評(píng)論
打印
On closer inspection, the bag begins to look decidedly mixed for the tech giant.
經(jīng)進(jìn)一步審視發(fā)現(xiàn)，對(duì)于這家科技巨頭來(lái)說(shuō)，這個(gè)結(jié)果顯然是喜憂(yōu)參半的。
The court did not say it is impossible to show that Apple is an illegal monopolist — only that Epic had failed to do so.
法院并沒(méi)有說(shuō)證明蘋(píng)果是非法壟斷企業(yè)是不可能的，只是說(shuō)Epic沒(méi)能做到。
The judge also found that, contrary to Apple’s protestations, the App Store’s operating margins, which one of Epic’s expert witnesses put at 75%, are “extraordinarily high”.
法官還發(fā)現(xiàn)，與蘋(píng)果的聲明相反，App Store的運(yùn)營(yíng)利潤(rùn)率“高得離譜”，Epic的一位專(zhuān)家證人認(rèn)為其利潤(rùn)率為75%。
Most important, Ms González Rogers ruled that although Apple did not violate federal antitrust law, it had engaged in anticompetitive conduct under California’s competition law.
最重要的是，González Rogers女士裁定，盡管蘋(píng)果沒(méi)有違反聯(lián)邦反壟斷法，但根據(jù)加州競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法，它已經(jīng)從事了反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為。
It did so by banning developers from including information in their apps that tells users how they can subscribe or buy digital wares outside the App Store.
蘋(píng)果通過(guò)禁止開(kāi)發(fā)者在應(yīng)用程序中添加信息以告知用戶(hù)如何在App Store之外訂閱或購(gòu)買(mǎi)數(shù)字產(chǎn)品的方式做到了這一點(diǎn)。
Such “anti-steering” provisions, the judge said, “hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice”.
法官表示，這種“反轉(zhuǎn)向”條款“向消費(fèi)者隱瞞了關(guān)鍵信息，非法扼殺了消費(fèi)者的選擇”。
The decision will take effect in 90 days, though Epic has already appealed and Apple may do so, too.
這項(xiàng)裁決將在90天內(nèi)生效，不過(guò)Epic已經(jīng)提起上訴，蘋(píng)果也可能會(huì)上訴。
The case could end up in America’s Supreme Court. Whatever its final outcome, it will pile more pressure onto Apple to loosen its tight control of the App Store.
這個(gè)案子最終可能會(huì)交于美國(guó)最高法院裁決。無(wú)論最終結(jié)果如何，這都將給蘋(píng)果施加更大壓力，使其放松對(duì)App Store的嚴(yán)格管控。
This could lower its margins and weaken Apple’s services business, which analysts expect to be a big source of growth and profits.
這可能會(huì)降低蘋(píng)果的利潤(rùn)率，削弱其服務(wù)業(yè)務(wù)。分析師預(yù)計(jì)，服務(wù)業(yè)務(wù)是蘋(píng)果增長(zhǎng)和利潤(rùn)的一個(gè)重要來(lái)源。
Apple’s share price fell by more than 3% after the verdict was handed down, lopping $85bn off its market capitalisation, three times unlisted Epic’s private valuation.
判決公布后，蘋(píng)果股價(jià)下跌超過(guò)3%，市值縮水850億美元，是未上市公司Epic私人估值的三倍。
Perhaps in anticipation of the verdict, Apple has recently made some concessions.
也許是對(duì)判決有所預(yù)期，蘋(píng)果最近做出了一些讓步。
On August 26th, in a settlement with app developers, it agreed to allow them to email users about payment methods outside the App Store.
8月26日，在與應(yīng)用程序開(kāi)發(fā)商達(dá)成的一項(xiàng)和解協(xié)議中，蘋(píng)果同意允許開(kāi)發(fā)商通過(guò)電子郵件告知用戶(hù)app Store以外的支付方式。
On September 2nd, in another settlement, this time with Japan’s Fair Trade Commission, it consented to letting apps that provide access to digital content, such as books and music, direct users to other ways to pay.
9月2日，在與日本公平貿(mào)易委員會(huì)達(dá)成的另一項(xiàng)和解中，蘋(píng)果同意讓提供數(shù)字內(nèi)容（比如書(shū)籍和音樂(lè)）的應(yīng)用程序引導(dǎo)用戶(hù)使用其他支付方式。
Apple will also have to comply with a new South Korean law banning app stores, including its own and Google’s, from requiring users to pay using the stores’ payment systems.
蘋(píng)果還必須遵守韓國(guó)的一項(xiàng)新法律，該法律禁止應(yīng)用商店（包括蘋(píng)果自己的和谷歌的應(yīng)用商店）要求用戶(hù)使用商店內(nèi)的支付系統(tǒng)進(jìn)行支付。
The European Union and even America’s polarised Congress have similar laws in the works.
歐盟、甚至是美國(guó)兩極分化的國(guó)會(huì)都在醞釀制定類(lèi)似的法律。
Apple may, just about, be able to claim a victory in the courtroom battle against Epic.
蘋(píng)果或許能在與Epic的法庭大戰(zhàn)中取得勝利。
But the drawn-out regulatory world war is far from over.
但這場(chǎng)曠日持久的監(jiān)管世界大戰(zhàn)遠(yuǎn)未結(jié)束。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請(qǐng)勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
