![](https://images1.caifuzhongwen.com/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20240816/080027dbedf828291a2d08.jpg)
最近,一名美国法官裁定谷歌(Google)违反了反垄断法,原因是谷歌通过向苹果(Apple)和三星(Samsung)等公司支付数百亿美元,将谷歌搜索设为其设备和浏览器的预装默认选项,来巩固其在网络搜索领域的非法垄断地位。
然而,法官阿米特·梅塔(Amit Mehta)尚未就这一违法行为的解决方案或反垄断术语中的 “补救措施”做出裁决。从理论上讲,法官可能采取相对温和的措施,比如让谷歌与竞争对手共享搜索数据。梅塔可以命令谷歌停止向苹果等设备制造商支付费用。但据彭博社的消息来源称,司法部也在考虑“核选项”:分拆谷歌。
据报道,这可能意味着迫使谷歌剥离其安卓移动操作系统或Chrome浏览器,这两者都是谷歌搜索(超过90%的美国搜索查询的首选工具)占据主导地位的核心所在。据报道,谷歌广告平台的剥离也在考虑之中。
不出所料,谷歌母公司Alphabet的投资者对彭博社的报道反应冷淡。周三上午,股价下跌逾3%,随后略有反弹。
如果不是因为一家大型科技公司的大规模分拆是前所未有的,而且难以想象,股价可能还会进一步下跌。[几年前,英国反垄断监管机构确实迫使Meta放弃了对GIF存储库Giphy的收购,但Giphy(现在归Shutterstock所有)并不是Meta的核心业务。]
不过,大型科技公司分拆的想法并非没有先例。
近25年前,微软(Microsoft)也被认定存在滥用垄断地位的行为——当时是在个人电脑操作系统市场。那时正值网络迅速发展之际,微软违反了反垄断法,将自身的Internet Explorer浏览器与Windows捆绑在一起,以阻碍第三方浏览器的发展,比如马克·安德森(Marc Andreessen)的Netscape Navigator。
地方法院下令将微软拆分为一个Windows部门和一个处理微软其他软件(如Internet Explorer)的独立部门。但微软提出上诉并胜诉,至少在某种程度上,它不再面临分拆作为补救措施的局面;最终,微软在2001年结束了反垄断诉讼:承诺允许制造商在Windows电脑上安装其他操作系统和与微软竞争的软件,而不会进行报复。
微软的侥幸逃脱——部分原因是法官在初审期间发表了不当的公开声明——意味着美国反垄断史上最近一次大型企业拆分案例发生在40多年前,当时电信巨头美国电话电报公司(AT&T)被拆分为一家长途电话运营商和七家所谓的“小贝尔”(Baby Bells)公司。
尽管大型科技公司从未经历过如此大规模的分拆,但时代正在改变。谷歌、苹果和Meta等公司在全球范围内拥有空前的规模和实力,在股市中也扮演着举足轻重的角色,而且有足够的政治意愿来约束它们。美国司法部(DOJ)负责反垄断事务的主管、激进派乔纳森·坎特(Jonathan Kanter)多年来一直主张,解决谷歌涉嫌违规行为的唯一方法是将其分拆——这一立场并未妨碍他在2021年底被任命为负责反垄断事务的助理检察长。
分拆的影响将远远超出山景城的范围
鉴于谷歌预计将对判决提出上诉,谷歌分拆的可能性仍然很低,而且如果维持原判,梅塔法官还将考虑许多不那么严厉的替代补救措施。
但万一梅塔法官同意采取资产剥离的方式,结果将是翻天覆地的。对于目前市值接近2万亿美元的谷歌来说,这将是一场生存危机。
任何直接减少谷歌搜索业务收入的行为——搜索迄今为止仍是该公司最大的摇钱树——都会造成伤害。虽然Chrome浏览器和安卓系统并不是明确的搜索产品,但它们都是与消费者联系的重要纽带:Chrome浏览器占据了全球浏览器市场近三分之二的份额,安卓系统在全球智能手机市场的份额略高。如果其中任何一款产品不再是谷歌的产品,谷歌就无法将消费者引向其赚钱的服务(如搜索广告)。
如果未来的消费科技真像业界所说的那样以人工智能为中心,那么没有安卓系统的谷歌也会发现自己在这一关键领域步履蹒跚。
