一個好的搜索引擎就像電話簿、像百科全書，還像上帝，它融三者為一體：有問必答。Google就是這種無所不知的搜索引擎。

A good search engine is like a telephone directory, an encyclopaedia and God, all rolled into one: ask and ye shall be answered. Google is omniscient.

Google是全球最大的搜索引擎，它能告訴你如何清洗你的鍵盤、舷外發動機，或是溜冰板；從古羅馬政治家波伊提烏斯(Boethius)到英國哲學家邊沁(Bentham)，乃至美國總統布什(Bush)說過的話，它全知道；它甚至能告訴你，如何制作精致的糕點。不論你要找什么，Google都能幫你找到。如果沒有Google，網絡生活就會變得討厭、粗俗，而且無聊。

Google, the world's largest search engine, can tell you how to clean your keyboard, or your outboard, or your skateboard; it knows quotes from Boethius to Bentham to Bush; it even knows how to make perfect pastry. If you seek, Google will find. Internet life would be nasty, brutish and short without it.

但是，必須有人為上述種種探索行動買單。對Google來說，賣廣告是為其搜尋行動提供資金支持的方法之一。互聯網商家向Google或其它搜索引擎付費，購買“尋找權”(right to be found)：Google向商家出售與其業務相關的“關鍵詞”，以便追求Birkenstocks鞋的人在輸入這個詞后，或許就可直接被帶到賣鞋的網站。付費站點列表排在未付費站點列表的上方或旁邊，不管排在哪里都會很顯眼。

But somebody has to pay for all this exploration, and one of the ways Google finances its quest is by selling advertising. Internet merchants pay Google and other search engines for the right to be found: Google sells them "keywords" related to their business, so that people who covet Birkenstocks may be directed to sites that sell footwear. Paid listings appear above or beside unpaid listings; either way they are very prominent.

“關鍵詞廣告”是當前在線廣告業最成功的事例。但做廣告是件麻煩事：人們以為商家購買的關鍵字，是它們認為消費者搜索其產品時會用的那些，但商家或許會發現，購買競爭對手產品的關鍵字更有利。因為這樣一來，它們就可以把想去另一個網站的客戶引到自己的網站。但現在，這種蠻荒網絡上恣意妄為的行徑正在法庭上受到挑戰。

"Keyword advertising" is the online ad world's biggest current success story. But advertising is a nasty business: merchants are supposed to buy keywords that they think people will use when searching for their products - but they may find it more lucrative to buy keywords for a competitor's products instead. That way, they can divert customers from another site to theirs. But now these ways of the wild, wild web are being tested in court.

時機不可能比現在更關鍵了：Google正在考慮公開上市(盡管短期內似乎還不會做出決定)；而且比爾•蓋茨(Bill Gates)已明確表示，微軟(Microsoft)打算逐步踏入搜索引擎市場。但是，至少在幾宗訴訟案讓搜索引擎法規范之前，微軟等公司所覬覦的這一業務模式，其合法性必定還是令人生疑。

The timing could not be more critical: Google is considering going public (though the decision seems to be a long time coming); and Bill Gates has made it clear that Microsoft is about to lumber into the search engine market. But the legality of their coveted business model must remain in doubt, until the law of the search engine is tamed by at least a couple of lawsuits.

上月末，一宗訴訟案在紐約州聯邦法院立案，這是迄今為止最重要的一宗搜索引擎訴訟案：涉及廣告客戶在室內裝飾虛擬世界中的是是非非：美國窗簾和墻紙公司(American Blind and Wallpaper Factory，以下簡稱美國窗簾)對Google發出質疑，稱其無權向美國窗簾的競爭對手出售“American”和“blind”或“blinds”等詞匯。美國窗簾自稱是最大的窗簾和墻紙網上零售商。

The most important one so far was filed late last month in the federal court in New York: it involves the rights and wrongs of advertisers in the world of virtual interior decoration. American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, which says it is the biggest online retailer of window and wall coverings, is challenging the right of Google to sell the words "American" and "blind" or "blinds" to rival decorators.

美國窗簾說，鍵入這些詞匯的消費者顯然是想找到該公司的產品。但是，他們可能會被改道，而進入美國窗簾的對手網站justblinds.com。美國窗簾表示，上Google就是上當受騙。其結果就是轉移消費者的視線，并把他們弄糊涂。

American Blind says customers who enter those terms are patently trying to find its products. Instead, they may be redirected to the rival site, justblinds.com. The result, says American Blind, is to divert and confuse the consumer: to google is to deceive.

