谷歌反垄断里程碑式裁决

嘿，等等。这是属于你的时刻，属于你玩耍、创造、行动、穿越、探索的日子。这是你的身体，用来休息、滋养、成长。这是你的思想。

Hey. Hold up. This is your minute, your day to play, to make, to move, to move through, to explore. It's your body to rest, to nourish, to grow. It's your mind.

你知道吗？这是你的位置，你的生活去热爱、梦想、改变。这是你要理解的世界。《纽约时报》。了解更多请访问nytimes.com/yourworld。

You know? It's your place, your life to love, to dream, to change. It's your world to understand. The New York Times. Find out more at nytimes.com/yourworld.

这里是《纽约时报》的瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯，为您带来《每日播报》。几十年来，政府一直在努力监管科技行业的垄断行为。本周，针对谷歌的一起案件作出里程碑式裁决，标志着现代为创造公平竞争环境所采取的最激进尝试。今天，我的同事大卫·麦凯布将解析谁胜谁负，以及这对人工智能主导权之争意味着什么。今天是9月4日，星期四。

From the New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams, and this is The Daily. For decades, the government has struggled with how to police monopolies in the tech industry. And this week, a landmark ruling in a case against Google marked the most aggressive attempt in the modern era to level the playing field. Today, my colleague David McCabe on who won, who lost, and what this means for the race to dominate artificial intelligence. It's Thursday, September 4.

大卫，一年前联邦法官判定谷歌为维持搜索领域主导地位而违法。基本上，它通过合法手段维持了垄断地位。此后所有人都在等待处罚结果，因为本案的处罚可能对科技行业产生巨大影响。现在我们等到了本周的裁决结果。

So, David, a year ago, a federal judge decided that Google had broken the law to maintain its dominance over search. That, basically, it had legally maintained its monopoly. And since then, everyone has been waiting to see what the punishment could be because the punishment in this case could have enormous implications for the tech industry. And here we are this week. The decision comes out.

处罚结果很明确，但似乎只是轻描淡写的惩戒。

The punishment is clear, and it seems like a slap on the wrist.

没错。周二下午四点多，我收到合作方的消息说'裁决公布了'，我立刻明白所指何事。

Yeah. So on Tuesday, little bit after 4PM, I get a message from someone we work with that just said, it's dropped. And I knew immediately what they were talking about.

基本上你当天的工作计划全被打乱了。

Basically, your day was going to be completely scrambled.

是的。我们为此准备了很久，现在终于到了行动时刻。我们开始研读这份长达223页的裁决书。但几分钟内就清楚意识到，这实际上是谷歌的胜利，也是对两届政府遏制硅谷权力努力的重大打击。

Yeah. We had been preparing for this for a long time, and now it was go time. And we start making our way through this ruling. It's 223 pages long. But it becomes clear within minutes that this is really a win for Google and a blow to the government's efforts over now two different presidents to rein in the power of Silicon Valley.

谷歌成功避免了最严厉处罚。它没有被如政府要求那样分拆，因此无需出售其热门浏览器Chrome。虽然被要求与竞争对手共享部分数据和搜索结果，但条件并未要求交出所有核心机密。值得注意的是，尽管谷歌被强制要求执行这些措施，其股价在裁决后反而上涨。

Google had avoided the harshest penalties in this case. It had not been broken up as the government had asked, so it was not forced to sell Chrome, its popular web browser. It was forced to share some of its data and its search results with its rivals, but on terms that did not require it to hand over all of its secret sauce. And it was telling that despite the fact that Google was being mandated to do some of these things, its stock price actually jumped after the ruling.

我之前说这感觉像是轻罚，之所以这么认为，是因为作为非技术人员，我觉得像谷歌这样市值数万亿美元的巨头，被迫与竞争对手共享数据似乎算不上最糟糕的命运。

Well, I mean, earlier, I mentioned this felt like a slap on the wrist. And I think that I felt that way because as a nontech person, I guess the idea that you would have to share data with your rivals, like, doesn't seem like the worst fate that could befall a company as big as Google, which is, what, worth trillions of dollars, something like that.

没错。尤其是就在一年前，他刚做出一项裁决，毫不含糊地宣布谷歌是垄断者且存在违法行为。对吧？那是个重大裁决，也是谷歌的一次败诉。

Yeah. And especially after just a year ago, he issued a ruling that declared in no uncertain terms that they were a monopolist and they had acted illegally. Right? That was a big ruling and a loss for Google.

对。那么这位法官是如何从裁定谷歌非法维护垄断，转变为最终给出如此宽大——或温和，随你怎么形容——以至于股价反而上涨的处罚？这个问题的答案与人工智能密切相关，

Right. So how does this judge go from declaring that Google is illegally protecting its monopoly to basically delivering a penalty that is so lenient or benign, however you wanna call it, that the stock price actually jumps? The answer to that question has a

数十年来首次，人工智能的出现让人们开始质疑谷歌是否能继续主宰未来人们在网上获取信息的方式。

lot to do with artificial intelligence, which has, for the first time in decades, called into question whether Google will own the future of how people look for information online.

