反壟斷聽證會：微軟留給谷歌的四大教訓

????1998年，蓋茨出席國會聽證會，與他同時露面的還有太陽微系統公司（Sun Microsystems）的前首席執行官斯科特?麥克尼利和網景公司（Netscape）前首席執行官吉姆?巴克斯代爾。蓋茨需要就微軟公司（Microsoft）獨占計算機操作系統市場引發的擔憂回答質詢（當時，微軟的Windows平臺起碼占領了90%的個人電腦）。現在，施密特面臨的處境不說完全相同，至少非常相似。作為美國領先的搜索服務供應商，谷歌在美國占據了65%的互聯網搜索市場。這一地位最近受到了點評網站Yelp和在線旅游公司Expedia Inc.的抨擊。它們指責這家搜索巨頭在搜索結果中優先呈現自己的服務，將它們置于Yelp和Expedia的服務之上。如果情況屬實，這種做法將會被判作是壟斷行為。

????據《華爾街日報》（The Wall Street Journal）報道，谷歌正使盡渾身解數展現自己最好的一面，包括聘請了13家游說與公關公司代表它巡回游說。今天的聽證會是否會導致更嚴格的政府管制？只有時間能回答這個問題。現在可以確定的是，施密特可以從蓋茨當年在聽證會上的表現中汲取重要的教訓：

不要慌亂。

????1998年的那場聽證會長達四個多小時，蓋茨自始至終保持著冷靜自制，對各種挑起爭論的問題和尖銳的批評應對自如（質詢者大肆拋出像“掠奪性行為”這類說法）。盡管對蓋茨總體表現的評論見仁見智，但他始終顯得十分自信。鎮定也許是審訊室基本知識中最基礎的一課，但是對施密特來說，表現得自信自制將是關鍵。畢竟，沒有什么能比俯首帖耳的回答、手足無措的小動作和滿頭大汗更能具有 “不可信賴”的意味。

不要得意忘形。

????蓋茨有充分的理由為其在Windows和Office上的成就而自豪，正是這兩者推動微軟的市值在20世紀90年代末登上頂峰。即使在其對微軟的批評中，參議員奧林?海奇也充分認可這一點，稱微軟的增長 “激動人心”。但蓋茨也許還是應該收斂一下銳氣。當時參議員泰德?肯尼迪曾提到時任微軟首席運營官鮑勃?赫博德近期的一番話，蓋茨傲慢地予以了回應。他說：“當初我決定創建微軟時，并沒有給IBM打電話問他們：‘IBM，你覺得我還有機會開發一套操作系統，賣出上億套嗎’。因此，如果你問赫博德先生，你能否讓微軟繼續向前，同時打造一套全新的操作系統？如果這就是你決定是否要上馬新項目的方式，我得說，你根本不是做大事的企業家。”我的天！

????施密特一向深思熟慮，常常出語溫和，他不太可能像蓋茨這么張揚。但是，他也曾發表過一些——盡管坦誠實在——卻完全屬于公關災難的高論。【比如，他曾對《大西洋月刊》（The Atlantic）稱，谷歌公司的隱私權政策直逼令人不快的底線，但卻又不會越過雷池。】

表述要直截了當。

????斷然否認壟斷行為是一回事。但回避獨占市場的質詢則于事無補，因為這一點對所有與會者來說完全是顯而易見的事實。而當時蓋茨就犯了這個忌，他辯稱，微軟的成功并不能歸功于個別產品。實際上，蓋茨當時的回答大都顯得故意含糊其辭，導致參議員海奇怒火中燒，一度稱蓋茨 “近乎難以對特定問題明確表態”。但對施密特來說，正如任何證據或證詞那樣，直截了當將是關鍵。這么做，他不僅將贏得尊重，被視為坦率的人——不管他回答的內容如何——他還將省下每位與會者的寶貴時間。

不可無禮

????蓋茨當時在聽證會上的表現沒能改變當政者的看法。兩個月后，微軟就遭到反壟斷訴訟。此后數年，公司都深受其苦，雖然最終它還是取得了成功。

????1998年11月，一段長達50分鐘的證詞出現在微軟反壟斷審判中。這是從蓋茨三天的錄音證詞中截取的片段。在這一片段中，他與美國司法部（U.S. Justice Department）律師大衛?博伊斯針鋒相對，糾正他在“備忘錄”和電子郵件之間所謂的差異的看法，又要求對方重述先前的問題，并教導博伊斯——此君也并非一直彬彬有禮——如何改進工作。不用說，蓋茨此舉并未贏得法官的好感，他判決微軟必須在一年后分拆成兩個獨立的公司（該判決最終被推翻）。

????盡管本周的聽證會并不意味著谷歌必將受到與微軟類似的反壟斷審判，但牢記蓋茨那些不盡如人意的證詞，施密特才能成功應對質詢。因為正像蓋茨最終認識到的那樣，作為一個表現出敵對情緒的證人，只會拖延司法程序的進度，而這一點未必對本人有利。

????譯者：清遠

????When Google's executive chairman testifies during a Senate hearing on antitrust issues today, he'll be following in the footsteps of another tech titan: Bill Gates.

