【中美创新时报2024 年 8 月 6 日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）一名联邦法官周一裁定，谷歌非法维持在线搜索垄断，这一具有里程碑意义的裁决打击了科技巨头在现代互联网时代的权力，并可能从根本上改变他们的经营方式。《纽约时报》大卫·麦凯布（David McCabe)对此作了下述报道。
美国哥伦比亚特区地方法院法官阿米特·P·梅塔在一份长达 277 页的裁决中表示，谷歌滥用了对搜索业务的垄断。司法部和各州起诉谷歌，指控其非法巩固其主导地位，部分原因是每年向苹果和三星等其他公司支付数十亿美元，让谷歌自动处理其智能手机和网络浏览器上的搜索查询。
“谷歌是垄断者，它一直以垄断者的身份维持其垄断地位，”梅塔在裁决中表示。
这项裁决是对大型科技公司的崛起的严厉判决，这些公司利用其在互联网上的根基影响我们购物、消费信息和在线搜索的方式——并表明大型科技公司的权力可能有限。它可能会影响政府针对谷歌、苹果、亚马逊和 Facebook、Instagram 和 WhatsApp 所有者 Meta 的其他反垄断诉讼。上一次针对科技公司的重大反垄断裁决是在二十多年前针对微软的。
“这是本世纪最重要的反垄断案，也是针对大型科技公司的一系列案件中的第一起，”范德堡大学法学院研究反垄断的教授丽贝卡·霍·艾伦斯沃思 (Rebecca Haw Allensworth) 表示。“这是一个巨大的转折点。”
这项裁决对谷歌来说是一个重大打击，谷歌建立在搜索引擎的基础上，与在线搜索联系如此紧密，以至于它的名字已经成为一个动词。这项裁决可能会对谷歌的成功产生重大影响，尤其是当该公司在人工智能竞赛中投入巨资时。谷歌还面临另一起有关广告技术的联邦反垄断案，该案定于下个月开庭审理。
周一的裁决没有包括对谷歌行为的补救措施。梅塔现在将对此作出决定，这可能会迫使该公司改变运营方式或出售部分业务。
梅塔的裁决结束了一桩持续数年的案件——美国等诉谷歌——去年进行了为期 10 周的审判。 2020 年，美国司法部和各州起诉谷歌，指控其在在线搜索领域占据主导地位，在线搜索每年产生数十亿美元的利润。美国司法部表示，谷歌的搜索引擎进行了近 90% 的网络搜索，但谷歌对这一数字提出异议。
该公司每年花费数十亿美元成为苹果 Safari 和 Mozilla Firefox 等浏览器的自动搜索引擎。据《纽约时报》报道，谷歌在 2021 年向苹果支付了约 180 亿美元，作为默认搜索引擎。
“这一具有里程碑意义的裁决要求谷歌承担责任，”美国司法部反垄断高级官员乔纳森·坎特 (Jonathan Kanter) 在一份声明中表示。“它为子孙后代的创新铺平了道路，并保护了所有美国人的信息获取权。”
谷歌全球事务总裁肯特·沃克 (Kent Walker) 表示，该公司将对裁决提出上诉。
“这一裁决承认谷歌提供了最好的搜索引擎，但结论是，我们不应该被允许轻易获得它，”他说。 “随着这一进程的继续，我们将继续专注于制造人们觉得有用且易于使用的产品。”
在审判期间，微软首席执行官萨蒂亚·纳德拉作证说，他担心竞争对手的主导地位创造了一个“谷歌网络”，并且其与苹果的关系是“寡头垄断的”。他说，如果谷歌继续不屈不挠，它很可能会在开发人工智能的竞赛中占据主导地位。
谷歌首席执行官桑达尔·皮查伊在证词中反驳说，谷歌为消费者创造了更好的服务。
该公司的律师表示，用户选择在谷歌上搜索是因为他们觉得它有用，而且该公司一直在投资使其变得更好。
“谷歌获胜是因为它更好，”谷歌首席法庭律师约翰·施密特林在几个月后（5 月）举行的结案陈词中说道。
政府认为，谷歌花费数十亿美元成为消费者设备上的自动搜索引擎，剥夺了竞争对手建立与其搜索引擎竞争所需规模的机会。相反，谷歌收集了更多有关消费者的数据，并利用这些数据使其搜索引擎变得更好、更具主导地位。
梅塔站在政府一边，称谷歌垄断了一般的在线搜索服务。该公司与设备和网络浏览器达成的协议损害了竞争，使竞争对手更难挑战谷歌的主导地位。
梅塔写道，十多年来，这些协议“让谷歌获得了竞争对手无法比拟的规模”。
政府还指责谷歌保护对搜索结果内广告的垄断。政府律师表示，谷歌将广告价格提高到了自由市场应有的水平之上，他们认为这是该公司权力的标志。搜索广告每年为谷歌带来数十亿美元的收入。
梅塔裁定，谷歌的垄断使其能够抬高某些搜索广告的价格。他说，这反过来又让该公司有更多资金来支付其搜索引擎的黄金排名。
“不受限制的价格上涨推动了谷歌的收入大幅增长，并使其保持了高且非常稳定的营业利润，”他在裁决中表示。
梅塔在一些较小的诉讼中裁定谷歌胜诉。谷歌为广告商提供了许多工具，其中包括一种用于管理不同搜索引擎上广告的工具。州检察长在审判期间辩称，谷歌非法将微软的搜索引擎必应排除在这些工具之外。但梅塔驳回了他们的主张。
法律学者预计，这一决定将影响政府对其他科技巨头的反垄断诉讼。所有这些调查都是由联邦贸易委员会和司法部进行的，始于特朗普政府时期，并在总统乔·拜登执政期间升级。
司法部起诉了苹果，称该公司让消费者难以放弃 iPhone，并对谷歌提起了另一起诉讼。美国联邦贸易委员会还分别起诉了 Meta，称该公司打压了新兴竞争对手，并起诉了亚马逊，指控其在其在线市场上压榨卖家。
通过这些案件，政府正在测试 100 年前的法律，这些法律最初用于控制公用事业和其他垄断公司，如标准石油公司。
前联邦贸易委员会主席威廉·科瓦西奇 (William Kovacic) 表示，政府的胜利为其更广泛地利用反垄断法打击美国企业提供了可信度。
“这为他们的其他案件创造了动力，”他在 6 月的一次采访中说。
谷歌还在欧洲面临反垄断审查，去年欧洲官员指控该公司破坏了在线广告领域的竞争对手。
美国法院对科技反垄断案的最新重大裁决——司法部 1990 年代对微软的诉讼——也给谷歌的论点蒙上了阴影。梅塔一再敦促律师解释针对谷歌的案件的具体情况如何符合法律先例。