就在本周,谷歌举行了一场盛大的活动,展示了其最新的硬件产品阵容,其中包括谷歌Pixel智能手机。正如这次活动所表明的那样,这些设备以及更广泛的第三方安卓硬件产品生态系统,是谷歌人工智能雄心最重要的载体——如果没有安卓系统,谷歌显然无法确保数十亿人每天都能与其Gemini驱动的聊天机器人和其他人工智能服务进行互动。(事实上,我们可以想象,谷歌利用安卓系统来推广Gemini,这可能会引发未来美国或其他地方的反垄断诉讼。)
谷歌分拆的影响也会远远超出山景城的范围,因为谷歌及其许多同行也卷入了其他反垄断案件,理论上可能导致类似结果。
美国司法部目前对谷歌提起了另一起诉讼,希望此案能导致谷歌被迫出售部分广告技术业务。美国联邦贸易委员会(The Federal Trade Commission)对Meta提起诉讼,旨在剥离Instagram和WhatsApp。美国联邦贸易委员会还对亚马逊(Amazon)提起了诉讼,一些专家表示,这可能导致这家电子商务巨头的物流服务被剥离。
因此,就其发生的时机而言,谷歌在搜索业务方面的反垄断败诉,最终或许会成为大型科技公司遭受重创的转折点。倘若该公司胜诉,这可能会成为一个先例,表明这些巨头无法被压制。毫无疑问,科技公司希望这一先例能够在未来几十年内吓退监管机构。(财富中文网)
译者:中慧言-王芳
最近,一名美国法官裁定谷歌(Google)违反了反垄断法,原因是谷歌通过向苹果(Apple)和三星(Samsung)等公司支付数百亿美元,将谷歌搜索设为其设备和浏览器的预装默认选项,来巩固其在网络搜索领域的非法垄断地位。
然而,法官阿米特·梅塔(Amit Mehta)尚未就这一违法行为的解决方案或反垄断术语中的 “补救措施”做出裁决。从理论上讲,法官可能采取相对温和的措施,比如让谷歌与竞争对手共享搜索数据。梅塔可以命令谷歌停止向苹果等设备制造商支付费用。但据彭博社的消息来源称,司法部也在考虑“核选项”:分拆谷歌。
据报道,这可能意味着迫使谷歌剥离其安卓移动操作系统或Chrome浏览器,这两者都是谷歌搜索(超过90%的美国搜索查询的首选工具)占据主导地位的核心所在。据报道,谷歌广告平台的剥离也在考虑之中。
不出所料,谷歌母公司Alphabet的投资者对彭博社的报道反应冷淡。周三上午,股价下跌逾3%,随后略有反弹。
如果不是因为一家大型科技公司的大规模分拆是前所未有的,而且难以想象,股价可能还会进一步下跌。[几年前,英国反垄断监管机构确实迫使Meta放弃了对GIF存储库Giphy的收购,但Giphy(现在归Shutterstock所有)并不是Meta的核心业务。]
不过,大型科技公司分拆的想法并非没有先例。
近25年前,微软(Microsoft)也被认定存在滥用垄断地位的行为——当时是在个人电脑操作系统市场。那时正值网络迅速发展之际,微软违反了反垄断法,将自身的Internet Explorer浏览器与Windows捆绑在一起,以阻碍第三方浏览器的发展,比如马克·安德森(Marc Andreessen)的Netscape Navigator。
地方法院下令将微软拆分为一个Windows部门和一个处理微软其他软件(如Internet Explorer)的独立部门。但微软提出上诉并胜诉,至少在某种程度上,它不再面临分拆作为补救措施的局面;最终,微软在2001年结束了反垄断诉讼:承诺允许制造商在Windows电脑上安装其他操作系统和与微软竞争的软件,而不会进行报复。
微软的侥幸逃脱——部分原因是法官在初审期间发表了不当的公开声明——意味着美国反垄断史上最近一次大型企业拆分案例发生在40多年前,当时电信巨头美国电话电报公司(AT&T)被拆分为一家长途电话运营商和七家所谓的“小贝尔”(Baby Bells)公司。
尽管大型科技公司从未经历过如此大规模的分拆,但时代正在改变。谷歌、苹果和Meta等公司在全球范围内拥有空前的规模和实力,在股市中也扮演着举足轻重的角色,而且有足够的政治意愿来约束它们。美国司法部(DOJ)负责反垄断事务的主管、激进派乔纳森·坎特(Jonathan Kanter)多年来一直主张,解决谷歌涉嫌违规行为的唯一方法是将其分拆——这一立场并未妨碍他在2021年底被任命为负责反垄断事务的助理检察长。
分拆的影响将远远超出山景城的范围
鉴于谷歌预计将对判决提出上诉,谷歌分拆的可能性仍然很低,而且如果维持原判,梅塔法官还将考虑许多不那么严厉的替代补救措施。
但万一梅塔法官同意采取资产剥离的方式,结果将是翻天覆地的。对于目前市值接近2万亿美元的谷歌来说,这将是一场生存危机。
