Meta公司最近卷入了一場(chǎng)官司,而且它想方設(shè)法不讓公眾看到關(guān)于這起官司的文件。在這件事上,還有一家公司與它站在了同一陣營(yíng),那就是蘋(píng)果公司。
雖然蘋(píng)果和Meta公司在很多方面意見(jiàn)并不一致——比如在商業(yè)規(guī)劃、兒童安全法案以及在硬件等問(wèn)題上。但是歸功于一起官司,這兩家科技巨頭卻如同難兄難弟般,走進(jìn)了同一個(gè)戰(zhàn)壕。近日,Meta公司被指控試圖在社交媒體廣告市場(chǎng)上保持壟斷地位。而就在上周,蘋(píng)果公司的代理律師也敦促負(fù)責(zé)此案的聯(lián)邦法官站隊(duì)Meta一邊,不要讓公眾看到兩份相關(guān)文件。根據(jù)法庭記錄,這兩份文件,一份是蘋(píng)果和Meta之間的“密約”,另一份是與該密約有關(guān)的“附函”。
蘋(píng)果并未提及關(guān)于這兩份文件的任何具體細(xì)節(jié),只是向法庭表示,如在官司中提及蘋(píng)果與Meta之間的服務(wù)整合協(xié)議,“有可能會(huì)在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)上對(duì)蘋(píng)果公司造成損害,因?yàn)樗读吮C芎贤瑮l款,可能會(huì)讓競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手在與蘋(píng)果談判或競(jìng)爭(zhēng)時(shí)獲得不公平的優(yōu)勢(shì)?!倍诹硪环菸募校琈eta也表示了大致相同的觀點(diǎn)。
蘋(píng)果與其他科技公司的合作細(xì)節(jié)一向是嚴(yán)格保密的,只是偶爾會(huì)通過(guò)法定程序公諸于眾。比如眾所周知,谷歌每年都會(huì)向蘋(píng)果支付200億美元,以便讓谷歌搜索繼續(xù)作為iPhone手機(jī)的默認(rèn)搜索引擎。
Meta和蘋(píng)果之間的保密合同,有可能涵蓋了兩家公司之間買賣數(shù)據(jù)的具體數(shù)字或商業(yè)條款。本案中的其他文件則間接提到了Meta與蘋(píng)果之間的API合同的一些爭(zhēng)端。API是指一款應(yīng)用程序的編程接口,應(yīng)用和平臺(tái)檢索數(shù)據(jù)都要通過(guò)API。一個(gè)平臺(tái)的API訪問(wèn)權(quán),往往會(huì)作為一項(xiàng)工具,賣給需要獲取用戶信息的營(yíng)銷人員或者研究人員。
本案的原告是Meta的一群廣告客戶,他們聲稱,由于Meta在社交媒體廣告市場(chǎng)上占據(jù)了壟斷地位,導(dǎo)致他們被收取了過(guò)高的費(fèi)用。原告聲稱,Meta與蘋(píng)果有關(guān)的交易文件不應(yīng)繼續(xù)保密,該公司的其他相關(guān)文件證據(jù)也應(yīng)向社會(huì)公開(kāi),但這些證據(jù)現(xiàn)在都被封存起來(lái)了,公眾是看不到的。目前,本案涉及的公司郵件、內(nèi)部聊天記錄和高管的證詞,包括聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人、首席執(zhí)行官馬克·扎克伯格的證詞,都還處于保密狀態(tài)。目前公布的一些公司內(nèi)部的對(duì)話片段顯示,Meta曾試圖獲取競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的用戶數(shù)據(jù),甚至想要克隆一些競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的APP(比如Snapchat)。
在此之前,Meta和蘋(píng)果之間的具體業(yè)務(wù)往來(lái)從未被公開(kāi)過(guò)。最近該公司的提交的一份去年的聽(tīng)證會(huì)記錄顯示,負(fù)責(zé)此案的法官裁定,此案中關(guān)于蘋(píng)果公司的部分,最多只能查到跟ATT有關(guān)的交易——ATT即蘋(píng)果開(kāi)發(fā)的應(yīng)用透明度跟蹤功能。這是蘋(píng)果2022年推出的一項(xiàng)功能,它允許用戶自愿退出Facebook和Instagram等跟蹤其網(wǎng)絡(luò)使用情況的APP。它一度也給Meta龐大的廣告業(yè)務(wù)造成了不少?zèng)_擊。
Meta公司的發(fā)言人拒絕對(duì)此事發(fā)表評(píng)論,只是堅(jiān)稱,該公司與蘋(píng)果的合同不包含任何反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的內(nèi)容。
我們向蘋(píng)果公司發(fā)郵件請(qǐng)求置評(píng),但蘋(píng)果公司的代表也并未做出回應(yīng)。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:樸成奎
Meta公司最近卷入了一場(chǎng)官司,而且它想方設(shè)法不讓公眾看到關(guān)于這起官司的文件。在這件事上,還有一家公司與它站在了同一陣營(yíng),那就是蘋(píng)果公司。
雖然蘋(píng)果和Meta公司在很多方面意見(jiàn)并不一致——比如在商業(yè)規(guī)劃、兒童安全法案以及在硬件等問(wèn)題上。但是歸功于一起官司,這兩家科技巨頭卻如同難兄難弟般,走進(jìn)了同一個(gè)戰(zhàn)壕。近日,Meta公司被指控試圖在社交媒體廣告市場(chǎng)上保持壟斷地位。而就在上周,蘋(píng)果公司的代理律師也敦促負(fù)責(zé)此案的聯(lián)邦法官站隊(duì)Meta一邊,不要讓公眾看到兩份相關(guān)文件。根據(jù)法庭記錄,這兩份文件,一份是蘋(píng)果和Meta之間的“密約”,另一份是與該密約有關(guān)的“附函”。