Google認為沒有必要通過媒體為自己辯護，被控犯有欺騙罪時，該公司沒有發表評論。Google的庭上辯論也很簡單，它說，這些詞語是描述性的，因而不該受到保護。基于這個理由，Google希望法庭確認“關鍵詞廣告”的概念完全合法。

Google sees no need to defend itself in the press: it has no comment, when charged with deception. And its defence in court is hardly more exhaustive: Google says the terms are descriptive, and therefore they should not be protected. On that basis, Google is seeking to have the whole concept of keyword advertising validated by the courts.

但美國窗簾反駁說，依照美國法律，這些詞語屬于描述性的，但這一事實并不妨礙它們成為商標。以通用汽車(General Motors)為例，“General”和“Motors”都是普通詞匯，但該標識受到保護。此前，美國窗簾曾以侵犯商標法為由，起訴一家網站將其名稱中的詞語用作域名，最后勝訴了。難道Google的案子有那么大差別？

But American Blind counters that, under US law, the fact that terms are descriptive does not stop them being trademarked (look at General Motors: the words are generic but the mark is protected). American Blind won a lawsuit challenging the use of its terms in a domain name, on the grounds that it violated trademark law. Is this case so different?

美國窗簾是個重利的小暴發戶，它正在攻擊網絡生活神秘的心臟和靈魂：幫助我們在信息叢林中探路的搜索引擎。但美國窗簾的律師戴維•拉梅爾特(David Rammelt)說，如果搜索引擎的未來受到這宗訴訟的威脅，那么就商標持有者而言，后果也一樣嚴重。“對任何名稱中帶有描述性字眼的公司來說，這起官司都有非同小可的含意，”他說，“如果Google能把這些字眼賣給競爭對手，那將對新商務領域的品牌策略產生顯著影響。”

American Blind is a mercantile little upstart that is attacking the mystic heart and soul of life online: the search engines that help us find our way in the information jungle. But if the future of the search engine is threatened by this lawsuit then, says David Rammelt, the blind company's lawyer, the consequences could be just as serious for trademark owners. "This case has big implications for any company that has a descriptive term in its name," he says. "If Google can sell them to competitors, that could have a dramatic effect on branding in the new commerce."

拉梅爾特先生表示，并不是說“American”和“blind”等詞語絕不能在電子商務中使用。

It is not as though the terms "American" and "blind" can never be used in e-commerce, says Mr Rammelt.

拉梅爾特先生表示，競爭者可以利用對手的標識來做比較性廣告：如果網站justblinds.com宣稱“和American Blinds一樣好”，而且若用這些詞在Google上搜索，導致justblinds在未付費網站列表中彈出，那美國窗簾就無話可說。重要的是錢：Google并不是在賣一個比較性廣告，而是在銷售一種視線轉移手段。它不該以美國窗簾的損失為代價來牟利。

Competitors can use a rival's mark, for the purposes of comparative advertising: if the site justblinds.com claimed to be "as good as American Blinds" - and the use of those words caused it to pop up in the unpaid section of a Google search - then American Blind could not complain, says Mr Rammelt. What matters is the money: Google is not selling a comparative advert; it is selling diversion. It should not profit from American Blind's loss.

不錯，用戶打出“American”及“blind”這些字眼，也許是要查找這些詞最一般的用法：他們或許想找到美國盲人基金會(AFB)。糊墻紙的人對此沒有異議，他們發牢騷，只是因為搜索引擎把相關字眼賣給他們的競爭對手。

True, users who type in the words "American" and "blind" may be looking for the most generic uses of those words; they may want to find the American Foundation for the Blind. The wallcovering people have no problem with that: their beef is only with the sale to rivals.

但這種牢騷也許真的非常重要：在一起有關旅行廣告的官司中，一家法國法庭已判Google敗訴，裁定Google不得銷售“bourse des vols”（航空旅行市場）這個詞語，此事堪稱“美國窗簾案”的法國版。

But that could be a very important beef indeed: already a French court has ruled against Google in the matter of travel advertising (ruling that Google could not sell the term "bourse des vols" [market for flights] - which might well be the Gallic equivalent of American blinds).

自印刷機問世以來，網絡搜索引擎在增進人類知識方面所起的作用無可比擬，更不要說它在購物世界中所起的作用了。

The internet search engine has done more to advance human knowledge than anything since the printing press - not to mention what it has done for the world of shopping.

但迄今為止，搜索仍是一項無法可依的活動。不管怎么說，現在該是法庭定出一些相關法規的時候了。

But up to now, searching has been a lawless activity. One way or the other, it is time courts came up with some rules.

譯者/李功文