????In 1998, Gates appeared before Congress alongside ex-Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy and former Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale to address concerns over Microsoft's (MSFT) stranglehold on the computer operating system market. (At the time, Microsoft's Windows platform could be found on at least 90% of all personal computers.) Schmidt is in, if not the same, a similar boat. As the leading U.S. search provider, Google (GOOG) powers 65% of Internet searches domestically, a position that came under fire recently when companies like Yelp and Expedia Inc. (EXPE) accused the Internet giant of prioritizing its own services in search results over Yelp's and Expedia's. If true, such a move could be judged monopolistic.

????According to The Wall Street Journal, Google is doing all it can to put its best face forward, including hiring some 13 lobbying and communications firms to stump on its behalf. Only time will tell, whether today's hearings lead to more robust government action. What's certain is that Schmidt could glom a few vital lessons from Gates' appearance:

Don't sweat it.

????Throughout 1998's four-hour-plus hearing, Gates held his own, fielding argumentative questions and scathing criticism. (Phrases like "predatory practices" were liberally bandied about by questioners.) And while overall the appearance earned mixed reviews, Gates appeared confident throughout. It may be the most elementary lesson in courtroom basics but, for Schmidt, appearing confident and composed will be key. After all, nothing quite screams " untrustworthy" like meek responses, nervous ticks or a sweaty brow.

????1998年的那場聽證會長達四個多小時，蓋茨自始至終保持著冷靜自制，對各種挑起爭論的問題和尖銳的批評應對自如（質詢者大肆拋出像“掠奪性行為”這類說法）。盡管對蓋茨總體表現的評論見仁見智，但他始終顯得十分自信。鎮定也許是審訊室基本知識中最基礎的一課，但是對施密特來說，表現得自信自制將是關鍵。畢竟，沒有什么能比俯首帖耳的回答、手足無措的小動作和滿頭大汗更能具有 “不可信賴”的意味。

Don't get carried away.

????Gates had every right to be proud of his achievements with Windows and Office, which propelled Microsoft's value into the stratosphere during the late-1990s. Senator Orrin Hatch even acknowledged as much in his criticism, describing Microsoft's growth as "breathtaking." But Gates probably should have still checked his swagger at the door. When Senator Ted Kennedy referred to recent statements made by then-Microsoft COO Bob Herbold, Microsoft's CEO flippantly responded. "When I decided to create Microsoft, I did not call up IBM (IBM) to say: 'IBM, do you think there's any chance for me to create an operating system and sell hundreds of millions of copies,'" Gates began. "So when you ask Mr. Herbold should you take on Microsoft head on and create a new operating system, if that's how you're going to decide whether to do it, I'd suggest you're not the kind of entrepreneur that's going to make that happen." Ouch.

????Thoughtful and often soft-spoken, Schmidt isn't likely to go so operatic. He has, however, made statements in the past that have been -- while honest -- total public relations distaters. (He told The Atlantic, for example, that his company's privacy policy consisted of getting "right up to the creepy line and not cross it.")

Don't mince words.

????It's one thing to emphatically deny monopolistic practices. But deflect questions about your market dominance -- something obvious to everyone in the room -- doesn't help. Such was the case with Gates, who said Microsoft's success couldn't be contributed to any one product. In fact, Gates' responses in general seemed purposely vague, to the point where Senator Hatch grew exasperated and at one time described Gates as "somewhat hard to nail down on a very specific question." As with any testimony or deposition, being direct will be key for Schmidt. Not only will he be respected as a straight shooter -- regardless of the content of his responses -- he'll save everyone's time in the process.

Don't be rude.

????Gates' performance during the hearing didn't sway the powers that be. Two months later, Microsoft was slapped with an antitrust suit, a filing that would plague the company for years even if it eventually came out on top.

????In November 1998, a 50-minute segment from a three-day taped deposition Gates gave, was shown during Microsoft's antitrust trial. In it, he antagonized U.S. Justice Department attorney David Boies, correcting him on the alleged differences between a "memorandum" and an email, asking for prior questions to be restated and instructing Boies -- not always civil himself -- on how to do his job better. Needless to say, Gates' behavior didn't make an admirer out of the judge, who ordered Microsoft a year later to break up into two separate units. (That ruling was eventually overturned.)

????While this week's hearing doesn't necessarily precede an antitrust trial similar to Microsoft's, Google's executive chairman would do well to remember Gates' less-than-stellar deposition, too. Because as Gates eventually realized, being a hostile witness won't do much more than draw out legal proceedings -- and not necessarily in his favor.