，举例来说，亚马逊Fire手机的失败某种程度上就归咎于谷歌。 Yet the commission’s remedies still fall far short of reining in Google. In both the shopping and the Android cases, it wants the giant to administer its own poison. “It is Google’s responsibility to bring the infringement to an end,” Ms Vestager said this week. The rationale is that further fines in case of non-compliance—up to 5% of the average daily worldwide revenue of Alphabet, Google’s parent—will lead the firm to do the right thing. Yet Google could well judge that such fines are an acceptable cost of doing business. 但欧盟委员会的补救措施在约束谷歌时仍显得苍白无力。在购物搜索和安卓案中，欧盟委员会想要该巨头自食其恶果。韦斯塔格女士本周表示，“谷歌有义务去终止自己的违法行为”。欧盟委员会的基本原则是，如果不遵守规定，进一步的罚款可高达谷歌母公司Alphabet平均每日全球营收总额的 5%，这会引导谷歌规范其商业行为。然而，谷歌很有可能将这些罚金认定为一笔在商业经营中的成本，予以接受。 Ms Vestager’s approach is certainly not working in the shopping case. In September Google opted for a remedy of the sort that her predecessor, Joaquín Almunia, had rejected: auctioning off the slots for comparison-shopping results on its search engine. So far, the new offering has not attracted many bidders, most probably because they are loth to fork over a big part of their already meagre profits. Only about 6% of slots are now filled by rival offers. 韦斯塔格女士的措施在“购物搜索”案件中显然没有奏效。9月份谷歌选择了已被韦斯塔格前任华金·阿尔穆尼亚（Joaquín Almunia）否决的补救措施：竞价拍卖谷歌搜索结果中的比较购物排名。截至目前，新报价并没有吸引太多的竞价者，极有可能是他们不愿在其已经微薄的利润中再支出一大笔费用。只有6%的排名收到竞争对手的竞价。 At least in the Android case, the remedy seems more straightforward. Google has no choice but to drop the offending restrictions. But given how entrenched its Android ecosystem and most of its apps are, this is unlikely to lead to big changes in the mobile industry. To create more competition, the commission would have to demand tougher, more specific remedies. As it is, Google has every incentive to drag out a cycle involving an insufficient remedy followed by fines, meaning that it will take years to have a meaningful impact. 补救措施在安卓案件上显得比较直接。谷歌别无选择，只能放弃干预限制。但考虑到其安卓生态系统及其大部分应用程序的根深蒂固，整个移动设备行业或许并不会因此而发生巨大变化。为了创造更好的竞争，欧盟委员会将不得不更严格，要求更具体的补救措施。即便如此，谷歌也有充分动机，凭借不充分的补救措施以及罚款，无限拖延下去，这就意味着数年以后实质性的影响才会凸显出现。 Despite the high fines and theatrical press conferences about antitrust, the commission may end up with not much more to show for its actions than trustbusters in America. There, despite lots of tech-bashing rhetoric, officials have shied away from doing anything of note. That many former Google employees worked in the administration of Barack Obama may have contributed to this inertia, but the real reason is America’s forbidding jurisprudence, says William Kovacic of George Washington University, a former FTC chairman. It would be nigh-impossible to get any substantial measures past the courts, which view antitrust interventions suspiciously. 