反垄断听证会：微软留给谷歌的四大教训

    1998年，盖茨出席国会听证会，与他同时露面的还有太阳微系统公司（Sun Microsystems）的前首席执行官斯科特•麦克尼利和网景公司（Netscape）前首席执行官吉姆•巴克斯代尔。盖茨需要就微软公司（Microsoft）独占计算机操作系统市场引发的担忧回答质询（当时，微软的Windows平台起码占领了90%的个人电脑）。现在，施密特面临的处境不说完全相同，至少非常相似。作为美国领先的搜索服务供应商，谷歌在美国占据了65%的互联网搜索市场。这一地位最近受到了点评网站Yelp和在线旅游公司Expedia Inc.的抨击。它们指责这家搜索巨头在搜索结果中优先呈现自己的服务，将它们置于Yelp和Expedia的服务之上。如果情况属实，这种做法将会被判作是垄断行为。

    据《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal）报道，谷歌正使尽浑身解数展现自己最好的一面，包括聘请了13家游说与公关公司代表它巡回游说。今天的听证会是否会导致更严格的政府管制？只有时间能回答这个问题。现在可以确定的是，施密特可以从盖茨当年在听证会上的表现中汲取重要的教训：

不要慌乱。

    1998年的那场听证会长达四个多小时，盖茨自始至终保持着冷静自制，对各种挑起争论的问题和尖锐的批评应对自如（质询者大肆抛出像“掠夺性行为”这类说法）。尽管对盖茨总体表现的评论见仁见智，但他始终显得十分自信。镇定也许是审讯室基本知识中最基础的一课，但是对施密特来说，表现得自信自制将是关键。毕竟，没有什么能比俯首帖耳的回答、手足无措的小动作和满头大汗更能具有 “不可信赖”的意味。

不要得意忘形。

    盖茨有充分的理由为其在Windows和Office上的成就而自豪，正是这两者推动微软的市值在20世纪90年代末登上顶峰。即使在其对微软的批评中，参议员奥林•海奇也充分认可这一点，称微软的增长 “激动人心”。但盖茨也许还是应该收敛一下锐气。当时参议员泰德•肯尼迪曾提到时任微软首席运营官鲍勃•赫博德近期的一番话，盖茨傲慢地予以了回应。他说：“当初我决定创建微软时，并没有给IBM打电话问他们：‘IBM，你觉得我还有机会开发一套操作系统，卖出上亿套吗’。因此，如果你问赫博德先生，你能否让微软继续向前，同时打造一套全新的操作系统？如果这就是你决定是否要上马新项目的方式，我得说，你根本不是做大事的企业家。”我的天！

    施密特一向深思熟虑，常常出语温和，他不太可能像盖茨这么张扬。但是，他也曾发表过一些——尽管坦诚实在——却完全属于公关灾难的高论。【比如，他曾对《大西洋月刊》（The Atlantic）称，谷歌公司的隐私权政策直逼令人不快的底线，但却又不会越过雷池。】

表述要直截了当。

    断然否认垄断行为是一回事。但回避独占市场的质询则于事无补，因为这一点对所有与会者来说完全是显而易见的事实。而当时盖茨就犯了这个忌，他辩称，微软的成功并不能归功于个别产品。实际上，盖茨当时的回答大都显得故意含糊其辞，导致参议员海奇怒火中烧，一度称盖茨 “近乎难以对特定问题明确表态”。但对施密特来说，正如任何证据或证词那样，直截了当将是关键。这么做，他不仅将赢得尊重，被视为坦率的人——不管他回答的内容如何——他还将省下每位与会者的宝贵时间。

不可无礼

    盖茨当时在听证会上的表现没能改变当政者的看法。两个月后，微软就遭到反垄断诉讼。此后数年，公司都深受其苦，虽然最终它还是取得了成功。

    1998年11月，一段长达50分钟的证词出现在微软反垄断审判中。这是从盖茨三天的录音证词中截取的片段。在这一片段中，他与美国司法部（U.S. Justice Department）律师大卫•博伊斯针锋相对，纠正他在“备忘录”和电子邮件之间所谓的差异的看法，又要求对方重述先前的问题，并教导博伊斯——此君也并非一直彬彬有礼——如何改进工作。不用说，盖茨此举并未赢得法官的好感，他判决微软必须在一年后分拆成两个独立的公司（该判决最终被推翻）。

    尽管本周的听证会并不意味着谷歌必将受到与微软类似的反垄断审判，但牢记盖茨那些不尽如人意的证词，施密特才能成功应对质询。因为正像盖茨最终认识到的那样，作为一个表现出敌对情绪的证人，只会拖延司法程序的进度，而这一点未必对本人有利。

    译者：清远

    When Google's executive chairman testifies during a Senate hearing on antitrust issues today, he'll be following in the footsteps of another tech titan: Bill Gates.