请详细说说这一点。这个故事是从哪里开始的？

So tell me a little bit more about that. Like, where does the story start?

始于2020年。当时特朗普政府首次决定调查对大型科技公司权力过大的担忧。

It starts in 2020. So the first Trump administration had decided that they were going to investigate concerns about the power of the biggest tech companies.

没错，我记得这件事。

Right. I remember that.

是的。不仅是谷歌，还包括亚马逊和苹果。嗯。他们指出谷歌在搜索业务上建立并维持了垄断地位，其行为扼杀了竞争，甚至让微软这样的大公司都难以打造能与谷歌抗衡的搜索引擎。

Yeah. Not just Google, but Amazon and Apple. Mhmm. And they said that Google had amassed and maintained a monopoly over the search business. They said that its behavior had crushed its competition, made it hard for even big companies like Microsoft to build a search engine that could match Google's dominance.

他们认为这导致谷歌提供劣质产品，并最终损害了消费者利益。

They said that it had led Google to make an inferior product. And they said that ultimately, this had hurt consumers.

因为消费者只能接触劣质产品？还是具体有哪些损害？

Because they were getting access to an inferior product? Or what was the harm exactly?

损害在于，脱离竞争环境的谷歌得以提供劣质产品，消费者最终选择更少。对吧？如果他们不喜欢谷歌收集个人数据的方式，也无法转向其他能同样高效提供网络答案的平台。

The harm was that Google, now outside of a competitive marketplace, was able to make an inferior product. And ultimately, that consumers had less choice. Right? That if they didn't like how Google was, say, collecting their personal data, that they couldn't go somewhere else that was as effective at giving them the answers that they needed from the Internet.

这其实非常有趣，因为当我们想到反垄断案件时，通常考虑的是价格损害。比如消费者因某产品支付更高价格而受损。但这里的情况是，他们甚至无需付费的产品质量低劣，而且还涉及他们的数据和隐私问题，这感觉有点不寻常。

That's actually really interesting because I think when we think of antitrust cases, we normally think of, like, a price harm. Like, consumers are getting harmed because they're paying more for such and such product. But here, it's that the product that they're not even paying for is inferior, and also that it's about their data and their privacy, which feels a little bit unusual.

没错。你说得对。过去几十年的反垄断法主要关注消费者是否面临价格上涨。而谷歌的服务对用户来说成本实际上是零。

Yeah. You're right. Antitrust law often in the last many decades has looked at, is there a price increase for consumers? And Google ultimately has a cost of $0.

那么本案中双方的论点是什么？政府的主张是什么，谷歌又是如何为自己辩护的？

So what were the arguments on both sides of this case? What was the government saying, and what was Google saying in its defense?

政府指控的核心是谷歌多年来向苹果、Mozilla等浏览器开发商，以及三星等智能手机制造商支付的巨额费用——目的是让谷歌搜索引擎成为设备默认搜索选项。这些支付总额在某些年份高达数百亿美元，比如2021年就支付了263亿美元。这可不是小数目，对吧？

So at the heart of the government's case were payments that Google has made for many years to companies like Apple and Mozilla that make web browsers, and to companies like Samsung that make smartphones, to basically make its search engine the automatically selected search engine that comes up when you open your phone or you enter a query into the top of your web browser. And these payments amounted ultimately, in some cases, to billions of dollars. In 2021, Google paid $26,300,000,000 as part of these deals. So it's not funny money. Right?

是实实在在的真金白银。嗯。政府认为这形成了恶性循环：谷歌付费获得优先展示→更多用户使用谷歌搜索→获取更多搜索数据→优化产品→进一步巩固优先地位。

It's real Mhmm. Money. And the government said that that set in motion a pernicious flywheel effect. Google paid for the prime placement, which meant more people searched on Google, which meant Google had more data about what people are searching for Mhmm. Which they used to make their product better, which in turn made it more likely that Google would get the prime placement.

这个恶性飞轮不断旋转，最终连大型企业都难以在搜索领域与之竞争。

And that effectively, this pernicious flywheel spun and spun and spun and blocked out even big companies who were trying to compete in search.

谷歌利用其支配地位压制竞争，优化产品，最终消费者更可能选择它。

Google is so dominant. It's using its dominance to crush competition, make its product better, and therefore, you're more likely to choose it anyway as a consumer.

正是如此。这本质上是在不断巩固他们的垄断权力。

Exactly. This basically just entrenched their power over and over again.

这个论点似乎对诉讼双方都适用。

This feels like an argument that actually serves both sides of this lawsuit.

确实如此。谷歌辩称用户选择他们是因其产品更优，强调持续投入改进搜索质量，用户选择是基于产品优势而非默认设置或支付协议。

Well, exactly. Google said, people choose us because we are better. They argued that they have invested again and again in making search the best product it can be. And that people chose not because Google was making these payments, not because it was the automatically selected search engine in their web browser, but because it had simply won on the merits.

