蘋果敗訴電子書反壟斷案的5大因素
|
最近，美國最高法院宣布維持美國司法部指控蘋果壟斷電子書價格的原判。 我不是律師，也不是最高法院的專家，更不是蘋果公司的內(nèi)部人士，作為一個從一審到上訴審判期間一直坐在旁聽席的觀眾，我有以下三個結(jié)論： 這是一起棘手的案件——蘋果提出了一些犀利的問題，質(zhì)疑如何將19世紀的反壟斷法用于21世紀的數(shù)字市場。很遺憾，最高法院拒絕聽取質(zhì)疑。 我懷疑最高法院大法官安東寧?斯卡利亞缺席也是一個原因。斯卡利亞大法官去世后，剩下那些人會不會不太愿意處理其他棘手案件，比如蘋果與美國聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局（FBI）爭執(zhí)不下的iPhone解鎖案？ 如果真是如此，蘋果互聯(lián)網(wǎng)軟件和服務(wù)的高級副總艾迪?庫伊面臨的處境就不太妙了。 否則，現(xiàn)在的情況就與我三年前寫的完全一致。當時，美國曼哈頓地區(qū)法院法官丹尼斯?考特做出了蘋果違反反壟斷法的判決。我以為地方法院法官對蘋果的看法會有所改變，沒想到料錯了。 以下是我2013年7月記下的審判旁觀記錄： 法庭里的椅子真硬，冷氣也開得太大。做這種報道任務(wù)艱巨（沒有Wi-Fi，不能帶手機，不能用筆記本電腦）?？墒牵軄砩涎莸耐彺髴蚴志?，我很開心能成為觀看審判全過程的少數(shù)記者之一。 我原認為已經(jīng)很了解美國司法部以電子書價格違反反壟斷法起訴蘋果的案件。據(jù)我所知，曾做過檢察官的考特法官已經(jīng)深入調(diào)查，有不利于被告的傾向。她在審判前聽證時基本已經(jīng)表現(xiàn)出來了。 但我認為蘋果做出了強有力的辯護。美國作家協(xié)會和至少一位美國參議員都表示，政府搞錯了起訴對象，我也同意。審判期間有很多地方都讓我覺得，法官對蘋果的看法正在改變。 在通讀考特法官160頁的審判意見后，我發(fā)現(xiàn)自己的看法并不準確。在這份意見中，考特法官質(zhì)疑蘋果一方關(guān)鍵證人的可信度，嘲笑蘋果的合法辯護，斷然做出蘋果敗訴的判決。 我怎么錯得這么離譜？經(jīng)過事后分析，我找到以下受誤導(dǎo)的多個因素： 亞馬遜因素：在我看來，本案的背景是亞馬遜對電子書市場形成壟斷，9.99美元的定價極有殺傷力，對蘋果、美國最大實體書店巴諾書店等其他對手來說，要進入市場出售電子書一定會虧損。但正如許多讀者指出的，現(xiàn)實是蘋果站在被告席，不是亞馬遜。 出版因素：作為圖書出版業(yè)的從業(yè)者，我很清楚這一行的工資有多低、利潤有多微薄、經(jīng)營暢銷書可能有多大的風險?？继胤ü僖苍S是一位熱心讀者（她在之前一次電子書判決中還引用了美國女詩人艾米莉?狄金森的一首詩），可她在審理本案時堅信出版商串通一氣上調(diào)電子書的價格，蘋果也在當中推波助瀾。要不然為什么出版商一致同意在法官監(jiān)督下進行和解？ 庫伊的因素：可能我容易受到經(jīng)驗豐富的談判者誤導(dǎo)，但我發(fā)現(xiàn)，由“蘋果之父”喬布斯指定負責電子書業(yè)務(wù)的高管艾迪?庫伊，實際上是一位特別可信的證人。可惜考特法官不相信他，還在一系列語氣尖刻的注腳中毫不掩飾地表現(xiàn)出來。比如，在第47處，她的評語這樣寫道：“庫伊否認此前知道麥克米倫出版集團首席執(zhí)行官薩根特拜訪過亞馬遜，真是厚顏無恥?！?/p> 律師因素：政府一方的律師固然足夠稱職，和蘋果的辯護團隊比起來仍顯得遲緩笨拙。蘋果的辯護團隊根據(jù)近期最高法院的判決巧妙地組織了辯詞，讓我感到信服，但顯然并沒有說服法官。蘋果的辯護律師喜歡在幕后私下談?wù)?，用盡辦法把案子扭轉(zhuǎn)到有利他們的方向，這點對我客觀看待案件有點影響。在我的記錄中，只有一處提到原告政府方律師的評論，我還拼錯了那位律師的名字。 法律因素：我不是律師。即便我是，反壟斷法也是專業(yè)人士才能理解的“另類”，而且反壟斷法專家之前還經(jīng)常有爭議。在我看來，如果是競爭對手為確定價格達成同業(yè)協(xié)議，那和垂直市場的企業(yè)為進入領(lǐng)域磋商協(xié)議有根本區(qū)別。我還認為，強迫企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)換商業(yè)模式和擬定合同讓企業(yè)有強烈力動機轉(zhuǎn)變模式也有本質(zhì)不同。這兩點考特法官都不同意。上訴法院可能看問題角度不同（實際上，他們也以2比1的投票結(jié)果判定蘋果敗訴。） 案子到了這份上，我到底知道什么呢？（財富中文網(wǎng)） 譯者：Pessy 審校：夏林 |
The Supreme Court today punted on the e-book case, U.S.A. v. Apple. I’m not a lawyer, an expert on the Supreme Court, or an Apple insider. But I sat through the original trial and the appeal, and I have three final thoughts: This was tricky case—one raising tough questions about how to apply 19th century antitrust laws to 21st century digital markets. I’m sorry the court declined to hear it. I wonder whether Judge Scalia’s absence was a factor. Will the rump Court be less inclined to sink its teeth into other tricky cases, like Apple vs. FBI? This doesn’t help Eddy Cue. Otherwise, I have nothing add to what I wrote nearly three years ago when U.S. District Judge Denise Cote issued her ruling. I thought the district court judge was coming around to Apple’s point of view. I was wrong. Here’s that story, from July 2013: The benches were hard. The courtroom was over-cooled. The reporting challenges were daunting (no Wi-Fi, no cellphones, no laptops). But the drama that unfolded over three weeks of testimony was compelling, and I was happy to be one of a handful of reporters who sat through the whole