微软反垄断案指控这家科技巨头采取了欺凌行业合作伙伴和利用其数字平台的受欢迎程度（用户通常不会从该平台转移）等做法来扼杀竞争。
一名地区法院法官最初在大多数可能违反反垄断法的指控上裁定微软败诉，并下令拆分该公司，但上诉法院推翻了其中一些判决。乔治·W·布什总统的政府于 2001 年与该公司达成和解。
本文最初发表于《纽约时报》。
题图：这一裁决对谷歌是一个重大打击，谷歌建立在其搜索引擎之上，与在线搜索联系如此紧密，以至于它的名字已经成为一个动词。Jeff Chiu/美联社
附原英文报道：
‘Google is a monopolist,’ judge rules in landmark antitrust case
By David McCabe New York Times,Updated August 6, 2024
The decision is a major blow to Google, which was built on its search engine and has become so closely associated with online search that its name has become a verb.Jeff Chiu/Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search, a federal judge ruled Monday, a landmark decision that strikes at the power of tech giants in the modern internet era and that may fundamentally alter the way they do business.
Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in a 277-page ruling that Google had abused a monopoly over the search business. The Justice Department and states had sued Google, accusing it of illegally cementing its dominance, in part, by paying other companies, such as Apple and Samsung, billions of dollars a year to have Google automatically handle search queries on their smartphones and web browsers.
“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta said in his ruling.
The ruling is a harsh verdict on the rise of giant technology companies that have used their roots in the internet to influence the way we shop, consume information and search online — and indicates a potential limit of Big Tech’s power. It is likely to influence other government antitrust lawsuits against Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The last significant antitrust ruling against a tech company targeted Microsoft more than two decades ago.
“This is the most important antitrust case of the century, and it’s the first of a big slate of cases to come down against Big Tech,” said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt University’s law school who studies antitrust. “It’s a huge turning point.”
The decision is a major blow to Google, which was built on its search engine and has become so closely associated with online search that its name has become a verb. The ruling could have major ramifications for Google’s success, especially as the company spends heavily to compete in the race over artificial intelligence. Google faces another federal antitrust case over ad technology that is scheduled to go to trial next month.