值得注意的是，谷歌作为全球最大、最盈利的科技公司之一，一个重新定义我们互联网使用方式的巨头，本案在某种程度上似乎关乎其生存根本。而将如此重大的权力交予这位法官一人之手——他几乎独自掌握着谷歌的未来——这种安排让人感觉责任过于沉重。

It seems worth noting here that Google, obviously, one of the biggest tech companies in the world, one of the most profitable tech companies in the world, a company that has come to define how we use the Internet, this case seems to be existential for it in some ways. And it feels like that is a lot of power to put in the hands of this one judge who basically has, like, the future of Google in his hands, in his hands alone.

确实如此。当他在2024年裁定谷歌滥用权力、非法维持垄断地位后，这种压力只增不减，因为他必须决定后续处置方案。这个问题的影响远不止于谷歌，它将波及整个科技行业、整个互联网生态以及所有网络使用者。种种迹象表明，他可能正准备采取彻底颠覆科技行业的举措。

That's right. And once he ruled in 2024 that Google had abused its power, had illegally maintained a monopoly, that pressure only increased because he had to figure out what to do about it. And that's a question that didn't just have implications for Google. It had implications for the entire industry, for the entire Internet, and everybody who used the Internet. And it seemed as though he might be poised to do something that would radically disrupt the technology industry.

没错。这个认知在审判第二阶段——救济措施阶段的结案陈词中，对我来说变得异常清晰。

Right. And that was really crystallized for me in the closing arguments of this second phase of the trial, the remedies phase.

明白了。为什么那个时刻会让你产生这种清晰认知呢？

Okay. And why why did that crystallize for you then?

本案主审法官——华盛顿特区法院的阿米特·梅塔——行事极为谨慎，不轻易表露立场。在为期三周几乎像第二次审判的证人质询环节中，嗯...他听取了大量证人证词。

So the judge in this case, Amit Mehta of the district court in Washington, he holds his cards close to the vest. He's very careful. And he's had three weeks of testimony, almost like a second trial. Mhmm. He's had three weeks of testimony from witnesses.

他审查了各项证据，随后进入结案陈词阶段。

He's heard evidence. And then he does closing arguments.

嗯。

Mhmm.

整整一天时间里，他不断追问律师们关于案件核心的问题，同时也揪住许多细节不放。某种程度上，判定谷歌违法...嗯...反而是最简单的部分。对吧？这是个明确的法律问题。

For a full day, he just drilled into these lawyers about the big picture issues in the case, but also about really small questions. And it just in some ways, deciding that Google had broken the law Mhmm. Was the simple part. Right? It was a clear legal question.

本质上就是关于这些合同条款。而现在摆在他面前的问题已经呈几何级数增长。

It was about basically these contracts. And now the questions before him had multiplied significantly.

说白了就是：判定违法容易，制定补救措施难。

Basically, it's like it was much easier and simpler to decide that they had broken the law than it was to figure out what to do about it.

没错。从根本上说，这是有原因的。这场审判的第一阶段关乎过去，第二阶段则关乎未来。而在互联网上寻找信息的未来，比以往任何时候都更加扑朔迷离。

That's right. And fundamentally, there's a reason for that. The first phase of this trial was about the past. The second stage was about the future. And the future of finding information on the Internet is murkier than ever.

当这场较量在法庭上演的同时，硅谷也上演着另一场战斗——谷歌等巨头与小型初创公司之间争夺AI热潮主导权的斗争。最终，法庭外的斗争蔓延到了法庭内。本案法官不得不适应这一新现实，而这彻底改变了案件的走向。

While this battle was playing out in the courtroom, there was a different battle playing out in Silicon Valley between titans like Google and smaller startups to dominate what had become an AI boom. And ultimately, the fight outside of the courtroom made its way into the courtroom. And the judge in this case had to adjust to this new reality. And ultimately, it changed the course of the case.

稍后回来。

We'll be right back.

我是托马斯·吉布森，《纽约时报》记者。曾在美国海军陆战队担任步兵。前线报道的许多基本原则与军事行动相通：你要研究行进路线图，

My name is Thomas Gibbesenf. I'm a journalist at The New York Times. I served in the Marine Corps as an infantryman. When it comes to reporting on the front line, a lot of the same basics are at play. You're looking at the map of where you're going.

确认是柏油路还是野战道路，附近是否有医院？防弹衣是否配备了急救包？所有人是否都知道急救包位置？抵达军事据点后，我下车后

If you're on a paved road, field roads, is there a hospital nearby? Is your body armor affixed with a first aid kit? Does everyone know where that first aid kit is? We arrive into a military position. I get out of the car.

会立即看表设定计时器——停留不超过一小时。同时监听无人机和喷气机动静，与团队核对：大家是否都处于安全状态？

I look at my watch. I set a timer. No more than an hour. I'm listening for drones, jets, check-in with the team. Is everyone comfortable?

确认安全后才会继续行动。前线报道虽危险，但没有什么比直接采访当事人更重要。倾听他们的故事，将这些与千里之外的读者产生联结——任何能让报道更具人情味的努力，我认为都值得冒险。《纽约时报》的订阅者让我们得以持续进行这类重要报道。

And if they are, then we proceed. Frontline reporting is dangerous, but I think nothing is more important than talking to the people involved. You know, hearing their stories and being able to connect that with people thousands of miles away. Anything that can make something like this more personal, I think, is well worth the risk. New York Times subscribers make it possible for us to keep doing this vital coverage.

