A DECADE AGO, THE DEPARTMENT of Justice filed its landmark antitrust case against Microsoft. Four years later, a unanimous US Court of Appeals ruled that the company had used its power illegally to protect its monopoly Windows operating system.
十年前,司法部对微软进行了划时代的诉讼案。四年以后，美国上诉法院一致裁定,该公司已利用其垄断权力,非法保护其Windows操作系统。
That behavior, the government had charged, chilled competitive innovation. A reluctant DOJ concluded that the only solution was a lawsuit. How else, Microsoft's competitors asked, could the software giant be restrained? If not by the US government, then by whom?
政府的所作所为，冷藏了竞争创新。一位不愿透漏姓名的司法部官员总结说诉讼是解决问题的唯一途径。否则的话，微软的竞争对手就会问，软件巨头能否被压制？如果不是美国政府，还能是谁？
This was a very hard question to answer. An OS is a standard – meaning that, over time, one tends to dominate. Any company with a commercial operating system would have a huge incentive to protect itself. Did the government really expect IBM or Apple to behave differently? And did the DOJ really want perpetual oversight of software design? The government was fighting a business model, and even the attorneys arguing its case wondered whether such a powerful one could ever be regulated.
这是一个非常难以回答的问题。一个操作系统是一个标准 －意味着，经过一段时间，它就会占据主导地位。任何公司的商业操作系统都会有保护自己的巨大动机。政府真的会希望IBM或者苹果的行为会有所不同？司法部真的想监督软件的设计？政府在与一种商业模式斗争，而且即使是这个案子的辩护律师，也想知道如此巨大的一个公司能否被规范。
I was one of those reluctant regulators. As the evidence of Microsoft's practices became clear, I remember well thinking, "Of course the government needs to do something." And I remember very well the universal impatience with the notion that the market would solve the problem. How could it, when any other company was likely to behave just as Microsoft did?
我是这些顽强的监管者之一。当微软诉讼案的局势变的明朗，我记得思考，“当然政府应该做些什么。”而且我清楚的记得大家对于市场会解决问题变的不再有耐心。当其他公司象微软那样做的时候怎么办？
We pro-regulators were making an assumption that history has shown to be completely false: That something as complex as an OS has to be built by a commercial entity. Only crazies imagined that volunteers outside the control of a corporation could successfully create a system over which no one had exclusive command. We knew those crazies. They worked on something called Linux.
我们这些前监管者做了一个假设，历史已经证明是完全错误的：像操作系统一样复杂的不得不由商业实体来建立。只有疯子才会想像公司控制之外的志愿者可以成功地建立一个没有专门指导的系统。我们知道这些疯子，他们做出了一种叫做Linux的东西。
I wanted to believe that Linux would prevail. But I'm a lawyer, and lawyers aren't programmed to see how profitable innovation might happen without commercial control. I didn't like the idea of regulation; I just didn't see any alternative. The suits would always beat the rebels. Isn't that why they were so rich?
我想去相信Linux会流行起来。但是我是一个律师，律师并不是被培养去看有利可图的创新在没有商业控制的的条件下发生。我不太喜欢规则的想法。我只是没有看到太多选择的自由。西装革履总是打败离经叛道，难道这不是他们富有的原因吗?
I think about this mistake whenever I think about the current Microsoft-like network-neutrality debate – whether network owners can pick the stuff that flows across "their" network. In this debate, too, I am a reluctant regulator. And again, I don't see how it's possible to steer broadband providers away from a business model that – like Microsoft's – may benefit them but could stifle innovation. Every dominant commercial competitor has the same incentive: to build a business that extracts all potential value from the pipes that company owns.
每当我想这个错误时，我就想现在象微软一样的中立网络的辩论 － 是否网络所有者可以选择东西流过“他们的”网络。在这场争论中，同样，我勉强算一个监督者。再一次，我不知道怎样才能使宽带供应商远离微软那样的商业模式，可能对他们有好处但会压制创新。所有主要的商业竞争者都有同样的动机：从公司的所有业务中提取潜在价值。
But life is all about repeating the same mistakes in many different contexts. So, are we reluctant regulators wrong again? Is there something we think is impossible today that will be obvious tomorrow? Can last-mile broadband be developed in a way that doesn't rely on the incentives that drive current providers toward innovation-stifling business models?
