FT社评：欧盟追究微软是对的

The European Commission might have been accused of chasing fading phantoms when in 2010 it went after Microsoft for foisting its Internet Explorer browser on Windows users. Competition was already rapidly eroding Explorer’s lead. But Brussels is now right to take a stand against the group’s failure to abide by its own commitments to resolve the problem.

2010年，欧盟委员会(European Commission)因微软(Microsoft)强迫视窗系统(Windows)用户使用其绑定的IE浏览器对该公司施压，此举或被指责为多此一举。当时，浏览器领域的竞争正导致IE浏览器的领先优势迅速丧失。但当微软未能遵守自身解决问题的承诺时，欧盟委员会采取严厉追究的态度是正确之举。

No other company has so consistently flouted commission antitrust decisions. In the past eight years, Microsoft has paid close to €1.6bn in fines, largely for non-compliance. The settlement of 2010, where it agreed to offer users a choice of web browsers until the end of 2014, was a sensible attempt to avoid another damaging legal battle with regulators.

还没有其他哪家公司像微软这样，一贯藐视欧盟委员会的反垄断裁决。近八年来，微软总共支付了16亿欧元的罚金，主要是因为违规。2010年，微软与欧盟达成和解协议，同意在2014年底之前向用户提供其他浏览器选项。这是明智之举，可以避免再度引发与监管当局的破坏性司法大战。

But in failing to implement its own undertakings, Microsoft is putting these accords to the test. This is the first violation since the commission acquired the power to withhold infringement proceedings in favour of such deals in 2004. Brussels’ response will determine whether in future other companies feel compelled to abide by their promises and, in consequence, whether settlements prove to be effective regulatory tools.

但微软未能履行自己的承诺，导致其与监管当局达成的和解协议面临考验。欧盟委员会于2004年获得了为维护此类协议而制止违约行为的权力，这是委员会获得这项权力以来首个违反和解协议的案例。欧盟委员会的反应将决定未来其他公司是否感到有必要遵守自己的承诺，进而将决定和解协议能否成为一种有效的政策工具。

Brussels is understandably keen, where possible, to avoid using the legal system to force companies to comply with competition law. Legal proceedings can drag on for years, as Microsoft knows to its regret. Settlement deals could prove particularly useful in fast-moving, high-tech industries such as the internet. They benefit both regulators and companies by providing speedy and cost-efficient solutions to antitrust concerns.

可以理解的是，欧盟方面在但凡可能的情况下都倾向于避免借助司法体系强迫企业遵守市场竞争法规。司法程序可能拖上数年，对此微软有惨痛的切身体会。和解协议对于互联网等快速变化的高科技行业来说格外实用，在反垄断问题领域能够提供快速并且符合成本效率的解决方案，使监管当局和企业都能从中受益。

But applying them can still be tricky, especially as the antitrust battle has shifted from browsers to the far more complex world of web search engines. It remains to be seen whether behavioural remedies can be policed when services are constantly changed in real time. Yet there will be no chance to find out if the commission’s response to Microsoft fails to produce a robust outcome.

但和解协议的执行却仍较为困难，特别是当反垄断大战的战场已从网络浏览器领域转移至更复杂的网络搜索引擎领域时。在网络服务不断实时变化的情况下，约束企业行为的监管要求的执行情况能否得到有效监控，这仍有待观察。但目前已经没有机会再去查明欧盟委员会对微软的裁决是否未能产生良好效果。

Nevertheless, this should not be disproportionate. Even in classic infringement cases, the commission does not normally exercise its right to levy a fine of 10 per cent of revenue. In this case, Microsoft quickly admitted guilt, and said technical mistakes were to blame. This will have to be established in the coming weeks. But if Brussels finds that the breach resulted from incompetence rather than a deliberate violation, this should be taken into account to mitigate any fine. Either way, Microsoft’s credibility is damaged.

但不管怎样，处罚内容都应当与违规行为相匹配。即便是在典型的违规案件中，欧盟委员会通常都不会动用其权力、对一家企业处于占其营收规模10%的罚款。在此案中，微软迅速承认了自己的过失，并表示技术问题是原因所在。微软必须在未来几周里证明这一解释的合理性。但如果欧盟委员会认为违反和解协议是由于能力不足而非故意违反，则欧盟方面在设定罚款金额时应将这一点纳入考虑，从轻发落。但不论是哪种情况，微软的信誉都已蒙受损失。