InefficiencyisnotaqualityusuallyassociatedwithAmazonbutJeffBezos’scompanyisbehavingasifitisasmall,disorganiseedbookstorethatcannotquitecontrolitsstock.“Youwantthatbook,doyou?Verysorrybutwehaverunout.Wecanorderyouanothercopybuttheyaretakingalongtimetoarriveatthemoment.Howaboutbuyinganothertitleinstead?”“低效”與亞馬遜(Amazon)通常沾不上邊，但杰夫8226;貝索斯(JeffBezos)的這家公司現(xiàn)在卻表現(xiàn)得像一家組織混亂、庫(kù)存控制不力的小書(shū)店?！澳阆胭I(mǎi)那本書(shū)是嗎？不好意思，庫(kù)存沒(méi)貨。我們可以為您預(yù)訂一本，但要花很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間才能送到。要不買(mǎi)本別的書(shū)吧？”Itisaruse,ofcourse.WhenAmazontellsitsUScustomersthatTheSilkworm,thenewnovelbyRobertGalbraith,apseudonymforJKRowling,is“currentlyunavailable”,itisnottellingthetruth.WhatitmeansisthatitisnotmakingthebookavailableforpreorderbecauseitispublishedbyHachette,fromwhichAmazonistryingtoforcediscounts.這當(dāng)然是騙人。亞馬遜告訴美國(guó)顧客，羅伯特8226;加爾布雷思（RobertGalbraith，J8226;K8226;羅琳(JKRowling)的筆名）的小說(shuō)新作《蠶》(TheSilkworm)“目前無(wú)貨”，說(shuō)的不是實(shí)話。亞馬遜的真實(shí)意思是，它不會(huì)預(yù)售該書(shū)，因?yàn)檫@本書(shū)由Hachette出版，而亞馬遜正在試圖迫使該出版社提供折扣。ThisisthemomentpublishershavefearedsincetheylostanantitrustcaseintheUSandEuropelastyear.“Theywereconcernedthat,shouldAmazoncontinuetodominatethesaleofebookstoconsumers,itwouldstarttodemandlowerwholesaleprices,”wroteDeniseCote,theUSdistrictjudge.SheruledthatthepublishershadconspiredwithAppletoraisebookpricesinitsstore.出版商們自從去年在美國(guó)和歐洲輸?shù)粢粯斗磯艛喙偎疽詠?lái)，便對(duì)這種場(chǎng)景憂心忡忡?！八鼈儞?dān)心，如果亞馬遜繼續(xù)壟斷電子書(shū)的銷(xiāo)售，它將開(kāi)始要求降低批發(fā)價(jià)格，”美國(guó)地區(qū)法官丹尼絲8226;科特(DeniseCote)寫(xiě)道。她裁定，出版商與蘋(píng)果(Apple)合謀提高蘋(píng)果商店里的電子書(shū)價(jià)格。Byformingablatantcartel,the“bigsix”publishersandApplebotchedtheirefforttoresistAmazon’sdominanceofebookswiththeKindle.Itmadethestrangestantitrustcasesofrecentyears–theUSgovernmentandtheEuropeanCommissionrushingtotheaidofanemergingmonopolist.因?yàn)榻M成的同業(yè)聯(lián)盟太過(guò)明目張膽，“六大”出版商和蘋(píng)果在抵抗亞馬遜通過(guò)Kindle壟斷電子書(shū)的斗爭(zhēng)中馬失前蹄。此案成為近年來(lái)最奇怪的反壟斷案件之一——美國(guó)政府和歐盟委員會(huì)(EuropeanCommission)竟然急著去幫助一家正在崛起的壟斷企業(yè)。MrBezosoncesuggestedthatAmazontreatsmallpublishers“thewayacheetahwouldpursueasicklygazelle”,wroteBradStoneinTheEverythingStore,hiscorporatebiography.Hachetteisoneofthesmallerbigfive–reducedfromsixbythePenguin-RandomHousemerger–andisvulnerable.布拉德8226;斯通(BradStone)在亞馬遜公司傳記《一網(wǎng)打盡》(TheEverythingStore)中寫(xiě)道，貝索斯曾提出，亞馬遜應(yīng)像“獵豹追逐羸弱的瞪羚”那樣對(duì)待小出版商。Hachette是“五大”（原本為六大，因?yàn)槠簌Z(Penguin)與蘭登書(shū)屋(RandomHouse)的合并而減少為五大）出版商中較小的一家，容易受到亞馬遜的沖擊。IhavemixedfeelingsaboutAmazon.MrBezoshascreatedaremarkablecompanywhosedevotiontopleasingcustomersandcuttingpricesputscompetitorstoshame.Itreimaginedwhatretailingshouldbelike,notjustbyputtingitonline,butbymakingiteasier.我對(duì)亞馬遜愛(ài)恨交加。貝索斯創(chuàng)辦了一家出色的公司，它對(duì)滿足顧客和減價(jià)的執(zhí)著令競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手汗顏。它重新塑造了零售業(yè)，不僅實(shí)現(xiàn)了在線零售，還讓零售變得更方便。HealsocutthroughthefumblingsofrivalssuchasSonyincreatingtheKindle.ItdidnotovertaketheSonyReaderandtheNookmerelybecauseofAmazon’smarketingpowerandmanufacturingefficiency.Itisasuperiordeviceandislinkedtoabrilliant(whenMrBezosletsitwork)onlinestore.貝索斯還打造了Kindle，從索尼(Sony)等競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的笨拙產(chǎn)品中脫穎而出。