蘋(píng)果并未提及關(guān)于這兩份文件的任何具體細(xì)節(jié),只是向法庭表示,如在官司中提及蘋(píng)果與Meta之間的服務(wù)整合協(xié)議,“有可能會(huì)在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)上對(duì)蘋(píng)果公司造成損害,因?yàn)樗读吮C芎贤瑮l款,可能會(huì)讓競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手在與蘋(píng)果談判或競(jìng)爭(zhēng)時(shí)獲得不公平的優(yōu)勢(shì)?!倍诹硪环菸募?,Meta也表示了大致相同的觀點(diǎn)。
蘋(píng)果與其他科技公司的合作細(xì)節(jié)一向是嚴(yán)格保密的,只是偶爾會(huì)通過(guò)法定程序公諸于眾。比如眾所周知,谷歌每年都會(huì)向蘋(píng)果支付200億美元,以便讓谷歌搜索繼續(xù)作為iPhone手機(jī)的默認(rèn)搜索引擎。
Meta和蘋(píng)果之間的保密合同,有可能涵蓋了兩家公司之間買賣數(shù)據(jù)的具體數(shù)字或商業(yè)條款。本案中的其他文件則間接提到了Meta與蘋(píng)果之間的API合同的一些爭(zhēng)端。API是指一款應(yīng)用程序的編程接口,應(yīng)用和平臺(tái)檢索數(shù)據(jù)都要通過(guò)API。一個(gè)平臺(tái)的API訪問(wèn)權(quán),往往會(huì)作為一項(xiàng)工具,賣給需要獲取用戶信息的營(yíng)銷人員或者研究人員。
本案的原告是Meta的一群廣告客戶,他們聲稱,由于Meta在社交媒體廣告市場(chǎng)上占據(jù)了壟斷地位,導(dǎo)致他們被收取了過(guò)高的費(fèi)用。原告聲稱,Meta與蘋(píng)果有關(guān)的交易文件不應(yīng)繼續(xù)保密,該公司的其他相關(guān)文件證據(jù)也應(yīng)向社會(huì)公開(kāi),但這些證據(jù)現(xiàn)在都被封存起來(lái)了,公眾是看不到的。目前,本案涉及的公司郵件、內(nèi)部聊天記錄和高管的證詞,包括聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人、首席執(zhí)行官馬克·扎克伯格的證詞,都還處于保密狀態(tài)。目前公布的一些公司內(nèi)部的對(duì)話片段顯示,Meta曾試圖獲取競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的用戶數(shù)據(jù),甚至想要克隆一些競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的APP(比如Snapchat)。
在此之前,Meta和蘋(píng)果之間的具體業(yè)務(wù)往來(lái)從未被公開(kāi)過(guò)。最近該公司的提交的一份去年的聽(tīng)證會(huì)記錄顯示,負(fù)責(zé)此案的法官裁定,此案中關(guān)于蘋(píng)果公司的部分,最多只能查到跟ATT有關(guān)的交易——ATT即蘋(píng)果開(kāi)發(fā)的應(yīng)用透明度跟蹤功能。這是蘋(píng)果2022年推出的一項(xiàng)功能,它允許用戶自愿退出Facebook和Instagram等跟蹤其網(wǎng)絡(luò)使用情況的APP。它一度也給Meta龐大的廣告業(yè)務(wù)造成了不少?zèng)_擊。
Meta公司的發(fā)言人拒絕對(duì)此事發(fā)表評(píng)論,只是堅(jiān)稱,該公司與蘋(píng)果的合同不包含任何反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的內(nèi)容。
我們向蘋(píng)果公司發(fā)郵件請(qǐng)求置評(píng),但蘋(píng)果公司的代表也并未做出回應(yīng)。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:樸成奎
Meta has an unlikely ally in its efforts to keep company documents involved in a lawsuit out of public view: Apple.
Although the two tech giants are most often at odds, be it over business plans, child safety laws, or hardware efforts, an ongoing lawsuit against Meta accusing it of actively maintaining a monopoly in the social media advertising market has made courtroom bedfellows of the pair. Last week, lawyers for Apple urged the federal judge overseeing the case to side with Meta in its attempt to continue keeping from public view two documents. One is a “confidential” contract between Apple and Meta, the other is a “side letter” relating to that agreement, according to court records.