尽管宣布了反垄断高额罚款，召开了颇具戏剧色彩的新闻发布会，欧盟委员会最终执行情况可能尚不如美国反垄断官员的执行情况。官员们尽管发表许多抨击科技垄断的言论，但却不愿意做任何实质性改善措施。前美国联邦贸易委员会主席，乔治华盛顿大学的威廉·科瓦奇奇（William Kovacic）表示，大家或许把这种惰性归咎于那些在奥巴马政府任职的前谷歌雇员，但真正的原因其实是美国令人望而生畏的法理学。这种法理学导致法院几乎不可能通过任何实质性对策，因为法院对反垄断干预持怀疑态度。 And the barriers to action are getting even higher. In June the Supreme Court backed the policy of American Express, a credit-card issuer, of stopping retailers from nudging customers to use cards with lower transaction fees. Regulators, the majority of the court argued, should look at such two-sided business models more broadly: the firm may charge retailers higher fees but it provides cardholders with lots of rewards. In other words, anti-competitive practices in one market may be acceptable if they lead to consumer benefits in another—an argument that Google will certainly make about Android should it ever end up in an American court. 而且，行动的阻碍越来越大。 6月，最高法院支持美国运通（一家信用卡发卡机构）的政策，即阻止零售商逐步引导客户使用交易费较低的信用卡。法院普遍认为，监管机构应该从广泛地角度考虑这种双面商业模式：信用卡公司可能向零售商收取高额费用，但也向持卡人提供更多优惠。换言之，如果一个市场中的反竞争举措能令消费者在另一个市场中得利，那么这项举措或许是值得通过的。因此，如果谷歌最终被告上美国法庭，谷歌一定会提出它之于安卓用户的益处。 翻译组： Li Xia, 女， HR, 经济学人发烧友 Emily，女，金融民工，经济学人粉丝 VeRy，男，电气设计，经济学人爱好者 Andy，企业管理咨询师，经济学人读者 Vambie，女，互联网民工，经济学人粉丝 Roxanne，女，媒体民工，经济学人爱好者 校核组： Li Xia, 女， HR, 经济学人发烧友 Joe,男，阿拉伯语建筑民工，经济学人爱好者 3 观点|评论|思考 本次观点由Very独家奉献 VeRy，男，电气设计，经济学人爱好者 垄断如果只从字面理解大概是由来已久，但反垄断应该是从1890年Sherman Act颁布才“面世”的吧，经过100多年的发展，目前反垄断的使用已经是炉火纯青了，根据各种需要对内或对外使用，或实现经济目的，或实现政治目的。其实无论哪个国家，利用反垄断这个工具达到自己的目的本无可厚非，企业也只有逆来顺受的份，套用时髦的话就是不服井冈山呀。所以我们再来讨论相关的话题意义就不大了。我现在想讨论的是国内的大型国有企业或者部门和反垄断之间的关系。自从反垄断法推出以后，很多困惑就摆在我的眼前，1、为什么两桶油和移动这种垄断企业没人约束，2、为什么香烟限制跨区域销售这种行为明显违背第五章条款却没人过问。 我想归根到底就是处于垄断地位的利益相关方对于对应的政府经济效益十分重要，没有办法自废双手来进行有效的反垄断措施。烟草专卖法案也颁布很多年了，早就不适应现在的经济环境了，虽然国家是试点过多种办法，但是从结果看原因的话还是能够多少看出些端倪，那就是改革阻力重重。烟草的反垄断我还是比较倾向于行政性垄断转变为经济性垄断，至少裁判员和运动员分开了，这种原始的带行政性和强制性的垄断方式已经很少见了，几乎是唯一的了，所谓改革进入深水区，大概就是要攻坚这类改革了。 相对于烟草行业，电信和石油类大概是算比较进步的垄断了，基本上算作是靠提高准入门槛的方式来进行垄断。其实入世那个时候真的是一个破除国内垄断行业的大好时机，可惜一下子要从利益集团手里抢走这么多蛋糕，没人做得到，只好作罢。现在的情况来看很可能被动的开放市场，进行垄断的破除，这又何苦来哉。铁塔公司的成立我觉得是破除电信垄断比较正面的一个方式，现在就能真正看出来三大运营商中联通其实是能力最弱的，所以被拿来进行混改也是咎由自取的事情了。 反垄断的目的我理解大概有两个，一个是有利于消费者，另一个则是增强企业的竞争能力，毕竟国内的大型企业拉出去能够打的几乎没有，都是窝在家里靠着垄断发财致富。希望自己国家的企业能够称霸世界才是大家共同的愿望之一吧（好实在的愿望）！ 4 愿景 小组 现有一经济学人大群,如果您也有兴趣且阅读经济学人半年以上，可联系小编WeChat : foxwulihua。 |
|
|
