黄皮书《题源外刊》第四期

小老虎不吹笛

【题源外刊】第四期：起诉谷歌于消费者无益

原文期刊：华尔街日报

原文标题：

Suing Google Won’t Help Consumers

考研英语阅读热点-提案政策类

提案政策类是考研热门考点，一般是美国法院最新出台的重大裁定，欧美国家出台的公共政策、行业新规、改革措施等。法案裁决类最多，英语一13-20年共有6篇，英二的法律与政策类，从10年-19年有8篇。

本文选自《华尔街日报》2020年10月20日刊出的一篇文章，作者针对美国司法部对谷歌提起反垄断诉讼这一事件，通过对比传统的垄断企业和互联网平台以及分析司法部观点的内在矛盾性来论证科技巨头不是垄断企业，不违反反垄断法，同时批驳司法部空有诉讼，却无解决办法，完全无视消费者和销售者的利益。

脉络:

直述司法部对谷歌提起了反垄断诉讼及其意义→树靶批驳，提出自己的观点（第二段）→通过对比论证和分析司法部观点的自相矛盾性来支撑其观点（第三到五段）→以类比对象批驳司法部缺乏措施，收尾全篇（第六段）

Part 1

原文

Ⅰ   The U.S. Justice Department and 11 states filed an antitrust claim against Google Tuesday alleging illegal monopolization. The lawsuit follows the release earlier this month of a voluminous report by the House Judiciary Committee arguing that the four major U.S. internet platforms—Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook —are monopolies and ought to be broken up. The lawsuit is the first of what will likely be many antitrust attacks on these dominant platforms.

Ⅱ  The basic argument of the lawsuit is that Google possesses a monopoly over search engines and search advertising, which it maintains by entering agreements to make its search engine the default on many devices. This resembles one of the claims made 20 years ago against Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. Yet the argument rests on a misconception about the creation and operation of network industries, which will condemn this case—and future ones like it—to failure under sensible interpretations of U.S. antitrust laws.

Ⅲ Initially, the big four platforms didn’t resemble monopolies traditionally prohibited under the antitrust laws. As the Justice Department and House Judiciary Committee admit, they are commercial platforms, built from the growth and development of network benefits, not monopolies created by the merger of former competitors solely to avoid competition and increase prices to consumers.

Ⅳ  The growth of the internet platforms have developed internally by offering network benefits—the more people and organizations join, the more useful the network is for everyone. All of us benefit, consumers and sellers, when Google expands its search capabilities. Similarly, all connected to the internet benefit when Amazon expands the range of products it sells and ships. That is how the big four gained large market shares.

Ⅴ While the Justice Department acknowledges the benefits from Google’s possession of scale in the operation of its search engines—according to the Justice Department’s complaint, “scale is of critical importance to competition among search engines for consumers and search advertisers”—the lawsuit nonetheless attacks Google’s scale and the means it used to acquire it, such as revenue-sharing agreements with rival browsers. This internal contradiction—criticizing Google for achieving a scale that helps consumers and sellers—leaves the Justice Department in an awkward position. That is probably why many other state attorneys general, also hostile to Google and the other platforms, haven’t joined the suit.

VI  The complaint doesn’t demand a coherent remedy. The elimination of Microsoft’s similar restrictive agreements 20 years ago had no effect either on the success of Microsoft at the time or its inability today to compete with Google, but this complaint doesn’t even go there. It asks merely for “structural relief as needed,” as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The Justice Department doesn’t show, in the slightest, a way to enhance consumer and seller benefit beyond the services provided by Google.

Part 2

词汇短语

1.file [faɪl] n. 文件; v. 提起

2.antitrust [æntiˈtrʌst] n. 反垄断

3.monopolization [məˌnɑːpələˈzeɪʃn] n. 垄断

4.lawsuit [ˈlɔːsuːt] n. 诉讼

5.voluminous [vəˈluːmɪnəs] a. 大量的

6.judiciary [dʒuˈdɪʃəri] n. 司法部

7.monopoly [məˈnɒpəli] n. 垄断；垄断企业

8.dominant [ˈdɒmɪnənt] a. 占优势的；支配的，统治的

9.break up 拆开；关系破裂；解散

Part 3

长难句语法点拨

本句主干是The lawsuit follows the releaseof a voluminous report by the House Judiciary Committee.众议院司法委员会于本月初发布了一篇长篇报告.后面接arguing 现在分词作定语，argue这个动词后接了个that引导的宾语从句，说明报告的内容。

Part 4

写作句型借鉴

XX had no effect either on AA or BB but YY doesn't even go there. XX既对AA没影响，也对BB没影响，但是YY 连XX 都没有达到。

原文例句：The elimination of Microsoft’s similar restrictive agreements 20 years ago had no effect either on the success of Microsoft at the time or its inability today to compete with Google, but this complaint doesn’t even go there.20年前，（司法部）取消微软类似的排他性协议既无碍于微软当时的成功，也与微软当下无法与谷歌竞争毫无影响，但司法部对谷歌的诉讼甚至连取消排他性协议这样的措施都没有。

（黄皮书《题源外刊》）