Apple does not mention any specific details about either of the documents, but told the court that references to a services integration agreement with Meta “may result in competitive harm to Apple, as it reveals confidential contract terms, which could give a competitor or potential business partner unfair leverage in competing against or negotiating with Apple.” In a separate filing, Meta argued much the same.
Specifics of Apple’s partnerships and deals with other tech companies are closely guarded secrets that occasionally become public through legal proceedings, like the $20 billon a year it is paid by Google in order to keep the search engine the default on iPhones.
It’s possible that the sealed contract between Meta and Apple includes specific figures or business terms for the buying or selling of data between the two companies. Other documents in the case pertaining to the sealing dispute allude to an API contract between Meta and Apple. An API, or application programming interface, is how apps and platforms retrieve data. Access to a platform API is often sold as a tool to marketers or researchers in need of user information.
Plaintiffs in the case, a proposed class of Meta advertisers who claim they were overcharged given Meta’s ill-gotten dominance in the social media ads market, have argued that the documents pertaining to Meta’s dealings with Apple should not remain under seal, nor should numerous other documents and vast portions of depositions and items of discovery that are currently under seal and hidden from public view. Corporate emails, internal company chat messages and executive depositions, including that of co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are all currently under seal in the case. Snippets of internal conversations that have been unsealed so far have shown Meta’s efforts to get competitor user data and clone rival apps like Snapchat.
Specific business dealings between Meta and Apple have never been made public before. In a recently filed transcript of a hearing from last year, the judge overseeing the case decided that the only information that could be sought regarding Apple in the case was with regard to any internal Meta discussions or dealings around ATT, or app tracking transparency, an Apple prompt that arrived in 2022 allowing users to opt-out of apps like Facebook and Instagram tracking their usage across the web. It took a bite out of Meta’s massive ads business for a time.
A spokesperson for Meta declined to comment beyond maintaining that the contract with Apple at issue in the case does not contain anything anticompetitive.
Representatives for Apple did not respond to an email seeking comment.