評論
打印
This would not be a problem if there were several big search engines.
如果有幾個大型的搜索引擎這就不成問題了。
But Google's market share in most European countries exceeds 90%.
但谷歌在大多數歐洲國家的市場份額超過了90%。
When the firm introduced the changes, traffic to rival websites, such as Britain's Foundem, plunged.
當公司引入這個變化，其他競爭對手的網站如英國的Foundem瀏覽量將會暴跌。
This denied other firms the chance to compete and reduced consumer choice, said Ms Vestager.
“這種不給其他公司競爭的機會的行為將減少消費者的選擇。”維斯特格委員說道。
Google has 90 days to find a way to treat its own comparison-shopping service and those of rivals equally.
谷歌有90天時間去找到一種合理方法來對待自己的價格比較購物服務和競爭對手的購物服務。
Predictably, Google wants none of this.
可以預見的是，谷歌不想這樣做。
It says its search service is far less dominant than it appears: consumers look up products on many other sites, including Amazon and eBay (the commission did not count these as search engines).
它說它的搜索服務遠不如它看起來占優勢消費者在許多其他網站上搜索產品，包括亞馬遜和易趣網（委員會沒有把這些算作搜索引擎。）
Google also notes that the changes made in 2008 benefited consumers.
谷歌還指出2008年的變化使消費者受益。
“People usually prefer links that take them directly to the products they want,” Kent Walker, the firm's general counsel, wrote in a blog post.
該公司的總顧問肯特·沃克在他的一篇博客中寫道“人們通常喜歡直接鏈接到他們想要的產品的鏈接。”
Here, Google appears to have a point.
關于這點，谷歌似乎有其道理。
Why would consumers want to click on a link which leads them to another site if they can see products and prices neatly lined up above Google's search results?
假如消費者能在谷歌搜索結果上看到整齊排列的產品和價格，他們還會想點擊一個將他們帶到另一個網站的鏈接嗎？
The European Court of Justice, the EU's highest court, will have to weigh the merits of its argument.
歐洲最高法院——歐洲法院將不得不權衡其論點的是非曲直。
Google will appeal, and there are weaknesses in the commission's case, such as the difficulty of proving real consumer harm from the treatment of other price-comparison sites.
谷歌將上訴而委員會的案例也存在弱點，例如難以證明其他價格比較網站帶給消費者的實際傷害。
Yet the commission deserves credit for tackling a question, which is increasingly important but which American trust busting agencies have avoided: what is the responsibility of dominant online firms, including Amazon and Facebook, when direct competitors, large and small, offer products and services on their platforms?
然而委員會直面解決這個越來越重要的問題是有功勞的，這美國反壟斷機構卻選擇了逃避，當直接的競爭對手，無論大的小的，在占主導地位的網絡公司的平臺上提供的產品和服務，包括亞馬遜和臉書，那他們的責任是什么？
The prevailing wisdom, particularly in America, used to be that “super-platforms”, despite their size, do not unfairly use their market power and thrive because of their unceasing innovation.
盛行的智能化特別是在美國曾經是“超級平臺”，盡管他們規模龐大，但不會因其不斷創新而不公平地利用他們的市場力量和繁榮。
The competition is always just one click away, argues Herbert Hovenkamp of the University of Pennsylvania.
賓夕法尼亞大學的Herbert Hovenkamp認為競爭永遠只是一個點擊之遙。
譯文來源考研英語時事閱讀