任何直接减少谷歌搜索业务收入的行为——搜索迄今为止仍是该公司最大的摇钱树——都会造成伤害。虽然Chrome浏览器和安卓系统并不是明确的搜索产品,但它们都是与消费者联系的重要纽带:Chrome浏览器占据了全球浏览器市场近三分之二的份额,安卓系统在全球智能手机市场的份额略高。如果其中任何一款产品不再是谷歌的产品,谷歌就无法将消费者引向其赚钱的服务(如搜索广告)。
如果未来的消费科技真像业界所说的那样以人工智能为中心,那么没有安卓系统的谷歌也会发现自己在这一关键领域步履蹒跚。
就在本周,谷歌举行了一场盛大的活动,展示了其最新的硬件产品阵容,其中包括谷歌Pixel智能手机。正如这次活动所表明的那样,这些设备以及更广泛的第三方安卓硬件产品生态系统,是谷歌人工智能雄心最重要的载体——如果没有安卓系统,谷歌显然无法确保数十亿人每天都能与其Gemini驱动的聊天机器人和其他人工智能服务进行互动。(事实上,我们可以想象,谷歌利用安卓系统来推广Gemini,这可能会引发未来美国或其他地方的反垄断诉讼。)
谷歌分拆的影响也会远远超出山景城的范围,因为谷歌及其许多同行也卷入了其他反垄断案件,理论上可能导致类似结果。
美国司法部目前对谷歌提起了另一起诉讼,希望此案能导致谷歌被迫出售部分广告技术业务。美国联邦贸易委员会(The Federal Trade Commission)对Meta提起诉讼,旨在剥离Instagram和WhatsApp。美国联邦贸易委员会还对亚马逊(Amazon)提起了诉讼,一些专家表示,这可能导致这家电子商务巨头的物流服务被剥离。
因此,就其发生的时机而言,谷歌在搜索业务方面的反垄断败诉,最终或许会成为大型科技公司遭受重创的转折点。倘若该公司胜诉,这可能会成为一个先例,表明这些巨头无法被压制。毫无疑问,科技公司希望这一先例能够在未来几十年内吓退监管机构。(财富中文网)
译者:中慧言-王芳
Last week, a U.S. judge ruled that Google was breaking antitrust law by paying the likes of Apple and Samsung tens of billions of dollars to shore up its illegal monopoly in web search by making Google Search the preinstalled default option in their devices and browsers.
However, Judge Amit Mehta has yet to rule what the solution—or “remedy” in antitrust-speak—to this lawbreaking should be. In theory, it could be something relatively mild, like making Google share its search data with rival providers. Mehta could order Google to stop paying device-makers like Apple. But according to Bloomberg’s sources, the Justice Department is also considering the nuclear option: breaking up Google.
That could reportedly mean forcing Google to divest its Android mobile operating system or its Chrome browser, both of which are central to the dominance of Google Search—the go-to tool for more than 90% of American search queries. A divestment of the Google Ads platform is reportedly also under consideration.