如需订阅，请访问nytimes.com/subscribe。

If you'd like to subscribe, you can do that at nytimes.com/subscribe.

那么大卫，AI是如何成为本案判决结果的关键因素的？

So, David, how is it that AI became so central to the outcome of this case?

是的。2020年本案提起诉讼时，人们可能已普遍意识到谷歌数据的价值不仅限于搜索领域，还包括人工智能开发。后来这个理论设想变成了现实——2022年11月，就在本案即将开庭审理之际，OpenAI发布了ChatGPT。接下来发生的事情想必大家都知道了。

Yeah. So when this case was filed in 2020, people probably had a general understanding that the data that Google had was valuable not just for search, but for the development of artificial intelligence. Then that theoretical idea turned into reality. In November 2022, as this case is barreling towards trial, OpenAI releases ChatGPT. And I think people know what happened next.

这场AI聊天机器人的爆发。这些产品让你可以提问，它们会像人类一样回应。它们能生成并输出图像。资金开始涌入这一领域。公司们开始投资建设数据中心和其他支持这项技术所需的基础设施。

This explosion of AI chatbots. These products where you can ask it a question, it responds as though it's a human. They can spit out and generate images. And money starts pouring into this space. Companies start investing in the construction of data centers and other infrastructure that's required for this technology.

风险投资家开始资助越来越多的这类初创公司。嗯。而恰恰就在此刻，这个关于过去十年间网络信息如何运作的案件进入了庭审阶段。

Venture capitalists start funding more and more of these startups. Mhmm. And it is exactly at this moment that this case, which is about how, for a decade, information had worked online, goes to trial.

你能再详细解释一下吗？你所说的数据与谷歌在AI方面的努力有何关联？对于是否在法律上构成垄断，应该采取什么补救措施？

Can you just explain a little bit more? What does the data that you're talking about have to do with Google's efforts with AI? And what the remedy should be for whether it's legally enforcing a monopoly?

谷歌搜索建立在海量数据和信息之上。嗯。本质上就是一张互联网地图。生成式人工智能模型同样依赖于数据和信息。

So Google Search is built on reams and reams of data and information. Mhmm. Basically, a map of the Internet. Generative artificial intelligence models are also built on data and information.

嗯。

Mhmm.

对吧？这些大型语言模型吸收了海量信息和文本，才能生成对你问题的回答。于是突然间，人们开始质疑谷歌在搜索领域长期保持的优势，是否可以直接转化为人工智能领域的优势和主导地位。不过当然，这尚未真正发生。嗯。

Right? These large language models ingest a ton of information, a ton of text, so that they can then generate these responses to your questions. And so suddenly, there is a question about whether or not the advantage that Google has had and maintained in search can basically transmute into an advantage and dominance in artificial intelligence. But, of course, that hasn't really happened yet. Mhmm.

谷歌正面临来自OpenAI和Perplexity等公司的挑战。他们有自己的聊天机器人Gemini，但它并非主导市场的聊天机器人。

Google really is under challenge from companies like OpenAI and Perplexity. They have their own chatbot, Gemini, but it is not the dominant chatbot.

没错。现在有无数AI公司，或者说感觉像是冒出了无数AI公司，人们都在向它们提问。

Right. There are a million AI companies, or at least would feel like a million AI companies that have sprung up that people are asking questions to.

是的。我刚去过旧金山，机场所有的广告牌和广告都是关于AI的。我们都熟悉这些产品——有Claude，有Grok。

Yeah. I was just in San Francisco, and all the billboards and ads in the airport are about AI. And we know these products. There's Claude. There's Grok.

还有ChatGPT。

There's ChatGPT.

这里需要指出的是，《纽约时报》已起诉ChatGPT母公司OpenAI及其投资者微软，指控其AI系统涉及新闻内容的版权侵权。两家公司均否认了诉讼指控。但请继续。

And we should just note here that the New York Times has sued ChatGPT's parent company OpenAI and one of its investors, Microsoft, claiming copyright infringement of news content related to these AI systems. And the two companies have denied the suit's claims. But please continue.

没错。消费者已开始因这些聊天机器人改变行为模式。他们现在像使用搜索引擎那样使用AI，提出过去可能会向谷歌询问的问题。

That's right. And consumers have started to change their behavior because of these chatbots. They're now using them like they might have used a search engine. They're asking it questions that they might have previously asked Google.

是的。我发现自己经常转向Gemini或ChatGPT提问，这些问题原本可能会在谷歌搜索。

Yes. I'm I feel like I'm very frequently going to Gemini or ChatGPT and asking a question I might have normally asked Google.

对。随着案件审理推进，这种转变正在显现。不过初审阶段并未涉及这一点。

Right. And this transformation is starting to play out as this case gets underway. Mhmm. But it doesn't come up in the first phase of the trial.

初审阶段是指法官裁定'是的，我认定你们存在违法行为'的阶段。

The first phase being when the judge says, yes. I've determined that you're acting illegally.