Monday’s ruling did not include remedies for Google’s behavior. Mehta will now decide that, potentially forcing the company to change the way it runs or to sell off part of its business.
Mehta’s ruling capped a yearslong case — U.S. et al. v. Google — that resulted in a 10-week trial last year. The Justice Department and states sued in 2020 over Google’s dominance in online search, which generates billions in profits annually. The Justice Department said Google’s search engine conducted nearly 90% of web searches, a number the company disputed.
The company spends billions of dollars annually to be the automatic search engine on browsers such as Apple’s Safari and Mozilla’s Firefox. Google paid Apple about $18 billion for being the default in 2021, The New York Times has reported.
“This landmark decision holds Google accountable,” Jonathan Kanter, the top Justice Department antitrust official, said in a statement. “It paves the path for innovation for generations to come and protects access to information for all Americans.”
Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, said the company would appeal the ruling.
“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” he said. “As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”
During the trial, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified that he was concerned that his competitor’s dominance had created a “Google web” and that its relationship with Apple was “oligopolistic.” If Google continued undeterred, it was likely to become dominant in the race to develop AI, he said.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai countered in his testimony that Google created a better service for consumers.
Users choose to search on Google because they find it useful, and the company has continued to invest to make it better, the company’s lawyers said.
“Google is winning because it’s better,” John Schmidtlein, Google’s lead courtroom lawyer, said during closing arguments, which were held months later, in May.
The government argued that by paying billions of dollars to be the automatic search engine on consumer devices, Google had denied its competitors the opportunity to build the scale required to compete with its search engine. Instead, Google collected more data about consumers that it used to make its search engine better and more dominant.
Mehta sided with the government, saying Google had a monopoly over general online search services. The company’s agreements to be the automatic search engine on devices and web browsers hurt competition, making it harder for rivals to challenge Google’s dominance.
For more than a decade, those agreements “have given Google access to scale that its rivals cannot match,” Mehta wrote.
The government also accused Google of protecting a monopoly over the ads that run inside search results. Government lawyers said Google had raised the price of ads beyond the rates that should exist in a free market, which they argued was a sign of the company’s power. Search ads provide billions of dollars in annual revenue for Google.
Mehta ruled that Google’s monopoly allowed it to inflate the prices for some search ads. That, in turn, gave the company more money to pay for its search engine to get prime placement, he said.
“Unconstrained price increases have fueled Google’s dramatic revenue growth and allowed it to maintain high and remarkably stable operating profits,” he said in the ruling.
Mehta ruled in Google’s favor on some lesser claims. Google offers advertisers many tools, including one that they use to manage advertising on different search engines. State attorneys general argued during the trial that Google had illegally excluded Microsoft’s search engine, Bing, from aspects of those tools. But Mehta ruled against their claim.
Legal scholars expect this decision to influence government antitrust lawsuits against the other tech giants. All of those investigations, conducted by the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, began during the Trump administration and have ramped up under President Joe Biden.
The Justice Department has sued Apple, arguing that the company made it difficult for consumers to ditch the iPhone, and brought the other case against Google. The FTC has separately sued Meta, claiming the company stamped out nascent competitors, and Amazon, accusing it of squeezing sellers on its online marketplace.
With those cases, the government is testing 100-year-old laws originally used to rein in utility and other monopolistic companies such as Standard Oil.
A victory for the government provides credibility for its broader attempt to use antitrust laws to take aim at corporate America, said William Kovacic, a former chair of the FTC.
“It creates momentum that supports their other cases,” he said in an interview in June.
Google has also faced antitrust scrutiny in Europe, where officials charged the company last year with undermining rivals in online advertising.
The last major U.S. court ruling on a tech antitrust case — in the Justice Department’s 1990s lawsuit against Microsoft — cast its own shadow over the Google arguments. Mehta repeatedly pressed lawyers to explain how the specifics of the case against Google could fit into the legal precedents.
The Microsoft antitrust case alleged that the tech giant combined practices such as bullying industry partners and leveraging the popularity of its digital platform, from which users typically didn’t switch, to stifle competition.
A district court judge initially ruled against Microsoft on most counts of possible antitrust violations and ordered a breakup of the company, but an appeals court reversed some of those decisions. President George W. Bush’s administration settled with the company in 2001.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