thing. I thought I had a good handle on Apple vs. United States, a.k.a. the e-book antitrust case. I knew Judge Cote—a former prosecutor—had gone into the trial predisposed against the defendant. She said as muchin a pre-trial hearing. But I thought Apple AAPL -1.14% had put forward a strong defense. Like the Author’s Guild and at least one U.S. Senator, I thought the government was prosecuting the wrong company. At several points during the trial, I thought the judge was coming around to Apple’s point of view. Having read Judge Cote’s 160-page opinion, in which she questioned the credibility of Apple’s key witness, ridiculed its legal defense, and ruled decisively against the company, I see that my view from the benches wasn’t so good after all. How could I have been so wrong? In my post-game analysis, I see several factors that led me astray. The Amazon factor: The context of the case, as I saw it, was Amazon’smonopoly control of the e-book market and the predatory $9.99 pricing rendering it impossible for Apple, Barnes & Noble, or anyone else to enter the market without selling its own e-books at a loss. But as many readers have correctly pointed out, Apple was on trial, not Amazon. The publishing factor: Having worked in book publishing, I know how low the wages are, how thin the margins are, and what a crapshoot the bestseller game can be. Judge Cote may be an avid reader (she quoted an Emily Dickinson poem in an earlier e-book decision), but she came into the trial convinced that the publishers had colluded to raise the price of e-books and saw Apple’s role in that framework. Otherwise, why would they have agreed to the settlements she supervised? The Cue factor: I may be a sucker for a skilled negotiator, but I found Eddy Cue—Steve Jobs’s point man in the e-book deals—to be an unusually credible witness. Judge Cote did not, as she makes clear in a series of acid footnotes. “Cue’s denial of prior knowledge of Sargent’s trip to Amazon,” she writes in No. 47, “was particularly brazen.” The lawyering factor: The government’s lawyers, while competent, seemed plodding compared with Apple’s legal team, which wove complex legal arguments based on recent Supreme Court rulings that had me—but clearly not the judge—convinced. It didn’t help my objectivity that Apple’s lawyers were happy to talk on background, spinning the case their way. The only comment a government lawyer made was that in one of my stories, I’d misspelled his name. The law: I am not a lawyer. Even if I were, antitrust law is a beast unto itself understood only by antitrust experts—and even they don’t agree among themselves. It seemed to me that there is fundamental difference between competitors forming a horizontal agreement to fix prices, and a vertical player negotiating deals to enter the business. It also seemed to me that there’s a difference between forcing companies to switch business models and writing a contract that creates a strong incentive for them to so. Judge Cote disagreed on both points. An appeals court may see things differently [in fact, they split 2-1 against Apple]. At this point, what do I know? |
最新文章