正是。但当他启动审判第二阶段——即'如何整改'阶段时，就不得不直面科技行业的这场变革。为何？因为谷歌可能当庭辩称，AI产品的崛起证明市场机制有效，无需激进干预。而政府方则会主张，若不采取强硬措施——

That's right. But as soon as he triggered the second phase of the trial, the how do I fix this phase of the trial, suddenly, he has to face this transformation of the tech industry head on. How so? Because now Google could come into the courtroom and say, look, the rise of these AI products proves that the market is working, that you do not need to make some radical intervention. And on the flip side, the government came into his courtroom and said, if you do not act aggressively

嗯。

Mhmm.

谷歌将把维护搜索垄断的非法手段，复刻到人工智能领域的垄断中。

Google will use the tactics it used to illegally protect its monopoly in search, and use them to monopolize and dominate artificial intelligence.

本质上，他们将利用现有垄断地位构建新的垄断。

Basically, they will use one monopoly to create another monopoly.

完全正确。

Precisely.

法官在此案中的实际补救措施是什么？

What is the judge's actual remedy here?

我会从两个不同的角度来考虑这个问题。

I would think of this in two different buckets.

好的。

Okay.

还记得谷歌与苹果、Mozilla和三星达成的协议吗？这些协议让谷歌成为浏览器或智能手机上自动显示的默认搜索引擎。是的，我记得。这正是本案的核心所在。

Remember the deals that Google did with Apple and Mozilla and Samsung to be that automatic search engine that comes up in your browser or your smartphone? Yes. I do. So this is at the heart of the case.

好的。

Okay.

很多人认为法官会直接禁止这种做法，因为这是政府指控谷歌非法维持垄断地位的核心证据。但法官采取了略有不同的策略——他禁止谷歌在某些情况下签订这类协议（尤其是排他性协议），但并未完全禁止他们为这个优质展示位支付费用。嗯。

And I think it's something that a lot of people thought the judge would ban outright because it was so central to the government's case to the monopoly that he had found that Google had illegally maintained. But he takes a slightly different tactic. He bars Google from entering into those deals in some cases, most notably when they are exclusive. But he does not ban them from paying for that great real estate Mhmm. Entirely.

那这意味着什么？苹果公司可以说'好吧，我们收下你的200亿美元，让你继续作为浏览器默认搜索引擎，但同时我们也会加入DuckDuckGo'？

So what does that mean? That Apple could just be like, okay. Sure. We'll take your $20,000,000,000, and you can be the main search engine when somebody opens up their browser. But we're also going to have DuckDuckGo?

这是个关键问题——什么是非排他性默认？从默认设置的本质来看，似乎只能有一个默认选项，对吧？

Is that This is a big question. What is a nonexclusive default? It would seem that by the nature of a default, there is only one. Right?

嗯。

Mhmm.

但审判过程中讨论过，比如苹果可以在普通浏览模式和隐私浏览模式设置不同的默认搜索引擎。想象一下，他们可能会在无痕模式下安装一个注重隐私的搜索引擎作为默认选项。这或许就是非排他性默认的实例。不过这部分补救措施的实际效果还有待观察。嗯。

But it was, for example, discussed during the trial that Apple could offer a different default in the normal browsing mode and in the private browsing mode. Right? You could imagine that they would install a a privacy focused search engine as the default in incognito mode. So perhaps that is an example of a nonexclusive default. But where the rubber will hit the road on this part of the remedies Mhmm.

这两件看似可能相互冲突的事情究竟如何，嗯，得到解决。

Exactly how these two things that seem like they might be in conflict Mhmm. Resolve.

好的。你刚才提到有两个方面。听起来这是一个方面。

Okay. So you mentioned there were two buckets. Sounds like that's one bucket.

嗯。第二个方面是要求谷歌分享部分数据，嗯，这些数据让它变得强大。

Mhmm. The second bucket is requiring Google to share some of the data Mhmm. That makes it powerful.

好的。

Okay.

他们将被迫将其搜索结果提供给所谓的‘合格竞争对手’。本质上，一个合格的谷歌竞争对手可以显示谷歌的搜索结果，这些结果被视为质量非常高，而不是他们自己可能较差的搜索结果。对吧？这样就消除了质量优势。现在，政府并没有完全达到目的，因为谷歌基本上可以按照他们已有的商业协议条款来执行。

They will be required to syndicate their search results to quote, unquote, qualified competitors. Essentially, that a qualified competitor to Google could display Google's search results, which are seen as very high quality, rather than their own maybe inferior search results. Right? Erasing that quality advantage. Now, the government didn't get everything they wanted there because Google is going to be able to do so basically on the terms of commercial agreements that they already have to do this.

所以这对他们来说并不是一个巨大的变化，因为他们已经提供这样的交易。但当然，现在他们是被法院要求提供这些。分享让谷歌成为谷歌的东西的第二部分是，他们必须向那些合格的竞争对手提供所谓的搜索索引的顶层。

So it's not a huge change for them because they already offer deals like this. But of course, now they're being required by a court to offer them. The second part of sharing what makes Google Google is they're required to give those qualified competitors the sort of top level of what is called the search index.

