????歐盟議會的議員們現在想要“分拆谷歌（Google）”。他們聲稱，這家憑借搜索引擎起家，但同時提供眾多其他產品和服務的科技巨頭，可以太過輕松地推廣自己的產品。不過，知名專家學者們都認為，“分拆谷歌”的情況不會發生，并且表示這是一種只有在極端情況下才可動用的“核選擇”，除非企業出現了影響更大的丑聞才有借口這么做。

????今年10月底，歐盟議會呼吁在歐盟國家運營的互聯網公司將搜索引擎與其它商業資產進行“松綁”。雖然歐盟沒有直接點名，但此舉明白無誤是針對谷歌的。谷歌是歐洲最有影響力的搜索引擎，估計占據了歐洲市場90%的份額。

????這項不具有約束性的決議并沒有任何法律份量，不過在歐盟與谷歌圍繞針對后者的反壟斷調查進行了四年不成功的談判后，該決議等于向歐盟委員會發出了最強烈的信號，要求其采取行動。谷歌被控使用了故意隱藏競爭對手的網站與服務等反競爭手段。而歐盟議會最近的行動旨在“防止搜索引擎運營商在營銷互聯服務時采用任何濫用手段”。

????新當選的歐盟競爭委員會專員瑪格麗特?維斯塔格爾于今年11月表示，她“需要一些時間”審核此案，畢竟該案在她的前任杰奎因?阿爾穆尼亞任內并未得到解決，而且她在采取進一步行動之前還將與原告進行磋商。

????那么下一步會發生什么？專家表示，下一步會有幾種可能。

????美國司法部前反壟斷律師大衛?巴爾托認為：“最有可能也最有希望發生的情況是，繼續執行阿爾穆尼亞離職前已經設定好框架的解決方案。”

????巴爾托表示，政治因素與來自谷歌各大競爭對手（包括微軟）的壓力已經拖慢了此案的進程，“好吸出盡可能多的血”。就在歐盟議會這次投票后不久，一位未透露姓名的歐盟高級官員對路透社（Reuters）表示，歐盟的28個成員國已經成為美國公司的“戰場”。巴爾托還指出，在三輪和解談判后，谷歌為解決反壟斷調查付出的努力，已經導致該地區實現了更好的競爭。

????現在的一個問題是，歐盟委員會是否有足夠的證據支持其從尋求和解轉向違法處罰程序？英國倫敦大學學院國際法學院（University College London’s Institute of Global Law）主任弗洛里安?瓦格納-馮?帕普對《財富》（Fortune）表示，他希望歐盟“要么行動，要么閉嘴”。反壟斷機構要么控告谷歌藐視歐盟反壟斷法，要么就干脆放棄此案。否則就是無休止的和解談判，谷歌的支持者和反對者繼續向對方潑“政治臟水”。

????如果裁定谷歌違反了反壟斷法，歐盟委員會就可以采取任何它認為必要的措施來終止谷歌的違法行為。那么這是否包括對谷歌進行可能的拆分？理論上存在這種可能性——歐盟委員會的反壟斷部門有權要求一家在該地區經營的企業進行重組。不過帕普愿意賭這種情況不會發生。他表示：“歐盟委員會到目前為止，還從來沒有開出過重組藥方”。

????Europe’s elected elite want to break up Google. The technology giant, known for its web search engine but offering many other products and services, can too easily promote its own wares, they say. Yet leading experts and academics say it’s not going to happen, calling it a nuclear option that would have made more sense in larger, prior corporate scandals.

????The European Parliament in late October called on Internet companies operating in the region to “unbundle” its search engines from its other commercial properties. Although no companies were named, the motion was aimed squarely at Google GOOG -2.24% , the leading search engine by a long shot in Europe with an estimated 90 percent market share.

????The non-binding resolution had no legal weight, but sent the strongest signal yet to the European Commission to take action after almost four-years worth of unsuccessful negotiations to settle an ongoing antitrust probe into the company’s business practices. The company has been accused of anti-competitiveness including claims it deliberate buried search results of rival sites and services. The recent motion sought to “prevent any abuse in the marketing of interlinked services by operators of search engines.”

????Newly-elected EU competition commissioner MargretheVestagersaid in November that she would “need some time” to review the case, which has been kept open by her predecessor JoaquínAlmunia, and talk to complainants before moving forward.

????So now what? There are several paths forward, experts say.

????“What’s most likely to happen, and what will hopefully happen, is a continuation of the resolution for which Almunia set the framework before he left office,” says David Balto, a former U.S. Justice Department antitrust lawyer.

????Politics and pressure behind the scenes from Google’s competitors—including Microsoft MSFT -0.86% —have dragged the case out “to draw as much blood as possible,” Balto argues. Shortly after the parliament’s vote, one unnamed senior EU official told Reuters that the 28-member state bloc had been used as a “battleground” by American companies. After three rounds of settlement negotiations, Balto says Google’s efforts to address the matter have resulted in better competition in the region.

????One question is whether the Commission has enough evidence to support moving from seeking a settlement to conducting an infringement procedure. Florian Wagner-von Papp, director of the University College London’s Institute of Global Law, tells Fortune that he wishes the EC would “put up or shut up.” Antitrust officials should either charge the search giant with flouting European antitrust law, he says, or drop the case altogether. The alternative? More settlement negotiations and “political mud-slinging” by Google’s supporters and opponents.

????By charging Google with antitrust offenses, the Commission can take any measures it deems necessary to end that infringement. Could that really include a break-up of Google? In theory, yes—the European Commission’s antitrust division has the right to force a company operating in the region to restructure. But Wagner-von Papp is willing to make a big bet that it won’t happen. “The Commission has to date never imposed a structural remedy in an infringement decision,” he says.