Kindle之所以超過(guò)索尼閱讀器和Nook，不只是因?yàn)閬嗰R遜的營(yíng)銷(xiāo)能力和生產(chǎn)效率。Kindle性能優(yōu)越，并與優(yōu)秀的在線商店（當(dāng)貝索斯讓其正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)的時(shí)候就是優(yōu)秀的）相連接。Despiteitscurrenttactics,Amazonhasbeenaprofitablepartnertopublishers–bringinginnovationtoabusinessofcustomandpractice.“Amazonisthepublishers’bestaccount.Itofferstremendousvolumewithnoreturns[ofunsoldbooks]andpreorderinghelpsthemputtheirbooksonbestsellerlistsondayone,”saysMikeShatzkin,aconsultant.雖然目前采取了不友好的策略，但亞馬遜一直能為出版商創(chuàng)造豐厚的利潤(rùn)，為一個(gè)以規(guī)矩和慣例著稱的行業(yè)帶來(lái)創(chuàng)新。顧問(wèn)邁克8226;沙茨金(MikeShatzkin)表示：“亞馬遜是出版商的最佳客戶。它銷(xiāo)量巨大，不會(huì)退貨（未售出書(shū)籍），并且可以通過(guò)預(yù)售讓出版商的書(shū)從第一天就登上暢銷(xiāo)書(shū)排行榜?！盉utitisdisturbinglyruthless,withahardlydisguisedambitiontoforceothersuppliersandintermediaries–includingpublishersandbookstores–outofbusiness.Itisamachineforsqueezingmargins,8201;includingitsown,tonear-zeroinordertocutprices.但亞馬遜的冷酷令人不安，它也毫不掩飾自己的雄心：將其他供應(yīng)商和中間商——包括出版商和書(shū)店——擠出這塊業(yè)務(wù)。亞馬遜變成了一臺(tái)機(jī)器，為了削減價(jià)格，將利潤(rùn)（包括它自己的）擠壓到接近于零的水平。Thesemarginsincludenotonlypublishers’profitsbutroyaltiesandadvancestoauthors,whichhavebeenfalling.“Thisisapunitive,vindictive,viciousanti-culturecompany,”saysAndrewWylie,theauthors’agent.“Ifitdoesn’tlikethewaynegotiationsaregoing,itpunishesthepublishersandreaders.Idon’tunderstandwhythisisnotsubjecttolegalredress.”這不僅包括出版商的利潤(rùn)，還包括作者獲得的版稅和預(yù)付金——這些收入也在下降?！皝嗰R遜是一家苛刻、小氣、惡毒、反文化的公司，”作家經(jīng)紀(jì)人安德魯8226;威利(AndrewWylie)表示，“如果它不喜歡談判的走向，便懲罰出版商和讀者。我不理解這種行為為何沒(méi)有被繩之以法。”ThereliesAmazon’sadvantage–itneednotformacarteltosqueezeitssuppliersbecauseitisalreadylarge.Witha30percentshareofthephysicalbookmarketintheUSandmorethan60percentofebooks,itclearlyhasmarketpowerintheantitrustsense.ButtherehasneverbeenacaseinUScompetitionlawofasinglecompanybeingdeclaredanillegalmonopsonist.這是亞馬遜的優(yōu)勢(shì)所在——它不需要組成同業(yè)聯(lián)盟來(lái)壓榨供應(yīng)商，因?yàn)樗囊?guī)模已經(jīng)夠大。亞馬遜占據(jù)了美國(guó)紙質(zhì)書(shū)市場(chǎng)30%的份額和電子書(shū)市場(chǎng)逾60%的份額，從反壟斷的角度來(lái)說(shuō)，它無(wú)疑具有市場(chǎng)權(quán)力。但在美國(guó)反壟斷法的歷史上，從未有單獨(dú)一家公司被宣布為非法買(mǎi)方壟斷者的案例?！癐ntheUS,thesimpleusebyonecompanyofmonopsonypowertoextractlowerpricesfromsuppliersisnotillegal.Thereisgeneralintuitionthatbuyerpowermeanslowerpricesandlowerpricesaregood,”saysJonathanJacobson,anantitrustlawyeratWilson,Sonsini,Goodrich&RosatiinNewYork.“在美國(guó)，一家公司利用買(mǎi)方壟斷使供應(yīng)商降低價(jià)格，不構(gòu)成非法行為。一般的看法是，買(mǎi)方權(quán)力意味著低價(jià)，而低價(jià)是有利的，”紐約威爾遜8226;桑西尼8226;古奇8226;羅沙迪律師事務(wù)所(Wilson,Sonsini,Goodrich&Rosati)反壟斷律師喬納森8226;雅各布森(JonathanJacobson)表示。Amazonmaybebreakingthelawwithadeceptivesalespractice–tellingitscustomersthatHachettebooksintheUS(andBonnierbooksinGermany,whereitiswagingasimilarcampaign)are“unavailable”whentheycanbeboughtquicklyfromitscompetitors.Intermsofantitrustlaw,however,thebiggestforceinbooksissecure.亞馬遜的欺騙性銷(xiāo)售手段可能違法——它告訴顧客，Hachette的圖書(shū)在美國(guó)“無(wú)貨”（還有邦尼(Bonnier)的圖書(shū)在德國(guó)也是如此——亞馬遜使用了同樣的手段），但顧客卻能在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手那里輕而易舉地買(mǎi)到。不過(guò)，就反壟斷法而言，亞馬遜這家圖書(shū)領(lǐng)域的龍頭企業(yè)是安全的。Thereisamoralforpublishers:getbigger.PenguinhasmergedwithRandomHouse(Pearson,theowneroftheFinancialTimes,holdsa47percentstakeinPenguinRando