我完全不知道那是什么。

I have no idea what that is.

是的。这是一个有点专业的术语，但它基本上指的是构成谷歌结果的网页和信息库。所以他们必须把这些交给竞争对手，这些竞争对手曾表示自己建立搜索索引非常困难。所以这是谷歌独有的那种难以逾越的优势。但有一个问题。

Yeah. It's a a kind of wonky term, but it basically means the corpus of web pages and information that make up Google results. And so they have to hand that over to rivals who have said that it's very hard to build your own search index. And so this was this kind of insurmountable advantage that only Google had. But there's a catch.

法官表示，谷歌不必分享它用来排名这些页面流行度的很多数据。这是他们用来制作高质量结果的下一层数据。

The judge said that Google doesn't have to share a lot of the data it uses to rank the popularity of those pages. The kind of one layer down that they use to make really quality results.

等等。这看起来像是你说的谷歌的‘秘方’，对吧？比如，使用谷歌的整个意义在于你能立即得到你想要的搜索结果，比如在首页上。

Wait. That would seem like it's sort of the secret sauce, as you mentioned, to Google. Right? Like, the whole point of using Google is that you get the search results you want immediately, like on the top page.

是的。政府希望他们公开所有核心机密。最终法官确实强制要求共享部分此类数据，但并未满足政府的全部要求。

Yeah. And the government wanted them to share all of the secret sauce. And ultimately, the judge did mandate sharing of some data like that, but not all of what the government asked for.

但正如你之前提到的，归根结底他并没有拆分谷歌——这正是他们最担心的事情之一。对吧？比如他没有强制要求剥离Chrome或Android等产品。

But as you mentioned earlier, all this to say, he's not actually breaking up Google, which was one of the things that they were really worried about. Right? Like, he's not forcing them to spin off Chrome or Android products or anything like that.

没错。这曾是政府提出的最大诉求——强制谷歌剥离Chrome浏览器。这款极受欢迎的浏览器被全球数十亿人使用。政府还主张若整改后竞争仍未改善，法院应有权要求其剥离智能手机操作系统Android。

That's right. And this was, like, the biggest ask that the government made, that Google be forced to spin off Chrome. It's a wildly popular web browser. It's used by billions of people around the world. And potentially, if competition didn't improve after the remedies, that the court be allowed to make them spin off Android, their smartphone operating system.

其背后的逻辑在于，这两个平台都是谷歌吸收搜索查询的渠道。人们通过Chrome浏览器使用谷歌搜索信息，因此这些平台被视为对谷歌极具价值的流量来源。但法官否决了这个提议。

And the logic behind this was that those are both places where Google is able to absorb search queries. Right? People use the Chrome web browser to search for information through Google. And so the idea was it was a source of web traffic, which was really valuable to Google. The judge said no go.

法官表示这是过度干预，政府要求的措施过于激进，不符合既往反垄断案例确立的法律原则。

He said this was an overreach, that the government was asking for something so aggressive that wasn't justified under the law set in previous antitrust cases.

要知道，正如我们讨论的，在技术变革如火如荼的背景下，法官需要作出如此重大裁决的处境确实特殊。我很好奇他是否谈及这点，或者你在报道过程中是否注意到相关讨论。

You know, as we talked about, it's a really unusual position for a judge to be in to have to make such a huge decision while this whole technological transformation is underway in the background. And I'm just curious if he ever addressed that, or if that came up for you at all during the reporting.

是的。从很多方面来看，这正是本次裁决的宏观背景。他说：'我不是搜索引擎专家'。

Yeah. So in many ways, this is the broader framing of this ruling. He says, I'm not an expert in search engines.

嗯。

Mhmm.

他接着说：'也不是人工智能专家。法官的专长并非通过水晶球预测未来。'这种认知最终将他引向这样的立场：法院需要以谦逊态度实施此类补救措施，而我也正是这么做的——这种逻辑促使他作出了相当克制的判决。

I'm not an expert in artificial intelligence. He says it's not a judge's forte to look into a crystal ball and tell the future. And where that ultimately led him was this place. He said, a court needs to apply remedies like this with humility, and that's what I've done. And that logic led him to this pretty measured decision.

如此看来，我们一直在讨论的AI热潮某种程度上逆转了'谷歌是否垄断'的判定逻辑。因为谷歌基本主张：我们不仅在与DuckDuckGo或必应竞争，还在与亚马逊、奈飞等平台竞争。

So it sort of seems like this AI boom that we've been talking about, in some ways, reverse the thinking on whether Google is a monopoly at all. Because Google basically argued, hey. Look. We're not just competing against DuckDuckGo or Bing. We're competing against Amazon and Netflix, etcetera.

当时法官对此并不信服。但如今他们在另一个领域——人工智能领域确实面临着大量竞争。因此我在想，这是否部分解释了为何法官最终给出的裁决让许多人觉得只是轻描淡写的警告。

And that wasn't compelling to the judge at the time. But now they actually legitimately do have tons of competition in another realm, which is AI. And so I wonder if that is the reason in part why the judge essentially gave them something that feels like a slap on the wrist to a lot of people at least.

