经济学人下载:欧盟VS谷歌:并不如意(2)

This would not be a problem if there were several big search engines.
如果有几个大型的搜索引擎这就不成问题了。

But Google's market share in most European countries exceeds 90%.
但谷歌在大多数欧洲国家的市场份额超过了90%。

When the firm introduced the changes, traffic to rival websites, such as Britain's Foundem, plunged.
当公司引入这个变化，其他竞争对手的网站如英国的Foundem浏览量将会暴跌。

This denied other firms the chance to compete and reduced consumer choice, said Ms Vestager.
“这种不给其他公司竞争的机会的行为将减少消费者的选择。”维斯特格委员说道。

Google has 90 days to find a way to treat its own comparison-shopping service and those of rivals equally.
谷歌有90天时间去找到一种合理方法来对待自己的价格比较购物服务和竞争对手的购物服务。

Predictably, Google wants none of this.
可以预见的是，谷歌不想这样做。

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).
它说它的搜索服务远不如它看起来占优势消费者在许多其他网站上搜索产品，包括亚马逊和易趣网（委员会没有把这些算作搜索引擎。）

Google also notes that the changes made in 2008 benefited consumers.
谷歌还指出2008年的变化使消费者受益。

“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.
该公司的总顾问肯特·沃克在他的一篇博客中写道“人们通常喜欢直接链接到他们想要的产品的链接。”

Here, Google appears to have a point.
关于这点，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?
假如消费者能在谷歌搜索结果上看到整齐排列的产品和价格，他们还会想点击一个将他们带到另一个网站的链接吗？

The European Court of Justice, the EU's highest court, will have to weigh the merits of its argument.
欧洲最高法院——欧洲法院将不得不权衡其论点的是非曲直。

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.
谷歌将上诉而委员会的案例也存在弱点，例如难以证明其他价格比较网站带给消费者的实际伤害。

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?
然而委员会直面解决这个越来越重要的问题是有功劳的，这美国反垄断机构却选择了逃避，当直接的竞争对手，无论大的小的，在占主导地位的网络公司的平台上提供的产品和服务，包括亚马逊和脸书，那他们的责任是什么？

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.
盛行的智能化特别是在美国曾经是“超级平台”，尽管他们规模庞大，但不会因其不断创新而不公平地利用他们的市场力量和繁荣。

The competition is always just one click away, argues Herbert Hovenkamp of the University of Pennsylvania.
宾夕法尼亚大学的Herbert Hovenkamp认为竞争永远只是一个点击之遥。