    In 1998, Gates appeared before Congress alongside ex-Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy and former Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale to address concerns over Microsoft's (MSFT) stranglehold on the computer operating system market. (At the time, Microsoft's Windows platform could be found on at least 90% of all personal computers.) Schmidt is in, if not the same, a similar boat. As the leading U.S. search provider, Google (GOOG) powers 65% of Internet searches domestically, a position that came under fire recently when companies like Yelp and Expedia Inc. (EXPE) accused the Internet giant of prioritizing its own services in search results over Yelp's and Expedia's. If true, such a move could be judged monopolistic.

    According to The Wall Street Journal, Google is doing all it can to put its best face forward, including hiring some 13 lobbying and communications firms to stump on its behalf. Only time will tell, whether today's hearings lead to more robust government action. What's certain is that Schmidt could glom a few vital lessons from Gates' appearance:

Don't sweat it.

    Throughout 1998's four-hour-plus hearing, Gates held his own, fielding argumentative questions and scathing criticism. (Phrases like "predatory practices" were liberally bandied about by questioners.) And while overall the appearance earned mixed reviews, Gates appeared confident throughout. It may be the most elementary lesson in courtroom basics but, for Schmidt, appearing confident and composed will be key. After all, nothing quite screams " untrustworthy" like meek responses, nervous ticks or a sweaty brow.

    1998年的那场听证会长达四个多小时，盖茨自始至终保持着冷静自制，对各种挑起争论的问题和尖锐的批评应对自如（质询者大肆抛出像“掠夺性行为”这类说法）。尽管对盖茨总体表现的评论见仁见智，但他始终显得十分自信。镇定也许是审讯室基本知识中最基础的一课，但是对施密特来说，表现得自信自制将是关键。毕竟，没有什么能比俯首帖耳的回答、手足无措的小动作和满头大汗更能具有 “不可信赖”的意味。

Don't get carried away.

    Gates had every right to be proud of his achievements with Windows and Office, which propelled Microsoft's value into the stratosphere during the late-1990s. Senator Orrin Hatch even acknowledged as much in his criticism, describing Microsoft's growth as "breathtaking." But Gates probably should have still checked his swagger at the door. When Senator Ted Kennedy referred to recent statements made by then-Microsoft COO Bob Herbold, Microsoft's CEO flippantly responded. "When I decided to create Microsoft, I did not call up IBM (IBM) to say: 'IBM, do you think there's any chance for me to create an operating system and sell hundreds of millions of copies,'" Gates began. "So when you ask Mr. Herbold should you take on Microsoft head on and create a new operating system, if that's how you're going to decide whether to do it, I'd suggest you're not the kind of entrepreneur that's going to make that happen." Ouch.

    Thoughtful and often soft-spoken, Schmidt isn't likely to go so operatic. He has, however, made statements in the past that have been -- while honest -- total public relations distaters. (He told The Atlantic, for example, that his company's privacy policy consisted of getting "right up to the creepy line and not cross it.")

Don't mince words.

    It's one thing to emphatically deny monopolistic practices. But deflect questions about your market dominance -- something obvious to everyone in the room -- doesn't help. Such was the case with Gates, who said Microsoft's success couldn't be contributed to any one product. In fact, Gates' responses in general seemed purposely vague, to the point where Senator Hatch grew exasperated and at one time described Gates as "somewhat hard to nail down on a very specific question." As with any testimony or deposition, being direct will be key for Schmidt. Not only will he be respected as a straight shooter -- regardless of the content of his responses -- he'll save everyone's time in the process.

Don't be rude.

    Gates' performance during the hearing didn't sway the powers that be. Two months later, Microsoft was slapped with an antitrust suit, a filing that would plague the company for years even if it eventually came out on top.

    In November 1998, a 50-minute segment from a three-day taped deposition Gates gave, was shown during Microsoft's antitrust trial. In it, he antagonized U.S. Justice Department attorney David Boies, correcting him on the alleged differences between a "memorandum" and an email, asking for prior questions to be restated and instructing Boies -- not always civil himself -- on how to do his job better. Needless to say, Gates' behavior didn't make an admirer out of the judge, who ordered Microsoft a year later to break up into two separate units. (That ruling was eventually overturned.)

    While this week's hearing doesn't necessarily precede an antitrust trial similar to Microsoft's, Google's executive chairman would do well to remember Gates' less-than-stellar deposition, too. Because as Gates eventually realized, being a hostile witness won't do much more than draw out legal proceedings -- and not necessarily in his favor.