但是生活就是不断地在不同的背景重复相同地错误。所以，我们这些勉强地监督者又错了？有没有一些事情我们今天看起来是不可能地但明天却是轻而易举地？最后一里的宽带能否在一种不依赖现有的激励方式下发展 － 供应商趋向于压制创新的商业模式？
Yes. There isn't yet a Linus Torvalds of broadband, nor is a single competitive platform being built by volunteers to displace AT&T. But there are forces mucking up the game for those who would profit most from last-mile control.
是的。还没有宽带领域的Linus Torvalds，也没有一个由志愿者建立的竞争平台来代替AT&T。但是有势力为了最后一英里的控制来搅和这场游戏。
The core of this resistance comes from municipalities. Local governments are building neutral infrastructures that allow anyone, from ISPs to community networks, to use and extend blisteringly fast broadband networks. At the end of its first year, a project in Sandoval County, New Mexico, for example, already provides many in the area with more than 10 times the capacity than anywhere else in the US.
核心的阻力来自当局。当地政府正在建造中立的设施，允许所有人，从ISPs，到社区网络，去使用和扩展极速宽带。举个例子，截至第一年，一个在新墨西哥州Sandoval County的计划，已经在许多地区提供了比美国任何地方的都要块10倍的宽带。
And municipal networks are just a first step. Many Linux-style volunteers are building free wireless networks that enable participants to share access and offer capacity to others. These volunteers are also building free protocols that enable legal access without shifting control to a last-mile access provider.
当局宽带仅仅是第一步。许多Linux风格的志愿者正在建立免费的无限网络，以使参与者可以接入并且给他人提供共享。这些志愿者同时也编写一些免费的协议，使之合法接入而不用把控制权转移给最后一里的供应商。
These activists recognize the basic truth of what I call the McAdams theorem: Monopolists, as Cornell economist Alan McAdams puts it, don't monopolize themselves. If the monopoly-like asset is owned by the user, he has little incentive to exploit himself. Put differently, private ownership by users creates its own business model.
这些行动主义者认出了我称为McAdams理论的基本真相：就像康奈尔大学的经济学家Alan McAdams所说的，不要自我垄断。如果垄断资产由使用者所有，他就会利用自己的动机。通过用户自己的商业模式建立一种不同的，用户私有制。
Will these grassroots alternatives check the power of the big companies? I remain skeptical. But the frantic efforts of traditional broadband providers to persuade states to ban municipal broadband should give you some clue as to the potential of these services.
这些基层替代品将会制衡大公司?我依旧保持怀疑。但宽带提供商疯狂劝说各州去禁止当局的宽带给你一些潜在服务。
Those who oppose network-neutrality regulation should also oppose this regulation of last-mile broadband's most important competitor. Municipal competition won't kill commercial broadband any more than Linux has killed Windows. Yet it could change the business model of last-mile broadband, just as Linux has changed the business model of Microsoft. If there's going to be a Linux-like miracle to counteract innovation-threatening broadband business models, then, at a minimum, miracles must not be a crime.
那些反对中立网络标准的公司应该同样去反对这个最后一里宽带标准的重要竞争者。当局的竞争不会比Linux扼杀Windows更扼杀了商业宽带。即使它可以改变最后一里的商业模式，就像Linux改变微软的商业模式一样。如果它是像Linux那样的奇迹去抵消商业模式对宽带创新的威胁，那时，最起码，奇迹必定不是犯罪。
Email lawrence_lessig@wiredmag.com.
- Lawrence Lessig
翻译：史宇航
[此贴子已经被作者于2007-1-19 0:13:42编辑过]
![西安邮电学院论坛[西邮论坛]](images/default/logo.gif){kind=logo}
