上周,美國司法部對谷歌發(fā)起反壟斷訴訟,各方對此事件反應(yīng)不一,但均認(rèn)同這起反壟斷案件或需數(shù)年時間方可塵埃落定。造成這種局面的原因有很多,比如案情較為復(fù)雜、谷歌擁有雄厚的法律資源、司法程序冗長緩慢等等。不過重要的是,在可以預(yù)見的未來,這家搜索引擎巨頭仍然能夠照常開展業(yè)務(wù)。
并非所有人都對這種局面感到滿意。正如《紐約時報》(New York Times)報道的那樣,從法學(xué)教授到前監(jiān)管官員,越來越多的意見領(lǐng)袖開始呼吁政府推出新的監(jiān)管方法。在他們看來,現(xiàn)行反壟斷法太過拖沓,政府應(yīng)該設(shè)立全新機(jī)構(gòu),對蘋果(Apple)、Facebook、谷歌(Google)、微軟(Microsoft)以及亞馬遜(Amazon)等科技巨頭進(jìn)行監(jiān)管?!都~約時報》報道節(jié)選如下:
“他們表示,政府需要啟用反應(yīng)更為敏捷的監(jiān)管方式,比如設(shè)立專門監(jiān)管大型科技企業(yè)的專職監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu),設(shè)置并執(zhí)行一套基本行為準(zhǔn)則,禁止企業(yè)偏袒自己旗下公司、排斥競爭對手或收購新興競爭對手,要求企業(yè)允許競爭對手以合理的條件使用其平臺與數(shù)據(jù)。”
正如《紐約時報》所指出的那樣,設(shè)置專職監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)專門監(jiān)管某些行業(yè)或企業(yè)的做法其實不算新鮮。比如,在航空公司監(jiān)管方面,有聯(lián)邦航空管理局(Federal Aviation Administration);在制藥企業(yè)監(jiān)管方面,有食品與藥品管理局(Food and Drug Administration),在AT&T和威瑞森(Verizon)等公司監(jiān)管方面,有聯(lián)邦通信委員會(Federal Communications Commission)。此外,政府也在根據(jù)規(guī)模對特定的金融機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行特殊監(jiān)管。
哈佛大學(xué)(Harvard University)的教授杰森·福爾曼也支持設(shè)置專職監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)對大型科技企業(yè)進(jìn)行監(jiān)管,他也在與英國政府合作,就新設(shè)數(shù)字公用事業(yè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)向后者提供咨詢建議。福爾曼稱自己是個“準(zhǔn)保守派”,《紐約時報》指出,他與其他主張設(shè)立新監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的人士都算不上所謂的“進(jìn)步煽動者”。
當(dāng)然,這些科技巨頭從未離開過監(jiān)管部門的管控。美國聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(Federal Trade Commission)擁有一支精干的技術(shù)團(tuán)隊,曾經(jīng)多次針對Facebook、谷歌和其他公司的各種不當(dāng)行為(包括侵犯隱私)發(fā)起調(diào)查。話雖如此,聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會似乎仍然缺乏能夠強(qiáng)制科技企業(yè)遵守相關(guān)規(guī)定的法律工具。"同意法令"是該委員會的主要工具,而根據(jù)該法令,如果企業(yè)為初犯,則不得對其加以罰款,此外,企業(yè)違反相關(guān)法令的代價也較小,處罰力度無法促使企業(yè)改變自己的違法行為。
因此,新設(shè)靈活、專業(yè)的監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)可能正是防止科技巨頭濫用自己壟斷地位的可靠工具。但也不是所有人都贊同這一想法。福特漢姆大學(xué)(Fordham University)的法學(xué)教授、科技評論界意見領(lǐng)袖澤福·蒂奇奧特就警告稱,那些鼓吹新設(shè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的人可能另有目的:
鼓吹新設(shè)專職科技企業(yè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)而非反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)的專家名單如下:
福爾曼,臭名昭著的新自由主義者、沃爾瑪?shù)闹С终摺?/p>
莫頓,為亞馬遜與蘋果公司提供有償咨詢服務(wù)。
吉梅爾曼,供職于PK(受大型科技企業(yè)資助)
——澤?!さ倨鎶W特(@ZephyrTeachout),2020年10月22日
蒂奇奧特繼續(xù)指出,大型科技監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的權(quán)限范圍將會難以界定,而且此類機(jī)構(gòu)很容易被強(qiáng)大的科技說客所左右(許多人聲稱,在737 Max空難發(fā)生之后,聯(lián)邦航空管理局就受到了說客的影響)。
該提議的其他批評者還聲稱,只要政治領(lǐng)袖愿意使用,反壟斷法就能夠成為行之有效的工具:
反壟斷法之所以沒有發(fā)揮作用是因為在過去40年一直被束之高閣?。ǎ。。?/p>
感謝西西里尼議員等領(lǐng)袖,讓我們看到了“反壟斷法+監(jiān)管”對恢復(fù)公平競爭和民主本身的重要性。
——莎拉·米勒 (@sarahmillerdc) ,2020年10月22日
上述推文提及了民主黨眾議員大衛(wèi)·西西里尼,他曾經(jīng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)起草了一份針對大型科技企業(yè)反競爭行為的里程碑式報告,西西里尼還在上周呼吁要給反壟斷領(lǐng)域“執(zhí)法不力的時代”劃上句號。
不過也有其他人對新設(shè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的想法表示了贊賞。GMF Digital是一家頗具影響力的政策團(tuán)體,其高管卡倫·科恩布盧赫指出,上述呼吁與她最近參與編寫的報告結(jié)論不謀而合。該報告稱,政府需要設(shè)置新型監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)來審查大型科技公司濫用壟斷地位行為。
不過,是否設(shè)置大型科技企業(yè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)最終還是要由國會決定,而國會目前并無太多推動這項工作的動力。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
上周,美國司法部對谷歌發(fā)起反壟斷訴訟,各方對此事件反應(yīng)不一,但均認(rèn)同這起反壟斷案件或需數(shù)年時間方可塵埃落定。造成這種局面的原因有很多,比如案情較為復(fù)雜、谷歌擁有雄厚的法律資源、司法程序冗長緩慢等等。不過重要的是,在可以預(yù)見的未來,這家搜索引擎巨頭仍然能夠照常開展業(yè)務(wù)。
并非所有人都對這種局面感到滿意。正如《紐約時報》(New York Times)報道的那樣,從法學(xué)教授到前監(jiān)管官員,越來越多的意見領(lǐng)袖開始呼吁政府推出新的監(jiān)管方法。在他們看來,現(xiàn)行反壟斷法太過拖沓,政府應(yīng)該設(shè)立全新機(jī)構(gòu),對蘋果(Apple)、Facebook、谷歌(Google)、微軟(Microsoft)以及亞馬遜(Amazon)等科技巨頭進(jìn)行監(jiān)管?!都~約時報》報道節(jié)選如下:
“他們表示,政府需要啟用反應(yīng)更為敏捷的監(jiān)管方式,比如設(shè)立專門監(jiān)管大型科技企業(yè)的專職監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu),設(shè)置并執(zhí)行一套基本行為準(zhǔn)則,禁止企業(yè)偏袒自己旗下公司、排斥競爭對手或收購新興競爭對手,要求企業(yè)允許競爭對手以合理的條件使用其平臺與數(shù)據(jù)?!?/p>
正如《紐約時報》所指出的那樣,設(shè)置專職監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)專門監(jiān)管某些行業(yè)或企業(yè)的做法其實不算新鮮。比如,在航空公司監(jiān)管方面,有聯(lián)邦航空管理局(Federal Aviation Administration);在制藥企業(yè)監(jiān)管方面,有食品與藥品管理局(Food and Drug Administration),在AT&T和威瑞森(Verizon)等公司監(jiān)管方面,有聯(lián)邦通信委員會(Federal Communications Commission)。此外,政府也在根據(jù)規(guī)模對特定的金融機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行特殊監(jiān)管。
哈佛大學(xué)(Harvard University)的教授杰森·福爾曼也支持設(shè)置專職監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)對大型科技企業(yè)進(jìn)行監(jiān)管,他也在與英國政府合作,就新設(shè)數(shù)字公用事業(yè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)向后者提供咨詢建議。福爾曼稱自己是個“準(zhǔn)保守派”,《紐約時報》指出,他與其他主張設(shè)立新監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的人士都算不上所謂的“進(jìn)步煽動者”。
當(dāng)然,這些科技巨頭從未離開過監(jiān)管部門的管控。美國聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(Federal Trade Commission)擁有一支精干的技術(shù)團(tuán)隊,曾經(jīng)多次針對Facebook、谷歌和其他公司的各種不當(dāng)行為(包括侵犯隱私)發(fā)起調(diào)查。話雖如此,聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會似乎仍然缺乏能夠強(qiáng)制科技企業(yè)遵守相關(guān)規(guī)定的法律工具。"同意法令"是該委員會的主要工具,而根據(jù)該法令,如果企業(yè)為初犯,則不得對其加以罰款,此外,企業(yè)違反相關(guān)法令的代價也較小,處罰力度無法促使企業(yè)改變自己的違法行為。
因此,新設(shè)靈活、專業(yè)的監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)可能正是防止科技巨頭濫用自己壟斷地位的可靠工具。但也不是所有人都贊同這一想法。福特漢姆大學(xué)(Fordham University)的法學(xué)教授、科技評論界意見領(lǐng)袖澤?!さ倨鎶W特就警告稱,那些鼓吹新設(shè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的人可能另有目的:
鼓吹新設(shè)專職科技企業(yè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)而非反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)的專家名單如下:
福爾曼,臭名昭著的新自由主義者、沃爾瑪?shù)闹С终摺?/p>
莫頓,為亞馬遜與蘋果公司提供有償咨詢服務(wù)。
吉梅爾曼,供職于PK(受大型科技企業(yè)資助)
——澤?!さ倨鎶W特(@ZephyrTeachout),2020年10月22日
蒂奇奧特繼續(xù)指出,大型科技監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的權(quán)限范圍將會難以界定,而且此類機(jī)構(gòu)很容易被強(qiáng)大的科技說客所左右(許多人聲稱,在737 Max空難發(fā)生之后,聯(lián)邦航空管理局就受到了說客的影響)。
該提議的其他批評者還聲稱,只要政治領(lǐng)袖愿意使用,反壟斷法就能夠成為行之有效的工具:
反壟斷法之所以沒有發(fā)揮作用是因為在過去40年一直被束之高閣?。ǎ。。?/p>
感謝西西里尼議員等領(lǐng)袖,讓我們看到了“反壟斷法+監(jiān)管”對恢復(fù)公平競爭和民主本身的重要性。
——莎拉·米勒 (@sarahmillerdc) ,2020年10月22日
上述推文提及了民主黨眾議員大衛(wèi)·西西里尼,他曾經(jīng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)起草了一份針對大型科技企業(yè)反競爭行為的里程碑式報告,西西里尼還在上周呼吁要給反壟斷領(lǐng)域“執(zhí)法不力的時代”劃上句號。
不過也有其他人對新設(shè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的想法表示了贊賞。GMF Digital是一家頗具影響力的政策團(tuán)體,其高管卡倫·科恩布盧赫指出,上述呼吁與她最近參與編寫的報告結(jié)論不謀而合。該報告稱,政府需要設(shè)置新型監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)來審查大型科技公司濫用壟斷地位行為。
不過,是否設(shè)置大型科技企業(yè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)最終還是要由國會決定,而國會目前并無太多推動這項工作的動力。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
The Justice Department's decision to sue Google last week elicited mixed reactions, but there's one point on which everyone agreed: The antitrust case will take years to play out. There are various reasons for this—from the complexity of the case to Google's vast legal resources to the sluggishness of the judicial process—but the upshot is that the search giant will be able to conduct business as usual for the foreseeable future.
Not everyone is satisfied with this situation. As the New York Times reports, a growing number of influential figures, from laprofessors to former regulators, are calling for a different approach. Concluding that antitrust law is simply too slow, they believe it's time for a new body to oversee tech behemoths like Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. From the Times:
"A more rapid-response approach is required, they said. One solution: a specialist regulator that would focus on the major tech companies. It would establish and enforce a set of basic rules of conduct, which would include not allowing the companies to favor their own services, exclude competitors or acquire emerging rivals and require them to permit competitors access to their platforms and data on reasonable terms."
As the Times notes, the idea of a specialized regulator for certain sectors or companies is hardly unprecedented. The Federal Aviation Administration oversees airlines, for example, while the Food and Drug Administration regulates pharma companies, and the Federal Communications Commission watches over the likes of AT&T and Verizon. Meanwhile, the government singles out certain financial institutions for special regulation on the grounds of their size.
Among those calling for a specialized regulator for Big Tech is Jason Furman, a Harvard University professor who is advising the U.K. government on creating a new body to oversee digital utilities. Furman describes himself as a "small 'c' conservative," and the Times points out that he and other advocates for a new regulator are hardly progressive firebrands.
Currently, the tech giants aren't free from regulation, of course. The Federal Trade Commission has a sophisticated team of technical staff and has repeatedly launched into Facebook, Google, and others for a variety of misdeeds, including privacy violations. That said, the FTC also appears to lack the legal tools to bring the tech firms to heel. Its primary tool—so-called consent decrees—don't allow the agency to impose fines for a first offense and, when a company violates those decrees, the penalties haven't been enough to change their behavior.
A new agency that is both nimble and specialized could thus be just the tool to prevent the tech behemoths from abusing their monopoly positions. But not everyone is in favor of the idea. Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham University and an influential tech critic, warned that those advocating for the idea may have other agendas:
The named experts pushing a special tech regulator instead of antitrust enforcement are:
1. Furman, infamous neoliberal Walmart booster.
2. Morton, a paid consultant to Amazon and Apple.
3. Kimmelman of PK (funded by big tech)https://t.co/CTMaJdB7QR
— Zephyr Teachout (@ZephyrTeachout) October 22, 202
Teachout goes on to note that the scope of a Big Tech regulator's authority would be uncertain and that the agency would be prone to being captured by powerful tech lobbyists (something that many claim occurred at the FAA in the wake of the 737 Max air disasters).
Other critics of the proposal claimed that antitrust law is an effective tool so long as political leaders are willing to deploy it:
Re this article...antitrust hasna€?t worked because ita€?s been stuffed in a closet for the last 40 years!(!!)
Grateful for leaders like @RepCicilline who are demonstrating how antitrust + reg is essential for restoring fair competition and democracy itself. https://t.co/gmHt11EDL5
— Sarah Miller (@sarahmillerdc) October 22, 2020
The tweet cites Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who led a landmark new report on anticompetitive activities by big tech companies, and who last week called for an end to an "era of weak enforcement" in antitrust.
Others, however, praised the idea for a new regulator. Karen Kornbluh, an executive with the influential policy group GMF Digital, noted that such calls are consistent with a recent report she coauthored that claims a new breed of regulator is required to check the abuses of big tech companies.
Ultimately, though, it would fall to Congress to create any Big Tech regulator and, for now, there appears to be little momentum to do so.