法官表示这是他做出裁决的考量因素之一。我们讨论过为何他没有禁止向苹果、三星和Mozilla支付搜索引擎优质展示位的费用。他说这么做是因为认为AI聊天机器人的爆发可能会催生出能与谷歌正面竞争的企业。本质上说，当面临创新公司的真正挑战时，谷歌的财力可能不足以保证其主导地位。

He said that it was a motivating factor in how he reached his decision. We talked about how he didn't ban those payments to Apple and Samsung and Mozilla for that great real estate for the search engine. And he said that one reason he was doing that was he felt that the explosion of these AI chatbots could create companies that could compete with Google on the merits. Basically, that perhaps Google's financial might, when met with a real challenge from an innovative company, would not be enough to ensure their dominance.

这让我不禁思考消费者在这其中的位置，以及他们是否（或在多大程度上）会感受到这项裁决或法官建议的补救措施带来的影响。

Which makes me just sort of wonder about where consumers fit into all of this, and how consumers are likely, if at all, going to feel the results of this ruling or the remedy that the judge is recommending.

确实。我不认为消费者会立即感受到影响。谷歌几乎肯定会针对这项基本责任判决提出上诉。

Yeah. And I don't know that consumers will see an impact from this immediately. Google is almost certain to appeal this underlying liability decision.

上诉过程可能会持续数年？

Which would take potentially years?

可能数年。政府也可能对补救措施提出上诉。因此这个案子很可能长期困在司法系统中，导致补救措施在上诉期间暂停执行。而且这些补救措施本身并不直接针对消费者体验——比如没有强制要求设置选择屏幕（这是个技术术语，指智能手机上弹出'您想使用哪个搜索引擎？'的界面）。

Potentially years. The government could appeal this remedies decision. So this will probably be mired in the courts for a long time, which could very well lead to the remedies being paused while that is being hashed out. And then the remedies themselves are not immediately about the consumer experience. They don't mandate, for example, a choice screen, which is a a wonky term for basically a screen that pops up on your smartphone and says, which search engine do you want?

那种界面才是消费者能直观感受到的。但法官没有选择这个方向。所以问题在于：这系列变革是否能足够改变科技行业的轨迹，使得若干年后消费者或许真能看到更多与谷歌竞争的创新产品，以全新方式提供网络信息检索体验，并最终让这些产品的公司在谷歌的规模优势下依然蓬勃发展。

That's when consumers would see immediately. That's not the direction the judge went. Right. And so instead, the question will be, does this sort of basket of changes shift the arc of the technology industry enough that maybe several years from now, consumers maybe do see more innovative products that compete with Google, that offer them that experience of finding information online in in new and different ways, and ultimately allow companies that produce those products to really thrive despite Google's size and might.

也就是说，消费者是否会（或如何）感受到影响目前尚不明确。但此案可能产生难以预测的连锁反应，最终波及消费者。

So basically, like, it's not immediately clear how consumers are gonna feel this, if at all. But it sounds like there could be downstream effects of this case that are unpredictable that consumers could feel.

确实可能。要理解这点，回顾历史很有帮助。二十多年前，联邦政府曾起诉微软——这是上个走到如此阶段的大型科技反垄断案，指控微软在个人电脑和网络浏览器领域损害竞争。

There could be. And to understand how it's helpful to look to the past. So more than two decades ago, the federal government sued Microsoft. This was the last big tech antitrust case to get this far. Over allegations that Microsoft had hurt competition when it came to personal computers and Internet browsers.

他们当时在与网景公司较量——不知道你是否还记得这家公司。

They were battling with I don't if you remember Netscape.

是的。当然。

Yes. Of course.

没错。最终，那个案件中的补救措施与这次谷歌案并无本质区别。但一直有种观点认为，正是这种审查的存在让微软变得畏首畏尾——尤其当时互联网正在催生新一代初创企业。

Yeah. And ultimately, the remedies in that case were not dissimilar from the remedies in this Google case. But there has been a persistent argument that the fact of that scrutiny was enough to make Microsoft afraid of its own shadow, precisely at a time when the Internet was enabling a new generation of startups.

比如谷歌？

Such as Google?

正是诸如谷歌这样的公司。结果微软在对抗谷歌时不够强势，某种程度上为谷歌成长为今日的巨头打开了大门。

Such as such as Google. And that as a result, Microsoft was not as aggressive in competing against Google, and at that case, opened the door just enough for Google to become the company it is today.

其实很有意思的是，谷歌当时抓住了一家因政府诉讼而胆怯的公司的文化转变契机。现在问题是：谷歌会否因此案产生文化转变，进而以现今难以预料但消费者终将感受到的方式改变科技行业未来格局？

It's kind of interesting, actually, to note that Google took advantage of a cultural shift at a company that was scared because of a government lawsuit. And now the question is, could there be a cultural shift at Google that would then maybe change the future landscape of tech in ways that are unpredictable now, but that consumers certainly may feel down the line?