Unsurprisingly, investors in Google parent Alphabet have not greeted Bloomberg’s report warmly. Shares fell by more than 3% on Wednesday morning, before recovering slightly.
They might have fallen further, were it not for the fact that a wholesale breakup of a Big Tech company would be unprecedented, making it difficult to imagine. (U.K. antitrust regulators did force Meta to unwind its acquisition of the GIF repository Giphy a couple years back, but Giphy—now owned by Shutterstock—wasn’t exactly core to Meta’s business.)
The idea of a Big Tech breakup is not unprecedented, though.
Nearly a quarter-century ago, Microsoft had also been found to be abusing a monopolistic position—in that case, in the market for PC operating systems. It was a time at which the web was taking off, and Microsoft broke antitrust law by bundling its own Internet Explorer bundle with Windows, to stymie the advance of third-party browsers like Marc Andreessen’s Netscape Navigator.
A district court ordered the breakup of Microsoft into a Windows unit and a separate unit that would have handled other Microsoft software, like Internet Explorer. But Microsoft appealed and won, at least to the extent that it no longer faced breakup as a remedy; it ended up settling the antitrust case in 2001 with promises to let manufacturers ship Windows PCs with other operating systems and Microsoft-rivaling software, without retaliation.
Microsoft’s narrow escape—partly the result of improper public statements made by the judge during the initial trial—means that the most recent example in U.S. antitrust history of a major corporate breakup occurred more than 40 years ago, when telco giant AT&T was split into a long-distance carrier and seven so-called Baby Bells.
But, while Big Tech has never had to experience a dismemberment on that scale, times are changing. Companies like Google, Apple, and Meta have unprecedented scale and power on a global level and an outsize role in the stock markets, and there’s plenty of political will to rein them in. Jonathan Kanter, the DOJ’s aggressive antitrust chief, has been arguing for many years that the only way to address Google’s alleged violations is to break it up—a stance that did not hinder his appointment as assistant attorney general for antitrust in late 2021.
The impact of a breakup would resonate far beyond Mountain View
The odds of a Google breakup are still long, given the company’s expected appeal of the ruling, and if the decision is upheld, the many, less-draconian alternative remedies for Judge Mehta to consider.
But in the unlikely event that Judge Mehta agreed to take the divestiture route, the result would be seismic. And for Google, which currently enjoys a market valuation of close to $2 trillion, an existential crisis.
Anything that directly reduces Google’s search revenues—still by far the company’s biggest cash cow—would hurt. While Chrome and Android are not explicitly search products, they each serve as a vital point of connection to consumers: Chrome holds nearly two-thirds of the global browser market, and Android a slightly larger share of the global smartphone market. If either were to cease being a Google product, Google would have less ability to steer consumers to its moneymaking services (like search advertising).
And if the future of consumer tech is nearly as AI-centric as the industry claims, an Android-less Google would also find itself hobbled in this critical arena.
Just yesterday, Google held a splashy event to show off its latest lineup of hardware products, including Google Pixel smartphones. As the event made clear, these devices, as well as the broader ecosystem of third-party Android hardware products, are the most important vehicle for Google’s AI ambitions—without Android, Google has no obvious way to ensure that billions of people get to interact with its Gemini-powered chatbots and other AI services on a daily basis. (Indeed, one can imagine Google’s leverage of Android to promote Gemini being the kind of issue that could inspire a future antitrust suit in the U.S. or elsewhere.)
The impact of a Google breakup would also be felt far beyond Mountain View, as Google and plenty of its peers are also embroiled in other antitrust cases that could theoretically lead to a similar outcome.
The DOJ currently has a separate case against Google that, it hopes, could result in Google having to sell off parts of its ad-tech operations. The Federal Trade Commission has a lawsuit going against Meta that aims for the divestiture of Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC also has a complaint against Amazon that, some experts have suggested, could result in the spinning-off of the e-commerce giant’s logistics services.
So, thanks to its timing, Google’s antitrust loss on the search front could end up being the tipping point for a grand humbling of Big Tech. If the company prevails, it could provide the precedent to demonstrate that these behemoths cannot be cut down to size—a demonstration tech companies no doubt hope would scare off regulators for another couple of decades.