这正是核心问题之一。本案审理过程中明显看出谷歌从微软经历中吸取了教训。披露的文件显示，他们研究了微软在诉讼期间如何自陷风险，以此指导自己的文件保留政策和员工言论规范。多位参与过微软案的律师以不同方式为他们效力，其中一位曾为网景公司工作。

That is one of the big questions. It was clear throughout this trial that Google has learned from the Microsoft experience. There were documents that came out that showed that they looked at the way that Microsoft had put itself at risk during its trial in order to guide their own policies around retaining documents and what people should say. A number of their lawyers, in different ways, had worked on the Microsoft case. One of their lawyers worked for Netscape.

显然他们早已从历史中汲取经验。现在问题是：他们能否成功避开微软当年可能坠入的陷阱？

So it is clear that they have learned from that history before. And I think the question is, can they successfully avoid the trap that Microsoft may have fallen into?

所以微软案的最大影响未必是判决结果本身，而是政府给这家公司造成的震慑使其改变了竞争策略，这才催生了谷歌这个庞然大物。如今我们面临类似问题：本案的存在会否影响谷歌的运营方式、企业文化及其在AI时代前夕对竞争对手的心态？我很好奇你如何看待政府监管这个历经多届政府（无论民主党还是共和党）都难以驾驭的行业的尝试？

So in the Microsoft case, the biggest effect of that was not necessarily the actual outcome, but the fear of God that the government put into this company that then made it behave differently with its competitors. That led to the rise of this behemoth that is Google. And now we're having sort of a similar question, which is, will the very existence of this case affect the way that Google operates, affect its culture, affect how it feels spiritually about its competitors as we're on this sort of horizon of AI? And I just sort of wonder how you're thinking about the government's attempts to regulate an industry it has struggled to get its arms around throughout multiple administrations, democrat and republican.

这项裁决对这些努力无疑是重创。令人震惊的是，司法部付出巨大努力才将此案送上法庭，这些判决本应具有里程碑意义。但人们昨天的反应却是：相比科技行业高歌猛进的速度与规模，裁决显得苍白无力。嗯。

I mean, this decision is a blow to those efforts. And it's striking to me because the Justice Department undertook a monumental effort to bring this case to trial. These rulings are landmark decisions. And still, when people looked at the ruling yesterday, their reaction was that it paled in comparison to the speed and scale at which the technology industry is barreling ahead. Mhmm.

我刚读过报道微软案的同事史蒂夫·洛德的分析，他指出这项裁决虽为科技巨头制定了新规则，但比赛仍在继续。关键在于：本案法官是否通过改变规则，为新生竞争者提供了足够对抗谷歌的空间？还是规则变动太小，谷歌只需按新规再玩一局就能再次胜出？

And I just read an interesting analysis by my colleague, Steve Lord, who covered the Microsoft case. And he basically said that this decision is a new set of rules for the tech giants to play by, but the game's still going. And so the question is, has the judge, in this case, changed the rules of the game enough to give one of the rookie players enough space on the field to compete with Google? Or have the rules changed too little, and Google will just play the game again and win again?

戴夫·麦凯布，很高兴与你交谈。

Dave McCabe, pleasure speaking with you.

感谢邀请。

Thank you for having me.

我们稍后继续。以下是今日其他要闻：随着美国疾病控制与预防中心面临顶尖科学家离职潮，多个州在疫苗政策上采取了相互矛盾的独立行动。加利福尼亚、俄勒冈和华盛顿州宣布将共同审查科学数据，声称不再信任CDC。而佛罗里达州则宣布将取消所有疫苗接种要求。

We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. As the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention deals with an exodus of top scientists, a number of states have decided to go their own contradictory ways on vaccines. California, Oregon, and Washington said they would work together to review scientific data, saying that the CDC could no longer be trusted. Florida, in contrast, said it would get rid of all vaccine requirements.

这些举措出台之际，CDC正经历前所未有的动荡——疫苗怀疑论者、卫生部长小罗伯特·肯尼迪已接管该机构的疫苗决策权。周三哈佛大学在与特朗普政府的对抗中取得关键法律胜利，联邦法官裁定政府以打击反犹主义为由冻结数十亿美元研究资金的行为违法。该裁决可能增强哈佛正在进行的和解谈判筹码，此前哈佛就资金削减问题起诉了特朗普政府。本期节目由戴安娜·温恩和凯特琳·奥基夫制作，莉兹·奥巴伦和佩奇·考伊特编辑，克里斯·伍德负责技术制作。

The moves come at a moment of unparalleled turmoil at the CDC, where health secretary Robert f Kennedy junior, a vaccine skeptic, has taken control of the agency's vaccine decisions. And Harvard University won a crucial legal victory in its clash with the Trump administration on Wednesday when a federal judge said the government had broken the law by freezing billions of dollars in research funds in the name of stamping out antisemitism. The ruling may give Harvard more leverage in its ongoing settlement talks with the Trump administration, which Harvard had sued over the funding cuts. Today's episode was produced by Diana Wynn and Caitlin O'Keefe. It was edited by Liz O'Balen and Paige Cowitt, and was engineered by Chris Wood.

以上就是本期《每日新闻》，我是瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯，明天见。

That's it for The Daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.